[Hurlburt88]

I am definitely in the "one more year" camp--understanding the issue of extension--given how he re-tooled after some big losses and fielded an interesting team.

[Hurlburt88]

I am definitely in the "one more year" camp--understanding the issue of extension--given how he re-tooled after some big losses and fielded an interesting team.

[SamuelMcF]

Guessing that Haase has a five year contract.  If true then he will require an extension for recruiting purposes.

Then give him two or three years with a crap-ton of incentives. That way if he screws up again next year the cost to get rid of him is minimal

NFL teams frequently give players short (usually 1-2 year) contracts like this which they call "prove-it deals." Seems pretty apt.

[SamuelMcF]

Guessing that Haase has a five year contract.  If true then he will require an extension for recruiting purposes.

Then give him two or three years with a crap-ton of incentives. That way if he screws up again next year the cost to get rid of him is minimal

NFL teams frequently give players short (usually 1-2 year) contracts like this which they call "prove-it deals." Seems pretty apt.

[BobK]

The extension would be so he can recruit with having to say my contract expires before you get here.
20 wins is rare for us past 12 years so despite the really poor ending the extension is probably a good deal for all

[BobK]

The extension would be so he can recruit with having to say my contract expires before you get here.
20 wins is rare for us past 12 years so despite the really poor ending the extension is probably a good deal for all

[winflop]

20 wins is rare for us past 12 years

Sorry Bob I'm not lowering the bar because we had one bad hire that Muir didn't have the guts to send packing soon enough, leaving the cupboard even more bare for the new guy.

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

[winflop]

20 wins is rare for us past 12 years

Sorry Bob I'm not lowering the bar because we had one bad hire that Muir didn't have the guts to send packing soon enough, leaving the cupboard even more bare for the new guy.

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

[2006alum]

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

In the era of one and dones, how did you decide on this standard? My sense is that we are rarely in contention for 90% of the best MBB recruits because for them, the 40-year decision is irrelevant. That leaves us with needing to have a really sound system in place the way Wright at Villanova and Bennett at UVA do. But aside from Monty, is there any strong historical evidence that Stanford should be competing for conference titles year in, year out? Stanford coaches not named Monty have won one conference title since WWII happened, and even Monty didn't win his first conference title until over a decade on the job. Believe me, I'd LOVE for that to be the case, but I guess I think the long-term trendline suggests regularly competing for conference titles is not realistic for Stanford men's basketball apart from landing a really special coach who's an excellent fit for our program.

[2006alum]

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

In the era of one and dones, how did you decide on this standard? My sense is that we are rarely in contention for 90% of the best MBB recruits because for them, the 40-year decision is irrelevant. That leaves us with needing to have a really sound system in place the way Wright at Villanova and Bennett at UVA do. But aside from Monty, is there any strong historical evidence that Stanford should be competing for conference titles year in, year out? Stanford coaches not named Monty have won one conference title since WWII happened, and even Monty didn't win his first conference title until over a decade on the job. Believe me, I'd LOVE for that to be the case, but I guess I think the long-term trendline suggests regularly competing for conference titles is not realistic for Stanford men's basketball apart from landing a really special coach who's an excellent fit for our program.

[donkey687]

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

In the era of one and dones, how did you decide on this standard? My sense is that we are rarely in contention for 90% of the best MBB recruits because for them, the 40-year decision is irrelevant. That leaves us with needing to have a really sound system in place the way Wright at Villanova and Bennett at UVA do. But aside from Monty, is there any strong historical evidence that Stanford should be competing for conference titles year in, year out? Stanford coaches not named Monty have won one conference title since WWII happened, and even Monty didn't win his first conference title until over a decade on the job. Believe me, I'd LOVE for that to be the case, but I guess I think the long-term trendline suggests regularly competing for conference titles is not realistic for Stanford men's basketball apart from landing a really special coach who's an excellent fit for our program.

Because that is the Stanford standard and just about every Stanford sport does it. WBB does it. MBB did it for more than a decade under Monty. We can do it again. Accepting mediocrity and whining about admissions standards is not acceptable.

[donkey687]

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

In the era of one and dones, how did you decide on this standard? My sense is that we are rarely in contention for 90% of the best MBB recruits because for them, the 40-year decision is irrelevant. That leaves us with needing to have a really sound system in place the way Wright at Villanova and Bennett at UVA do. But aside from Monty, is there any strong historical evidence that Stanford should be competing for conference titles year in, year out? Stanford coaches not named Monty have won one conference title since WWII happened, and even Monty didn't win his first conference title until over a decade on the job. Believe me, I'd LOVE for that to be the case, but I guess I think the long-term trendline suggests regularly competing for conference titles is not realistic for Stanford men's basketball apart from landing a really special coach who's an excellent fit for our program.

Because that is the Stanford standard and just about every Stanford sport does it. WBB does it. MBB did it for more than a decade under Monty. We can do it again. Accepting mediocrity and whining about admissions standards is not acceptable.

[2006alum]

Because that is the Stanford standard and just about every Stanford sport does it. WBB does it. 

