[teejers1]

Don't know if anyone posted this already, but this is from Jon Wilner's column yesterday speculating on Pac-12 coaches. Love that he has Haase at 85% likely to be gone (one can hope!), but can't argue with his description of Muir and the administration.

Stanford
Coach: Jerod Haase (sixth season)
2021-22 record: 15-15/8-12
Chance of vacancy: 85%
Assessment: Six years under Haase and nothing to show for them: No regular-season titles, no tournament titles, no NCAA appearances and no buzz for the program. (His best conference record is a mere 11-7, and that was way back in Year Two.) At any other school, the likelihood of a vacancy would be 110%, but this is Stanford: The university administration doesn’t know if a basketball is inflated or stuffed and couldn’t care less either way; the current athletic director, Bernard Muir, hired Haase and would have to admit the mistake; and the external pressure for change is close to non-existent. If a basketball program collapses in broad daylight but nobody cares, does it really collapse?

Hasn't the football program already answered your question?

Wilner cuts quite close to the bone. And his exposition elucidates why Muir and Haase both need to go. Complacent mediocrity is the MO of the AD these days, and a shelf clearing seems the only way to rectify it.

That said, the idea that the football team's recent history is anywhere near the basketball team's is risible at best. We've won more Rose Bowls in the past decade than we've won NCAA bids - - period. That doesn't mean our football team doesn't also need an overhaul, but to suggest the leading indicator for mediocrity is the football program is to overlook the obvious. Sadly, the best debate we have going these days is which program is more hopelessly lost in the weeds...

You used the word "collapse," and I'd argue that football is WAY closer to a "collapse" than is basketball, which as you note has been stuck at .500 overall (or thereabouts) for years and years.

[And of course, I credit Shaw WAY less than many for Stanford's "multiple Rose Bowls."  I've already delineated why that is, so no need to repeat it here.]

[teejers1]

Don't know if anyone posted this already, but this is from Jon Wilner's column yesterday speculating on Pac-12 coaches. Love that he has Haase at 85% likely to be gone (one can hope!), but can't argue with his description of Muir and the administration.

Stanford
Coach: Jerod Haase (sixth season)
2021-22 record: 15-15/8-12
Chance of vacancy: 85%
Assessment: Six years under Haase and nothing to show for them: No regular-season titles, no tournament titles, no NCAA appearances and no buzz for the program. (His best conference record is a mere 11-7, and that was way back in Year Two.) At any other school, the likelihood of a vacancy would be 110%, but this is Stanford: The university administration doesn’t know if a basketball is inflated or stuffed and couldn’t care less either way; the current athletic director, Bernard Muir, hired Haase and would have to admit the mistake; and the external pressure for change is close to non-existent. If a basketball program collapses in broad daylight but nobody cares, does it really collapse?

Hasn't the football program already answered your question?

Wilner cuts quite close to the bone. And his exposition elucidates why Muir and Haase both need to go. Complacent mediocrity is the MO of the AD these days, and a shelf clearing seems the only way to rectify it.

That said, the idea that the football team's recent history is anywhere near the basketball team's is risible at best. We've won more Rose Bowls in the past decade than we've won NCAA bids - - period. That doesn't mean our football team doesn't also need an overhaul, but to suggest the leading indicator for mediocrity is the football program is to overlook the obvious. Sadly, the best debate we have going these days is which program is more hopelessly lost in the weeds...

You used the word "collapse," and I'd argue that football is WAY closer to a "collapse" than is basketball, which as you note has been stuck at .500 overall (or thereabouts) for years and years.

[And of course, I credit Shaw WAY less than many for Stanford's "multiple Rose Bowls."  I've already delineated why that is, so no need to repeat it here.]