[BostonCard]

Casey Jacobsen and Dan Grunfeld were very good players, but not NBA athletes.

I mean, he was a first round draft pick and played four years in the league, so Jacobsen was, by definition, an NBA athlete.

BC

[BostonCard]

Casey Jacobsen and Dan Grunfeld were very good players, but not NBA athletes.

I mean, he was a first round draft pick and played four years in the league, so Jacobsen was, by definition, an NBA athlete.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Casey Jacobsen and Dan Grunfeld were very good players, but not NBA athletes.

I mean, he was a first round draft pick and played four years in the league, so Jacobsen was, by definition, an NBA athlete.

BC

LOL

[OutsiderFan]

Casey Jacobsen and Dan Grunfeld were very good players, but not NBA athletes.

I mean, he was a first round draft pick and played four years in the league, so Jacobsen was, by definition, an NBA athlete.

BC

LOL

[Papa John]

I agree with OF that Monty's NCAA tournament performance wasn't all that bad. Here's how I see it:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -1
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +1
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -1
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -1
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -1

So by the sign test--I think that's what it's called?--Montgomery was -2 for the NCAAs. That's not horrible over 12 (!) NCAA appearances. But I think the notable decline in actual vs expected performance in his final six appearances is more salient in our collective memories than the overall career achievement.

Regardless, I for one would be absolutely thrilled if the Stanford men lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament this year.

[Papa John]

I agree with OF that Monty's NCAA tournament performance wasn't all that bad. Here's how I see it:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -1
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +1
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -1
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -1
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -1

So by the sign test--I think that's what it's called?--Montgomery was -2 for the NCAAs. That's not horrible over 12 (!) NCAA appearances. But I think the notable decline in actual vs expected performance in his final six appearances is more salient in our collective memories than the overall career achievement.

Regardless, I for one would be absolutely thrilled if the Stanford men lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament this year.

[2006alum]

Not here to bash Monty, who is unquestionably the best and most successful Stanford coach since the Korean War... 

But: it doesn't make any sense not to measure the magnitude of the result relative to expectations. In no fans lived experience does coming in as the overall #1 seed and losing in the second round get offset by coming in a 9th seed and winning one round.

Objectively, there's no way to argue that Monty's teams measurably disappointed in the tournament relative to their seeding much more than they ever overperformed it.

[2006alum]

Not here to bash Monty, who is unquestionably the best and most successful Stanford coach since the Korean War... 

But: it doesn't make any sense not to measure the magnitude of the result relative to expectations. In no fans lived experience does coming in as the overall #1 seed and losing in the second round get offset by coming in a 9th seed and winning one round.

Objectively, there's no way to argue that Monty's teams measurably disappointed in the tournament relative to their seeding much more than they ever overperformed it.

[Papa John]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.

[Papa John]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.

[Phogge]

As usual I disagree with OF. Monty got guys who as role players meshed together. Nobody on Haase’S teams mesh well and so they play under their talent level. Butler had a bunch of guys like that a few years ago and they came as close to a title as you can get.

BTW, Williams got a start last night for the Grizz, played 25 minutes and had 14 points.

[Phogge]

As usual I disagree with OF. Monty got guys who as role players meshed together. Nobody on Haase’S teams mesh well and so they play under their talent level. Butler had a bunch of guys like that a few years ago and they came as close to a title as you can get.

BTW, Williams got a start last night for the Grizz, played 25 minutes and had 14 points.

[BobK]

Having been a mbb season ticket holder thru the Monty years and more I very very much disagree with OF.
Plus the slow Stanford WBB won it all last year.
Darn Phogge with should be having lunch right now.

[BobK]

Having been a mbb season ticket holder thru the Monty years and more I very very much disagree with OF.
Plus the slow Stanford WBB won it all last year.
Darn Phogge with should be having lunch right now.

[teejers1]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.