I guess I think the "Stanford standard" is much easier to achieve in other sports than it is in MBB. In most Olympic sports, no more than a couple dozen pros make a healthy living at it, and those pros aren't barred from entry due to college attendance requirements, so they just turn pro right away (see, for example, Michelle Wie), or else as soon as they are likely to be competitive pros internationally (see Albane Valenzuela and Andrea Lee this fall, for example).  

As for WBB, WNBA prohibits pro draft eligibility for anyone under the age of 22. So apart from a few Europeans who prefer to play in European leagues vs. play US college ball, the top players are captured until graduation-age. (and with starting salaries in the low 100ks for WNBA players, the draw to go pro is not brobdingnagian. WCBB gets better ratings and more fan attention than WNBA by a mile.)

Perhaps it is pure coincidence, but the peak Monty years, from 1998-2004, when he won all of his conference titles, were also the peak years for top high school players going directly to the pros. That stopped in 2005. Best we've done since was 2nd place when we ourselves had two future draft picks on the roster in 2007-2008. 

It doesn't surprise me at all that Haase has been recruiting heavily from academies and schools like Garfield (Davis) in Seattle -- those are the places where recruits are likely to tick the boxes necessary to be eligible for admission. Rare is the recruit like Ziaire Williamson who plans on a pro career but also appears pretty interested in academics.

Now I agree our ceiling should be higher than it has been for the past decade, especially given how down the PAC-12 has been as a whole. But my view is Monty-like coach + pre-one-and-done recruiting era is an environment that we're unlikely to be able to replicate.

[2006alum]

Because that is the Stanford standard and just about every Stanford sport does it. WBB does it. 

I guess I think the "Stanford standard" is much easier to achieve in other sports than it is in MBB. In most Olympic sports, no more than a couple dozen pros make a healthy living at it, and those pros aren't barred from entry due to college attendance requirements, so they just turn pro right away (see, for example, Michelle Wie), or else as soon as they are likely to be competitive pros internationally (see Albane Valenzuela and Andrea Lee this fall, for example).  

As for WBB, WNBA prohibits pro draft eligibility for anyone under the age of 22. So apart from a few Europeans who prefer to play in European leagues vs. play US college ball, the top players are captured until graduation-age. (and with starting salaries in the low 100ks for WNBA players, the draw to go pro is not brobdingnagian. WCBB gets better ratings and more fan attention than WNBA by a mile.)

Perhaps it is pure coincidence, but the peak Monty years, from 1998-2004, when he won all of his conference titles, were also the peak years for top high school players going directly to the pros. That stopped in 2005. Best we've done since was 2nd place when we ourselves had two future draft picks on the roster in 2007-2008. 

It doesn't surprise me at all that Haase has been recruiting heavily from academies and schools like Garfield (Davis) in Seattle -- those are the places where recruits are likely to tick the boxes necessary to be eligible for admission. Rare is the recruit like Ziaire Williamson who plans on a pro career but also appears pretty interested in academics.

Now I agree our ceiling should be higher than it has been for the past decade, especially given how down the PAC-12 has been as a whole. But my view is Monty-like coach + pre-one-and-done recruiting era is an environment that we're unlikely to be able to replicate.

[BobK]

Stanford went to the Sweet 16 in 2014
Dawkins was fired after two more years. Can’t believe he should have been fired sooner or maybe the thought was before 2016. Muir was in his second year in 2014.

2006 Megan Walker declared for the draft. She will be 22 in November she is finishing her 3rd year at UConn. No hint of graduation in three years but maybe she is. So I looked and it’s age 22 or 4 years of college or graduation or
Denounce your college eligibility. That last was new to me

[BobK]

Stanford went to the Sweet 16 in 2014
Dawkins was fired after two more years. Can’t believe he should have been fired sooner or maybe the thought was before 2016. Muir was in his second year in 2014.

2006 Megan Walker declared for the draft. She will be 22 in November she is finishing her 3rd year at UConn. No hint of graduation in three years but maybe she is. So I looked and it’s age 22 or 4 years of college or graduation or
Denounce your college eligibility. That last was new to me

[donkey687]

Because that is the Stanford standard and just about every Stanford sport does it. WBB does it. 

I guess I think the "Stanford standard" is much easier to achieve in other sports than it is in MBB. In most Olympic sports, no more than a couple dozen pros make a healthy living at it, and those pros aren't barred from entry due to college attendance requirements, so they just turn pro right away (see, for example, Michelle Wie), or else as soon as they are likely to be competitive pros internationally (see Albane Valenzuela and Andrea Lee this fall, for example).  

As for WBB, WNBA prohibits pro draft eligibility for anyone under the age of 22. So apart from a few Europeans who prefer to play in European leagues vs. play US college ball, the top players are captured until graduation-age. (and with starting salaries in the low 100ks for WNBA players, the draw to go pro is not of immense proportions. WCBB gets better ratings and more fan attention than WNBA by a mile.)

Perhaps it is pure coincidence, but the peak Monty years, from 1998-2004, when he won all of his conference titles, were also the peak years for top high school players going directly to the pros. That stopped in 2005. Best we've done since was 2nd place when we ourselves had two future draft picks on the roster in 2007-2008. 

