[gailtate]

What Stanford needs today in hoops and football are coaches who can build and maintain A WINNING PROGRAM.   You know, the kind like in the past?

The kind like in the past mostly did not build and/or maintain "winning" programs, as has been pointed out time and time again by many others on this site. Mediocre or worse is historically far more common than "winning". That said, winning is the goal, and Haase hasn't met the goal in his time at Stanford. At this point, I think suggestions for a new coach are indeed relevant. The generic "anybody but who we have" really doesn't work for me, because mediocre or worse is the most probable outcome based on history.

S

OK, as long as you're splitting hairs, I'll note that I failed the granularity test. I'm talking very recent past, obviously. (At least I assumed it was obvious.) I was specifically referencing the Mike Montgomery years at Maples, and the the Bowlsby/Harbaugh Axis of Football Reclamation and Rehabilitation. You know, the slip-stream that carried the present football coach to the heights he once enjoyed and his dwindlingfanboys continue to revere and celebrate. Those here who rightfully cite the generally undistinguished and, at best, the historically mediocre Stanford brands of football and basketball are dead-on correct, despite laughable trumpeting of "Home of Champions". Take away Tara, the country club sports and swimming pools, and the highest compliment you can extend to Stanford athletics is "respectable". Maybe. At least you could prior to Muir's arrival. Point is, the term "blue-blood brand' in FB and MBB has never described Stanford. And never will. Culture will tolerate it for a few years, then, poof. Like dandelion seeds.

[gailtate]

What Stanford needs today in hoops and football are coaches who can build and maintain A WINNING PROGRAM.   You know, the kind like in the past?

The kind like in the past mostly did not build and/or maintain "winning" programs, as has been pointed out time and time again by many others on this site. Mediocre or worse is historically far more common than "winning". That said, winning is the goal, and Haase hasn't met the goal in his time at Stanford. At this point, I think suggestions for a new coach are indeed relevant. The generic "anybody but who we have" really doesn't work for me, because mediocre or worse is the most probable outcome based on history.

S

OK, as long as you're splitting hairs, I'll note that I failed the granularity test. I'm talking very recent past, obviously. (At least I assumed it was obvious.) I was specifically referencing the Mike Montgomery years at Maples, and the the Bowlsby/Harbaugh Axis of Football Reclamation and Rehabilitation. You know, the slip-stream that carried the present football coach to the heights he once enjoyed and his dwindlingfanboys continue to revere and celebrate. Those here who rightfully cite the generally undistinguished and, at best, the historically mediocre Stanford brands of football and basketball are dead-on correct, despite laughable trumpeting of "Home of Champions". Take away Tara, the country club sports and swimming pools, and the highest compliment you can extend to Stanford athletics is "respectable". Maybe. At least you could prior to Muir's arrival. Point is, the term "blue-blood brand' in FB and MBB has never described Stanford. And never will. Culture will tolerate it for a few years, then, poof. Like dandelion seeds.