As with everything, it's in the details.  
The real question is:  of the teams that played on the court that day, which was "better" (i.e., should Stanford or its opponent have won)?

I saw all those games and attended many, the biggest disappointment, obviously, was the Alabama L.  They had 2 NBA players, for sure (all star?), but overall Stanford had the better team and should have won.   Suffice it to say the foul discrepancy called by the officials was not helping Stanford's cause.

UNC?  They were a better team than Stanford (fully healthy), and they made FF that year.  That was unlucky draw for Stanford.  It sucked, but I don't think it was a particularly bad loss (although I do think Peppers was allowed to play football out there a bit too much).

The Siena L was next most disappointing, imo, (perhaps magnified by first time in NCAA in ages).  I remember one play where they had a breakaway layup, and the Siena player stopped at three point line to throw up a bomb.  Draino.  That kind of day (in empty arena, right?).

Maryland?  They were an excellent team that played well that day (and Stanford was out a player or two).  Understandable result.

None of the other Ls stand out in any way (Kansas way better, Kentucky in FF - one point L in OT;) hard to argue too much on those.  Perhaps I'm missing other bad ones, but right now, I can't think of them.

And of course, the FF run was tremendous - remains the most enjoyable Stanford sporting event of my lifetime (even over Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl wins).

Bottom line:  as noted by others, a regular-appearing team in NCAAs sounds awfully good right now . . .

[teejers1]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.

As with everything, it's in the details.  
The real question is:  of the teams that played on the court that day, which was "better" (i.e., should Stanford or its opponent have won)?

I saw all those games and attended many, the biggest disappointment, obviously, was the Alabama L.  They had 2 NBA players, for sure (all star?), but overall Stanford had the better team and should have won.   Suffice it to say the foul discrepancy called by the officials was not helping Stanford's cause.

UNC?  They were a better team than Stanford (fully healthy), and they made FF that year.  That was unlucky draw for Stanford.  It sucked, but I don't think it was a particularly bad loss (although I do think Peppers was allowed to play football out there a bit too much).

The Siena L was next most disappointing, imo, (perhaps magnified by first time in NCAA in ages).  I remember one play where they had a breakaway layup, and the Siena player stopped at three point line to throw up a bomb.  Draino.  That kind of day (in empty arena, right?).

Maryland?  They were an excellent team that played well that day (and Stanford was out a player or two).  Understandable result.

None of the other Ls stand out in any way (Kansas way better, Kentucky in FF - one point L in OT;) hard to argue too much on those.  Perhaps I'm missing other bad ones, but right now, I can't think of them.

And of course, the FF run was tremendous - remains the most enjoyable Stanford sporting event of my lifetime (even over Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl wins).

Bottom line:  as noted by others, a regular-appearing team in NCAAs sounds awfully good right now . . .

[Brickcity]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.

As with everything, it's in the details.  
The real question is:  of the teams that played on the court that day, which was "better" (i.e., should Stanford or its opponent have won)?

I saw all those games and attended many, the biggest disappointment, obviously, was the Alabama L.  They had 2 NBA players, for sure (all star?), but overall Stanford had the better team and should have won.   Suffice it to say the foul discrepancy called by the officials was not helping Stanford's cause.

UNC?  They were a better team than Stanford (fully healthy), and they made FF that year.  That was unlucky draw for Stanford.  It sucked, but I don't think it was a particularly bad loss (although I do think Peppers was allowed to play football out there a bit too much).

The Siena L was next most disappointing, imo, (perhaps magnified by first time in NCAA in ages).  I remember one play where they had a breakaway layup, and the Siena player stopped at three point line to throw up a bomb.  Draino.  That kind of day (in empty arena, right?).

Maryland?  They were an excellent team that played well that day (and Stanford was out a player or two).  Understandable result.

None of the other Ls stand out in any way (Kansas way better, Kentucky in FF - one point L in OT;) hard to argue too much on those.  Perhaps I'm missing other bad ones, but right now, I can't think of them.