It doesn't surprise me at all that Haase has been recruiting heavily from academies and schools like Garfield (Davis) in Seattle -- those are the places where recruits are likely to tick the boxes necessary to be eligible for admission. Rare is the recruit like Ziaire Williamson who plans on a pro career but also appears pretty interested in academics.

Now I agree our ceiling should be higher than it has been for the past decade, especially given how down the PAC-12 has been as a whole. But my view is Monty-like coach + pre-one-and-done recruiting era is an environment that we're unlikely to be able to replicate.

It is a heck of a lot easier in MBB where 8 good players is all you need than Football where you need to find 85 players to fill out a roster and 50 of them who play regularly. Last year there were 3 Ivy League teams that had a better RPI than us. It isn't that hard to find a handful of good players especially when most guys you are recruiting are 4 year guys and many other teams turn over more of the roster every year with one and dones.

[donkey687]

Because that is the Stanford standard and just about every Stanford sport does it. WBB does it. 

I guess I think the "Stanford standard" is much easier to achieve in other sports than it is in MBB. In most Olympic sports, no more than a couple dozen pros make a healthy living at it, and those pros aren't barred from entry due to college attendance requirements, so they just turn pro right away (see, for example, Michelle Wie), or else as soon as they are likely to be competitive pros internationally (see Albane Valenzuela and Andrea Lee this fall, for example).  

As for WBB, WNBA prohibits pro draft eligibility for anyone under the age of 22. So apart from a few Europeans who prefer to play in European leagues vs. play US college ball, the top players are captured until graduation-age. (and with starting salaries in the low 100ks for WNBA players, the draw to go pro is not of immense proportions. WCBB gets better ratings and more fan attention than WNBA by a mile.)

Perhaps it is pure coincidence, but the peak Monty years, from 1998-2004, when he won all of his conference titles, were also the peak years for top high school players going directly to the pros. That stopped in 2005. Best we've done since was 2nd place when we ourselves had two future draft picks on the roster in 2007-2008. 

It doesn't surprise me at all that Haase has been recruiting heavily from academies and schools like Garfield (Davis) in Seattle -- those are the places where recruits are likely to tick the boxes necessary to be eligible for admission. Rare is the recruit like Ziaire Williamson who plans on a pro career but also appears pretty interested in academics.

Now I agree our ceiling should be higher than it has been for the past decade, especially given how down the PAC-12 has been as a whole. But my view is Monty-like coach + pre-one-and-done recruiting era is an environment that we're unlikely to be able to replicate.

It is a heck of a lot easier in MBB where 8 good players is all you need than Football where you need to find 85 players to fill out a roster and 50 of them who play regularly. Last year there were 3 Ivy League teams that had a better RPI than us. It isn't that hard to find a handful of good players especially when most guys you are recruiting are 4 year guys and many other teams turn over more of the roster every year with one and dones.

[SamuelMcF]

It is a heck of a lot easier in MBB where 8 good players is all you need than Football where you need to find 85 players to fill out a roster and 50 of them who play regularly. Last year there were 3 Ivy League teams that had a better RPI than us. It isn't that hard to find a handful of good players especially when most guys you are recruiting are 4 year guys and many other teams turn over more of the roster every year with one and dones.

This year there is only 1 Ivy with a better RPI than us. Progress :)

We do have a handful of good players. None are seniors, 2 are freshmen, and 2 more - Wills and Delaire-  are freshman age (Tyrell Terry is older than both).

The unfortunate reality is that BECAUSE we don't turn over much of the roster every year, if we recruit a dud (or as our old friend Harbs would call him, a "steak eater") we're stuck with him for 4 years because you know he's staying for that degree. Such guys would get "processed"/"encouraged to transfer" at other schools so they can reload with either a transfer or another frosh. 

Speaking of transferring, another major contributing factor here is the transfer market. Last month I did an analysis of the AP Top 25 for the paid forum. 17 of the AP Top 25 had 2 or more transfers logging significant time (10+ minutes per game). Only 5 had none, and they were all CBB royalty or close to it, and all recruit extremely well: Duke, Michigan State, Michigan, Maryland, and Villanova. Transfers are an epidemic, and not exactly a market we can (likely) capitalize on. Sure, one and dones are obviously nice, but transfers seem to make an even larger impact on being able to compete. Dayton, Baylor, and San Diego State - end-of-season RPI #2, #4, and #9 - had 4 transfer starters each!

[SamuelMcF]

It is a heck of a lot easier in MBB where 8 good players is all you need than Football where you need to find 85 players to fill out a roster and 50 of them who play regularly. Last year there were 3 Ivy League teams that had a better RPI than us. It isn't that hard to find a handful of good players especially when most guys you are recruiting are 4 year guys and many other teams turn over more of the roster every year with one and dones.

This year there is only 1 Ivy with a better RPI than us. Progress :)

We do have a handful of good players. None are seniors, 2 are freshmen, and 2 more - Wills and Delaire-  are freshman age (Tyrell Terry is older than both).

