[76lsjumb]

I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, which I now see as the only bright spot in his coaching. I know you think ZW has been a disappointment that reflects poorly on Haase's recruiting; to me, it reflects poorly on his coaching and use of players. No coach in the country would have passed on ZW. He's whiffed on a few guys and has struggled to land good post players, but otherwise his recruiting has been surprisingly good, imo.

No question that the college basketball landscape is more challenging to Stanford than it was a couple decades ago.  However, I believe that there is a group of academically admissible players that could wind up being college contributors for 3 - 4 years which could form the nucleus of a Stanford resurgence, but I think it will take a different style of recruiting and talent evaluation than Haase has pursued.

BC

I think BC has the better argument here.  "Good recruiting" to my mind is recruiting that gives the team the best chance to win on a consistent basis, both during a given season and over many seasons.  At some schools [but not very many], that can be done by continually re-stocking with "one-and-done" 5-star HS recruits, complemented as necessary with the requisite grad transfers and a few decent 4-year [or maybe even 3-year] role players.

Stanford is not one of those schools.  At Stanford, you need recruiting very much along the lines of what BC describes.  Getting those types of players would be the hallmark of a "good recruiter" at Stanford [and at least a few other consistently good schools with coaches who seem to be able to do that].

Thus, I think a reasonable argument can be made that Tyrell Terry was not a particularly "good recruit" for Stanford; I would have much preferred another Claude Terry.  Similarly, should Ziaire Williams choose to leave after one year, I think history will show that he did little to lift the Stanford hoops program, and certainly much less than the other Williams [in her senior season] playing Stanford hoops this season.  

Judging from Terry and Williams, it appears that the type of 5-star recruit Haase has been able to recruit is the player with "an incredible amount of potential."  The problem is that such potential very rarely develops instantly during freshman year to a sufficient extent to carry a whole team, or even make a substantially material difference.  Evan Mobleys don't come along all the time [and, when they do, you apparently have to recruit and sign the entire family to get them to come].  As a result, what Stanford gets is an occasional peek at what some pro team might be getting in a couple of years, not a successful season now.  The triple-double against an abysmal UW team was fun to watch [as was the Alabama game, when I was thinking maybe WAS that good already], but, alas, they almost certainly won't be enough to get Stanford into the tournament.

Moreover, as this scenario repeats itself season after season, it will likely become increasingly difficult for Haase to convince those rising 5-star HS players to spend that one season at Stanford.

In sum, a coach who gets a bunch of 3-stars, with an occasional 4-star, and then convinces them regularly to stay in school, develop their potential over the long-term, and has a reasonably consistent winning program as a result, seems to me to be a "good recruiter."  A coach who manages to convince 5-star players to come to a school to play one season on a team that is consistently mediocre is just someone who recruits good players.

[76lsjumb]

I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, which I now see as the only bright spot in his coaching. I know you think ZW has been a disappointment that reflects poorly on Haase's recruiting; to me, it reflects poorly on his coaching and use of players. No coach in the country would have passed on ZW. He's whiffed on a few guys and has struggled to land good post players, but otherwise his recruiting has been surprisingly good, imo.

No question that the college basketball landscape is more challenging to Stanford than it was a couple decades ago.  However, I believe that there is a group of academically admissible players that could wind up being college contributors for 3 - 4 years which could form the nucleus of a Stanford resurgence, but I think it will take a different style of recruiting and talent evaluation than Haase has pursued.

BC

I think BC has the better argument here.  "Good recruiting" to my mind is recruiting that gives the team the best chance to win on a consistent basis, both during a given season and over many seasons.  At some schools [but not very many], that can be done by continually re-stocking with "one-and-done" 5-star HS recruits, complemented as necessary with the requisite grad transfers and a few decent 4-year [or maybe even 3-year] role players.

Stanford is not one of those schools.  At Stanford, you need recruiting very much along the lines of what BC describes.  Getting those types of players would be the hallmark of a "good recruiter" at Stanford [and at least a few other consistently good schools with coaches who seem to be able to do that].

Thus, I think a reasonable argument can be made that Tyrell Terry was not a particularly "good recruit" for Stanford; I would have much preferred another Claude Terry.  Similarly, should Ziaire Williams choose to leave after one year, I think history will show that he did little to lift the Stanford hoops program, and certainly much less than the other Williams [in her senior season] playing Stanford hoops this season.  

Judging from Terry and Williams, it appears that the type of 5-star recruit Haase has been able to recruit is the player with "an incredible amount of potential."  The problem is that such potential very rarely develops instantly during freshman year to a sufficient extent to carry a whole team, or even make a substantially material difference.  Evan Mobleys don't come along all the time [and, when they do, you apparently have to recruit and sign the entire family to get them to come].  As a result, what Stanford gets is an occasional peek at what some pro team might be getting in a couple of years, not a successful season now.  The triple-double against an abysmal UW team was fun to watch [as was the Alabama game, when I was thinking maybe WAS that good already], but, alas, they almost certainly won't be enough to get Stanford into the tournament.

Moreover, as this scenario repeats itself season after season, it will likely become increasingly difficult for Haase to convince those rising 5-star HS players to spend that one season at Stanford.

In sum, a coach who gets a bunch of 3-stars, with an occasional 4-star, and then convinces them regularly to stay in school, develop their potential over the long-term, and has a reasonably consistent winning program as a result, seems to me to be a "good recruiter."  A coach who manages to convince 5-star players to come to a school to play one season on a team that is consistently mediocre is just someone who recruits good players.