And of course, the FF run was tremendous - remains the most enjoyable Stanford sporting event of my lifetime (even over Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl wins).

Bottom line:  as noted by others, a regular-appearing team in NCAAs sounds awfully good right now . . .

Vehemently agree with your take. The only egregious tourney loss was the one to 'Bama. But as you pointed out, we got royally hosed by the refs that day. It's the only game in Stanford history - at least that I've viewed - where I really did wonder if the refs were on the take. 

The Gonzaga loss in the second round of the tourney was awfully disappointing, but they were a good team that year with elite guard play - those two dudes caught fire and the rest is history. It happens.

[Brickcity]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.

As with everything, it's in the details.  
The real question is:  of the teams that played on the court that day, which was "better" (i.e., should Stanford or its opponent have won)?

I saw all those games and attended many, the biggest disappointment, obviously, was the Alabama L.  They had 2 NBA players, for sure (all star?), but overall Stanford had the better team and should have won.   Suffice it to say the foul discrepancy called by the officials was not helping Stanford's cause.

UNC?  They were a better team than Stanford (fully healthy), and they made FF that year.  That was unlucky draw for Stanford.  It sucked, but I don't think it was a particularly bad loss (although I do think Peppers was allowed to play football out there a bit too much).

The Siena L was next most disappointing, imo, (perhaps magnified by first time in NCAA in ages).  I remember one play where they had a breakaway layup, and the Siena player stopped at three point line to throw up a bomb.  Draino.  That kind of day (in empty arena, right?).

Maryland?  They were an excellent team that played well that day (and Stanford was out a player or two).  Understandable result.

None of the other Ls stand out in any way (Kansas way better, Kentucky in FF - one point L in OT;) hard to argue too much on those.  Perhaps I'm missing other bad ones, but right now, I can't think of them.

And of course, the FF run was tremendous - remains the most enjoyable Stanford sporting event of my lifetime (even over Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl wins).

Bottom line:  as noted by others, a regular-appearing team in NCAAs sounds awfully good right now . . .

Vehemently agree with your take. The only egregious tourney loss was the one to 'Bama. But as you pointed out, we got royally hosed by the refs that day. It's the only game in Stanford history - at least that I've viewed - where I really did wonder if the refs were on the take. 

The Gonzaga loss in the second round of the tourney was awfully disappointing, but they were a good team that year with elite guard play - those two dudes caught fire and the rest is history. It happens.

[teejers1]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.

As with everything, it's in the details.  
The real question is:  of the teams that played on the court that day, which was "better" (i.e., should Stanford or its opponent have won)?

I saw all those games and attended many, the biggest disappointment, obviously, was the Alabama L.  They had 2 NBA players, for sure (all star?), but overall Stanford had the better team and should have won.   Suffice it to say the foul discrepancy called by the officials was not helping Stanford's cause.

UNC?  They were a better team than Stanford (fully healthy), and they made FF that year.  That was unlucky draw for Stanford.  It sucked, but I don't think it was a particularly bad loss (although I do think Peppers was allowed to play football out there a bit too much).

The Siena L was next most disappointing, imo, (perhaps magnified by first time in NCAA in ages).  I remember one play where they had a breakaway layup, and the Siena player stopped at three point line to throw up a bomb.  Draino.  That kind of day (in empty arena, right?).

Maryland?  They were an excellent team that played well that day (and Stanford was out a player or two).  Understandable result.

None of the other Ls stand out in any way (Kansas way better, Kentucky in FF - one point L in OT;) hard to argue too much on those.  Perhaps I'm missing other bad ones, but right now, I can't think of them.

And of course, the FF run was tremendous - remains the most enjoyable Stanford sporting event of my lifetime (even over Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl wins).

Bottom line:  as noted by others, a regular-appearing team in NCAAs sounds awfully good right now . . .