The unfortunate reality is that BECAUSE we don't turn over much of the roster every year, if we recruit a dud (or as our old friend Harbs would call him, a "steak eater") we're stuck with him for 4 years because you know he's staying for that degree. Such guys would get "processed"/"encouraged to transfer" at other schools so they can reload with either a transfer or another frosh. 

Speaking of transferring, another major contributing factor here is the transfer market. Last month I did an analysis of the AP Top 25 for the paid forum. 17 of the AP Top 25 had 2 or more transfers logging significant time (10+ minutes per game). Only 5 had none, and they were all CBB royalty or close to it, and all recruit extremely well: Duke, Michigan State, Michigan, Maryland, and Villanova. Transfers are an epidemic, and not exactly a market we can (likely) capitalize on. Sure, one and dones are obviously nice, but transfers seem to make an even larger impact on being able to compete. Dayton, Baylor, and San Diego State - end-of-season RPI #2, #4, and #9 - had 4 transfer starters each!

[2006alum]

It is a heck of a lot easier in MBB where 8 good players is all you need than Football where you need to find 85 players to fill out a roster and 50 of them who play regularly. Last year there were 3 Ivy League teams that had a better RPI than us. It isn't that hard to find a handful of good players especially when most guys you are recruiting are 4 year guys and many other teams turn over more of the roster every year with one and dones.

I'm not totally sold on that. NFL requires that draftees be at least three years out of high school - where else can they possibly go to improve their skills but college ball? And three years is close to a Stanford degree if you took AP classes (which you did if you got admitted to Stanford) and are strategic with your courseload/summers.

Unless someone more closely connected with admissions can inform this discussion with solid intel, my understanding has generally been that most top basketball recruits do not bother with taking the kinds of classes, and getting the kinds of test scores, that necessary for Stanford, in part because AAU basketball travel takes up large chunks of the school year, and the top recruits only envision spending 1-2 years in college. Whereas for football recruits, they will be attending for three years, and the academic year looks largely the same as it does for their non-varsity school peers in terms of away-from-home travel. With football, we've lured recruits away from offers at places like Alabama, Notre Dame, and U$C; tell me how many MBB recruits we have lured away from offers at Arizona, UCLA, Duke, Michigan State, and the likes. I can't think of one in recent memory...?

Also, the NFL chews and spits out players at a much higher rate than does the NBA, so many NFL players need a long-term plan B.

[2006alum]

It is a heck of a lot easier in MBB where 8 good players is all you need than Football where you need to find 85 players to fill out a roster and 50 of them who play regularly. Last year there were 3 Ivy League teams that had a better RPI than us. It isn't that hard to find a handful of good players especially when most guys you are recruiting are 4 year guys and many other teams turn over more of the roster every year with one and dones.

I'm not totally sold on that. NFL requires that draftees be at least three years out of high school - where else can they possibly go to improve their skills but college ball? And three years is close to a Stanford degree if you took AP classes (which you did if you got admitted to Stanford) and are strategic with your courseload/summers.

Unless someone more closely connected with admissions can inform this discussion with solid intel, my understanding has generally been that most top basketball recruits do not bother with taking the kinds of classes, and getting the kinds of test scores, that necessary for Stanford, in part because AAU basketball travel takes up large chunks of the school year, and the top recruits only envision spending 1-2 years in college. Whereas for football recruits, they will be attending for three years, and the academic year looks largely the same as it does for their non-varsity school peers in terms of away-from-home travel. With football, we've lured recruits away from offers at places like Alabama, Notre Dame, and U$C; tell me how many MBB recruits we have lured away from offers at Arizona, UCLA, Duke, Michigan State, and the likes. I can't think of one in recent memory...?

Also, the NFL chews and spits out players at a much higher rate than does the NBA, so many NFL players need a long-term plan B.

[SamuelMcF]

tell me how many MBB recruits we have lured away from offers at Arizona, UCLA, Duke, Michigan State, and the likes. I can't think of one in recent memory...?

Daejon Davis had Arizona and Oregon among others

Lukas Kisunas had Arizona

Bryce Wills chose between us and Villanova

Jaiden Delaire, despite being a junior at the time (graduated early and reclassified to literally everyone's surprise), had USC and Maryland among others

Incoming frosh Noah Taitz had USC

Both Mobleys were coming here until USC hired their dad to a BS position - Enfield is a scumbag (and involved in the FBI scandal too)

We're still very much in it for whale Ziaire Williams

The '21 class has the potential to be insane but we'll have to wait and see

[Cormac Ryan had a ton of offers too, though he didn't stick around...so I won't even count beating Michigan out for him the first time around]

[SamuelMcF]

tell me how many MBB recruits we have lured away from offers at Arizona, UCLA, Duke, Michigan State, and the likes. I can't think of one in recent memory...?