Vehemently agree with your take. The only egregious tourney loss was the one to 'Bama. But as you pointed out, we got royally hosed by the refs that day. It's the only game in Stanford history - at least that I've viewed - where I really did wonder if the refs were on the take. 

The Gonzaga loss in the second round of the tourney was awfully disappointing, but they were a good team that year with elite guard play - those two dudes caught fire and the rest is history. It happens.

Gonzaga . . . thanks for that reminder.  It was a tough L, but Gonzaga was playing at "home" (Seattle, iirc) and we were out one of the Collins twins.  It also marked the beginning of Gonzaga's ascendency into a Power Program, imo.

[teejers1]

Fair enough, let's do it your way:

1989: #3 seed. Expectation based on seed: sweet 16. Result: lost in first round. -2
1992: #12 seed. Expecation: first round. Result: lost in first round. 0
1995: #10 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1996: #9 seed. Expectation: first round. Result: lost in second round. +1
1997: #6 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in sweet 16. +1
1998: #3 seed. Expectation: sweet 16. Result: lost in final four. +2
1999: #2 seed. Expectation: elite 8. Result: lost in second round. -2
2000: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3
2001: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in elite 8. -1
2002: #8 seed. Expectation: second round. Result: lost in second round. 0
2003: #4 seed. Expectation: sweet sixteen. Result: lost in second round. -1
2004: #1 seed. Expectation: final four. Result: lost in second round. -3


So, if I did the math correctly, that comes out to a -7 score for 12 appearances. So that magnifies the discrepancy between the last six appearances and first six appearances, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

I think the question is how do you operationally define "much more"? In my first post I looked at "how often" did Montgomery's teams overachieve versus underachieve. Immediately above I looked at "how much." I think both approaches are valid, it just depends on which question you want to answer. OutsiderFan took a year-by-year approach to his analysis, so that's what I did at first.

As with everything, it's in the details.  
The real question is:  of the teams that played on the court that day, which was "better" (i.e., should Stanford or its opponent have won)?

I saw all those games and attended many, the biggest disappointment, obviously, was the Alabama L.  They had 2 NBA players, for sure (all star?), but overall Stanford had the better team and should have won.   Suffice it to say the foul discrepancy called by the officials was not helping Stanford's cause.

UNC?  They were a better team than Stanford (fully healthy), and they made FF that year.  That was unlucky draw for Stanford.  It sucked, but I don't think it was a particularly bad loss (although I do think Peppers was allowed to play football out there a bit too much).

The Siena L was next most disappointing, imo, (perhaps magnified by first time in NCAA in ages).  I remember one play where they had a breakaway layup, and the Siena player stopped at three point line to throw up a bomb.  Draino.  That kind of day (in empty arena, right?).

Maryland?  They were an excellent team that played well that day (and Stanford was out a player or two).  Understandable result.

None of the other Ls stand out in any way (Kansas way better, Kentucky in FF - one point L in OT;) hard to argue too much on those.  Perhaps I'm missing other bad ones, but right now, I can't think of them.

And of course, the FF run was tremendous - remains the most enjoyable Stanford sporting event of my lifetime (even over Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl wins).

Bottom line:  as noted by others, a regular-appearing team in NCAAs sounds awfully good right now . . .

Vehemently agree with your take. The only egregious tourney loss was the one to 'Bama. But as you pointed out, we got royally hosed by the refs that day. It's the only game in Stanford history - at least that I've viewed - where I really did wonder if the refs were on the take. 

The Gonzaga loss in the second round of the tourney was awfully disappointing, but they were a good team that year with elite guard play - those two dudes caught fire and the rest is history. It happens.

Gonzaga . . . thanks for that reminder.  It was a tough L, but Gonzaga was playing at "home" (Seattle, iirc) and we were out one of the Collins twins.  It also marked the beginning of Gonzaga's ascendency into a Power Program, imo.

[OutsiderFan]

As usual I disagree with OF. Monty got guys who as role players meshed together. Nobody on Haase’S teams mesh well and so they play under their talent level. Butler had a bunch of guys like that a few years ago and they came as close to a title as you can get.