Daejon Davis had Arizona and Oregon among others

Lukas Kisunas had Arizona

Bryce Wills chose between us and Villanova

Jaiden Delaire, despite being a junior at the time (graduated early and reclassified to literally everyone's surprise), had USC and Maryland among others

Incoming frosh Noah Taitz had USC

Both Mobleys were coming here until USC hired their dad to a BS position - Enfield is a scumbag (and involved in the FBI scandal too)

We're still very much in it for whale Ziaire Williams

The '21 class has the potential to be insane but we'll have to wait and see

[Cormac Ryan had a ton of offers too, though he didn't stick around...so I won't even count beating Michigan out for him the first time around]

[2006alum]

Sam, what's your source for this? ESPN doesn't list Arizona as one of Davis's offers, just Oregon. 

Most of Ryan's offers were not from true basketball elite, apart from Villanova (which, as I've already said, is one of the few system schools) and Michigan.

Kisunas's offer list does not include Arizona either.

Wills' ESPN recruit profile appears empty.

And I don't think anyone would classify U$C as basketball elite...just a fun place to spend a year in downtown LA before turning pro.

Until the one and done era is over, which may be very soon, I really don't think we will be top-of-the-conference competitive year in, year out. 

And honestly, none of those recruits were consensus top 30 recruits in their class, so I think my point stands - we are not giving offers to top recruits and winning in recruiting battles against top programs. The closest we had to a one-and-done was KZ and he was really under the radar as a recruit, does not seem destined for a great pro career, and while he was flashy at times, his turning pro early was a kind of addition through subtraction, as we seemed to be much more cohesive on both sides of the ball without him.

[2006alum]

Sam, what's your source for this? ESPN doesn't list Arizona as one of Davis's offers, just Oregon. 

Most of Ryan's offers were not from true basketball elite, apart from Villanova (which, as I've already said, is one of the few system schools) and Michigan.

Kisunas's offer list does not include Arizona either.

Wills' ESPN recruit profile appears empty.

And I don't think anyone would classify U$C as basketball elite...just a fun place to spend a year in downtown LA before turning pro.

Until the one and done era is over, which may be very soon, I really don't think we will be top-of-the-conference competitive year in, year out. 

And honestly, none of those recruits were consensus top 30 recruits in their class, so I think my point stands - we are not giving offers to top recruits and winning in recruiting battles against top programs. The closest we had to a one-and-done was KZ and he was really under the radar as a recruit, does not seem destined for a great pro career, and while he was flashy at times, his turning pro early was a kind of addition through subtraction, as we seemed to be much more cohesive on both sides of the ball without him.

[SamuelMcF]

Sam, what's your source for this? ESPN doesn't list Arizona as one of Davis's offers, just Oregon. 

Most of Ryan's offers were not from true basketball elite, apart from Villanova (which, as I've already said, is one of the few system schools) and Michigan.

Kisunas's offer list does not include Arizona either.

Wills' ESPN recruit profile appears empty.

And I don't think anyone would classify U$C as basketball elite...just a fun place to spend a year in downtown LA before turning pro.

Until the one and done era is over, which may be very soon, I really don't think we will be top-of-the-conference competitive year in, year out. 

And honestly, none of those recruits were consensus top 30 recruits in their class, so I think my point stands - we are not giving offers to top recruits and winning in recruiting battles against top programs. The closest we had to a one-and-done was KZ and he was really under the radar as a recruit, does not seem destined for a great pro career, and while he was flashy at times, his turning pro early was a kind of addition through subtraction, as we seemed to be much more cohesive on both sides of the ball without him.

https://247sports.com/Player/Daejon-Davi...ol-138105/

https://247sports.com/Player/Lukas-Kisun...ol-185664/ - Arizona was all over Kisunas after he de-committed from UConn. He took a visit there.

https://247sports.com/Player/Bryce-Wills...ol-155964/
Wills' final 4 were Stanford, Villanova, UConn, and Wake Forest. https://twitter.com/Bryce_Wills5/status/...6400543744

FWIW, I completely agree with your bolded statement. Plus, as I said earlier, the inability to meaningfully participate in the transfer market makes it even harder to succeed here. A significant structural handicap.

We are most definitely giving offers to the tippy top recruits, but they (generally as expected, being mostly one and done/basketball-first types) don't come here. Until, hopefully - fingers crossed tight - Ziaire Williams. Also there are some very big fish in play for 2021. Fingers continue to be crossed.

[SamuelMcF]

Sam, what's your source for this? ESPN doesn't list Arizona as one of Davis's offers, just Oregon. 

Most of Ryan's offers were not from true basketball elite, apart from Villanova (which, as I've already said, is one of the few system schools) and Michigan.

Kisunas's offer list does not include Arizona either.

Wills' ESPN recruit profile appears empty.

And I don't think anyone would classify U$C as basketball elite...just a fun place to spend a year in downtown LA before turning pro.

Until the one and done era is over, which may be very soon, I really don't think we will be top-of-the-conference competitive year in, year out. 

And honestly, none of those recruits were consensus top 30 recruits in their class, so I think my point stands - we are not giving offers to top recruits and winning in recruiting battles against top programs. The closest we had to a one-and-done was KZ and he was really under the radar as a recruit, does not seem destined for a great pro career, and while he was flashy at times, his turning pro early was a kind of addition through subtraction, as we seemed to be much more cohesive on both sides of the ball without him.

https://247sports.com/Player/Daejon-Davi...ol-138105/

https://247sports.com/Player/Lukas-Kisun...ol-185664/ - Arizona was all over Kisunas after he de-committed from UConn. He took a visit there.

https://247sports.com/Player/Bryce-Wills...ol-155964/
Wills' final 4 were Stanford, Villanova, UConn, and Wake Forest. https://twitter.com/Bryce_Wills5/status/...6400543744

FWIW, I completely agree with your bolded statement. Plus, as I said earlier, the inability to meaningfully participate in the transfer market makes it even harder to succeed here. A significant structural handicap.

We are most definitely giving offers to the tippy top recruits, but they (generally as expected, being mostly one and done/basketball-first types) don't come here. Until, hopefully - fingers crossed tight - Ziaire Williams. Also there are some very big fish in play for 2021. Fingers continue to be crossed.

[winflop]

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

In the era of one and dones, how did you decide on this standard? My sense is that we are rarely in contention for 90% of the best MBB recruits because for them, the 40-year decision is irrelevant. That leaves us with needing to have a really sound system in place the way Wright at Villanova and Bennett at UVA do. But aside from Monty, is there any strong historical evidence that Stanford should be competing for conference titles year in, year out? Stanford coaches not named Monty have won one conference title since WWII happened, and even Monty didn't win his first conference title until over a decade on the job. Believe me, I'd LOVE for that to be the case, but I guess I think the long-term trendline suggests regularly competing for conference titles is not realistic for Stanford men's basketball apart from landing a really special coach who's an excellent fit for our program.

Pretty much every other sport has figured it out, and 90% of the best MBB recruits weren't targets for Monty either.

Your point about Monty not winning a title until his 13th season is well-taken, but I did say contend not win. He made the NCAAs in his 3rd season and finished in the top 4 three times in his first six seasons.

Also, before Monty, nobody had delivered the kinds of results he did, so the expectations were different going in. Monty showed that you CAN get it done, and for all the criticism of Trent Johnson he made the NCAAs 3 times in 4 seasons and had three top 4 finishes. You could say he did it with Monty's recruits but keep in mind he was Monty's head recruiter so to some extent they were his recruits too.

[winflop]

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

In the era of one and dones, how did you decide on this standard? My sense is that we are rarely in contention for 90% of the best MBB recruits because for them, the 40-year decision is irrelevant. That leaves us with needing to have a really sound system in place the way Wright at Villanova and Bennett at UVA do. But aside from Monty, is there any strong historical evidence that Stanford should be competing for conference titles year in, year out? Stanford coaches not named Monty have won one conference title since WWII happened, and even Monty didn't win his first conference title until over a decade on the job. Believe me, I'd LOVE for that to be the case, but I guess I think the long-term trendline suggests regularly competing for conference titles is not realistic for Stanford men's basketball apart from landing a really special coach who's an excellent fit for our program.

Pretty much every other sport has figured it out, and 90% of the best MBB recruits weren't targets for Monty either.

Your point about Monty not winning a title until his 13th season is well-taken, but I did say contend not win. He made the NCAAs in his 3rd season and finished in the top 4 three times in his first six seasons.

Also, before Monty, nobody had delivered the kinds of results he did, so the expectations were different going in. Monty showed that you CAN get it done, and for all the criticism of Trent Johnson he made the NCAAs 3 times in 4 seasons and had three top 4 finishes. You could say he did it with Monty's recruits but keep in mind he was Monty's head recruiter so to some extent they were his recruits too.

[BostonCard]

The one-and-done thing is relevant and unique to MBB.  First off, the NBA is the only major professional league that requires players to play at least a year in college and allows them to go professional after only one year.  The result is that the very best basketball players play one year in college and then go pro.  Moreover, in basketball, the presence of one superstar can make a very big difference in the quality of play because of the ability of such a player to score at will one-on-one.  Moreover, unlike other sports, athleticism plays such a role in basketball that 18-year-olds can be stars.  The tragectory as players mature is much flatter than in, say, football, where experience and size/weight are very important.  One-and-done players will typically not pick Stanford, because what is the point of going to an elite college for one year and then going pro.

If the NBA allowed high school players to go pro (as it sounds like will happen in the near future), those players would bypass college entirely, and the players who come into college are most likely to stick around at least two years, if not four.  Stanford's value proposition is much more attractive to such players, as we have shown in baseball and football (this past year excepted, though we continue to attract players who are expected to be attractive pro prospects).

The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.

BC

[BostonCard]

The one-and-done thing is relevant and unique to MBB.  First off, the NBA is the only major professional league that requires players to play at least a year in college and allows them to go professional after only one year.  The result is that the very best basketball players play one year in college and then go pro.  Moreover, in basketball, the presence of one superstar can make a very big difference in the quality of play because of the ability of such a player to score at will one-on-one.  Moreover, unlike other sports, athleticism plays such a role in basketball that 18-year-olds can be stars.  The tragectory as players mature is much flatter than in, say, football, where experience and size/weight are very important.  One-and-done players will typically not pick Stanford, because what is the point of going to an elite college for one year and then going pro.

If the NBA allowed high school players to go pro (as it sounds like will happen in the near future), those players would bypass college entirely, and the players who come into college are most likely to stick around at least two years, if not four.  Stanford's value proposition is much more attractive to such players, as we have shown in baseball and football (this past year excepted, though we continue to attract players who are expected to be attractive pro prospects).

The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.

BC

[donkey687]

The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.

BC

Not sure about that. We aren't getting those one and dones. When those guys all go pro out of high school, Duke, Kentucky, AZ etc move down their list and offer guys that may have slipped to us.  Tyrell Terry is a guy under old school Duke could have been a 4 year guy there. Duke is less competition for us under one and done.

[donkey687]

The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.

BC

Not sure about that. We aren't getting those one and dones. When those guys all go pro out of high school, Duke, Kentucky, AZ etc move down their list and offer guys that may have slipped to us.  Tyrell Terry is a guy under old school Duke could have been a 4 year guy there. Duke is less competition for us under one and done.

[DC 86]

The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.

BC

It's inarguable that Stanford is disadvantaged with regard to recruiting one-and-dones. But is this a legitimate excuse for the program's poor performance?

None of last year's final four teams featured a one-and-done. In fact, Virginia (the champion) has never had a player leave after one year.

Villanova won the championship in 2016 and 2018 and has a single one-and-done in its history (Omari Spellman, who was the fourth leading scorer on the 2018 team; Jalen Brunson and Mikal Bridges were the stars on that team, and Donte DiVincenzo was the Final Four MOP.)

In 2017, North Carolina beat Gonzaga for the title. Tony Bradley was a one-and-done but didn't start a game that season and averaged seven points in 14.6 minutes per game for NC. He was the first one-and-done in program history; their 2009 championship team started three juniors and two seniors. Gonzaga also had their first and only one-and-done in program history on that team (Zack Collins) but likewise he didn't start a game that season and was their fifth-leading scorer at 10 points in 17 minutes per game.

The fact is that these are not anomalies. A number of perennially successful programs during the one-and-done era have had very few (or no) one-and-dones:

Florida: 1 (two national championships during one-and-done era, however neither team included a one-and-done)
UConn: 1 (two national championships, however neither team included a one-and-done)
Villanova: 1 (two national championships)
Gonzaga: 1 (national runner-up)
Michigan State: 1 (four final fours)
Michigan: 1 (twice national runner-up, neither team included a one-and-done)
Virginia: 0 (one national championship)
Louisville: 0 (one national championship)
Butler: 0 (twice national runner-up)
Wichita State: 0 (one final four, 30+ wins in four of last five seasons)

[DC 86]

The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.

BC

It's inarguable that Stanford is disadvantaged with regard to recruiting one-and-dones. But is this a legitimate excuse for the program's poor performance?

None of last year's final four teams featured a one-and-done. In fact, Virginia (the champion) has never had a player leave after one year.

Villanova won the championship in 2016 and 2018 and has a single one-and-done in its history (Omari Spellman, who was the fourth leading scorer on the 2018 team; Jalen Brunson and Mikal Bridges were the stars on that team, and Donte DiVincenzo was the Final Four MOP.)

In 2017, North Carolina beat Gonzaga for the title. Tony Bradley was a one-and-done but didn't start a game that season and averaged seven points in 14.6 minutes per game for NC. He was the first one-and-done in program history; their 2009 championship team started three juniors and two seniors. Gonzaga also had their first and only one-and-done in program history on that team (Zack Collins) but likewise he didn't start a game that season and was their fifth-leading scorer at 10 points in 17 minutes per game.

The fact is that these are not anomalies. A number of perennially successful programs during the one-and-done era have had very few (or no) one-and-dones:

Florida: 1 (two national championships during one-and-done era, however neither team included a one-and-done)
UConn: 1 (two national championships, however neither team included a one-and-done)
Villanova: 1 (two national championships)
Gonzaga: 1 (national runner-up)
Michigan State: 1 (four final fours)
Michigan: 1 (twice national runner-up, neither team included a one-and-done)
Virginia: 0 (one national championship)
Louisville: 0 (one national championship)
Butler: 0 (twice national runner-up)
Wichita State: 0 (one final four, 30+ wins in four of last five seasons)

[SamuelMcF]

The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.

BC

It's inarguable that Stanford is disadvantaged with regard to recruiting one-and-dones. But is this a legitimate excuse for the program's poor performance?

None of last year's final four teams featured a one-and-done. In fact, Virginia (the champion) has never had a player leave after one year.

Villanova won the championship in 2016 and 2018 and has a single one-and-done in its history (Omari Spellman, who was the fourth leading scorer on the 2018 team; Jalen Brunson and Mikal Bridges were the stars on that team, and Donte DiVincenzo was the Final Four MOP.)

In 2017, North Carolina beat Gonzaga for the title. Tony Bradley was a one-and-done but didn't start a game that season and averaged seven points in 14.6 minutes per game that season for NC. He was the first one-and-done in program history; their 2009 championship team started three juniors and two seniors. Gonzaga also had their first and only one-and-done in program history on that team (Zack Collins) but likewise he didn't start a game that season and was their fifth-leading scorer at 10 points in 17 minutes per game.

The fact is that these are not anomalies. A number of perennially successful programs during the one-and-done era have had very few (or no) one-and-dones:

Florida: 1 (two national championships during one-and-done era, however neither team included a one-and-done)
UConn: 1 (two national championships, however neither team included a one-and-done)
Villanova: 1 (two national championships)
Gonzaga: 1 (national runner-up)
Michigan State: 1 (four final fours)
Michigan: 1 (twice national runner-up, neither team included a one-and-done)
Virginia: 0 (one national championship
Louisville: 0 (one national championship)
Butler: 0 (twice national runner-up)
Wichita State: 0 (one final four, 30+ wins in four of last five seasons)

I would love to see these numbers again, but with transfers this time. I seriously can't believe nobody else in this thread is talking about this more. Stop looking at the one-and-dones for about five damn seconds and look at just how many transfers are on top teams.

And no, the one-and-done phenomenon is not an excuse for Stanford's poor performance. Look at how UCLA ended the season, for instance. It is, however, a structural disadvantage that can (and must) be overcome through player development and "not missing" on recruits. But that's every coach's job. It's just easier when you can plug the holes.

[SamuelMcF]

The bottom line is that the one-and-done system is uniquely disadvantageous to Stanford.

BC

It's inarguable that Stanford is disadvantaged with regard to recruiting one-and-dones. But is this a legitimate excuse for the program's poor performance?

None of last year's final four teams featured a one-and-done. In fact, Virginia (the champion) has never had a player leave after one year.

Villanova won the championship in 2016 and 2018 and has a single one-and-done in its history (Omari Spellman, who was the fourth leading scorer on the 2018 team; Jalen Brunson and Mikal Bridges were the stars on that team, and Donte DiVincenzo was the Final Four MOP.)

In 2017, North Carolina beat Gonzaga for the title. Tony Bradley was a one-and-done but didn't start a game that season and averaged seven points in 14.6 minutes per game that season for NC. He was the first one-and-done in program history; their 2009 championship team started three juniors and two seniors. Gonzaga also had their first and only one-and-done in program history on that team (Zack Collins) but likewise he didn't start a game that season and was their fifth-leading scorer at 10 points in 17 minutes per game.

The fact is that these are not anomalies. A number of perennially successful programs during the one-and-done era have had very few (or no) one-and-dones:

Florida: 1 (two national championships during one-and-done era, however neither team included a one-and-done)
UConn: 1 (two national championships, however neither team included a one-and-done)
Villanova: 1 (two national championships)
Gonzaga: 1 (national runner-up)
Michigan State: 1 (four final fours)
Michigan: 1 (twice national runner-up, neither team included a one-and-done)
Virginia: 0 (one national championship
Louisville: 0 (one national championship)
Butler: 0 (twice national runner-up)
Wichita State: 0 (one final four, 30+ wins in four of last five seasons)

I would love to see these numbers again, but with transfers this time. I seriously can't believe nobody else in this thread is talking about this more. Stop looking at the one-and-dones for about five damn seconds and look at just how many transfers are on top teams.

And no, the one-and-done phenomenon is not an excuse for Stanford's poor performance. Look at how UCLA ended the season, for instance. It is, however, a structural disadvantage that can (and must) be overcome through player development and "not missing" on recruits. But that's every coach's job. It's just easier when you can plug the holes.

[DC 86]

I would love to see these numbers again, but with transfers this time. I seriously can't believe nobody else in this thread is talking about this more. Stop looking at the one-and-dones for about five damn seconds and look at just how many transfers are on top teams.

There are actually very few transfers who are significant contributors to the top college basketball teams. Who are the transfers on this season's top ten teams (Kansas, Gonzaga, Dayton, FSU, Baylor, San Diego State, Creighton, Kentucky, Michigan State, Duke) that you are thinking of? There also are few examples on recent final four teams as well. Some good players have transferred from mid-majors to bigger programs, but no game changers as in football.

The transfer portal has undoubtably changed college football and had major impact on top teams, e.g. Joe Burrow for LSU, Kyler Murray and Baker Mayfield at Oklahoma. But it's not the case in college basketball.

[DC 86]

I would love to see these numbers again, but with transfers this time. I seriously can't believe nobody else in this thread is talking about this more. Stop looking at the one-and-dones for about five damn seconds and look at just how many transfers are on top teams.

There are actually very few transfers who are significant contributors to the top college basketball teams. Who are the transfers on this season's top ten teams (Kansas, Gonzaga, Dayton, FSU, Baylor, San Diego State, Creighton, Kentucky, Michigan State, Duke) that you are thinking of? There also are few examples on recent final four teams as well. Some good players have transferred from mid-majors to bigger programs, but no game changers as in football.

The transfer portal has undoubtably changed college football and had major impact on top teams, e.g. Joe Burrow for LSU, Kyler Murray and Baker Mayfield at Oklahoma. But it's not the case in college basketball.