BTW, Williams got a start last night for the Grizz, played 25 minutes and had 14 points.

Wait, isn't this what I said - that Haase teams are a bunch of individuals that don't produce greater than the sum of their parts?

[OutsiderFan]

As usual I disagree with OF. Monty got guys who as role players meshed together. Nobody on Haase’S teams mesh well and so they play under their talent level. Butler had a bunch of guys like that a few years ago and they came as close to a title as you can get.

BTW, Williams got a start last night for the Grizz, played 25 minutes and had 14 points.

Wait, isn't this what I said - that Haase teams are a bunch of individuals that don't produce greater than the sum of their parts?

[washingtonismoney]

...Haase teams are a bunch of individuals that don't produce greater than the sum of their parts?

I don't quite know about this. For whatever reason his teams generally put out respectable defenses. But he's literally never put out a good offense in his entire career, at least if KenPom is a reliable indicator. (e.g.: 2020-21: 28th ranked defense....110th offense; 2019-20: 7th ranked defense...143rd ranked offense... 2018-19: 66th ranked defense....187th ranked offense ... 2017-18: 71st ranked defense ... 120th ranked offense ... 2016-17: 65th ranked defense ... 161st ranked offense). 

It stretches back to his UAB tenure, where three out of his four years his defense was ranked better -- usually much better -- than his offense. My man needs an offensive coordinator! Jerod can recruit; his teams can play some defense; he's, like, not a neanderthal; literally the only element missing from his whole gestalt is putting an *average* offense on the floor.

[washingtonismoney]

...Haase teams are a bunch of individuals that don't produce greater than the sum of their parts?

I don't quite know about this. For whatever reason his teams generally put out respectable defenses. But he's literally never put out a good offense in his entire career, at least if KenPom is a reliable indicator. (e.g.: 2020-21: 28th ranked defense....110th offense; 2019-20: 7th ranked defense...143rd ranked offense... 2018-19: 66th ranked defense....187th ranked offense ... 2017-18: 71st ranked defense ... 120th ranked offense ... 2016-17: 65th ranked defense ... 161st ranked offense). 

It stretches back to his UAB tenure, where three out of his four years his defense was ranked better -- usually much better -- than his offense. My man needs an offensive coordinator! Jerod can recruit; his teams can play some defense; he's, like, not a neanderthal; literally the only element missing from his whole gestalt is putting an *average* offense on the floor.

[M T]

I find it interesting how a coach landing a top recruit results in so much coach bashing on the Cardboard.

[M T]

I find it interesting how a coach landing a top recruit results in so much coach bashing on the Cardboard.

[GoodGrief]

Some of my thoughts while reading through this discussion:
1. I would take NCAA Tournament/Bowl disappointments any day over not losing by sitting at home.
2. Agree with OutsiderFan. Monty's specialty was maximizing wins by getting the most out of his frequently good-but-not-elite talent, especially big elbows, I mean guys. But really, I mean elbows. And that works really well against 90% of teams, but when you're facing elite teams with NBA athleticism, you get problems. Also, Monty's talent for maximizing wins meant that we had 20+ wins many years and were often ranked higher than teams with more talent but fewer wins. But that's why we were frequently upset in the tournament. 
3. Monty's coaching style was epitomized by his starting Tony Giovacchini over Julius Barnes. Julius had wild athleticism (could jump out of the gym, rejected Carlos Boozer on a dunk attempt despite being less than 6') and sometimes made dumb PG decisions, while Tony was slow and reliable. So we continued to get wins with Tony, but he reached his ceiling very early without any room to improve. The same could be said for Monty's teams in general. 
4. We coulda had Emeka. 
5. Regarding the UNC upset, there were a few contributing factors: UNC was ranked too low as an 8-seed because their record reflected an injured Brendan Haywood, who naturally, heroically recovered to pull a Willis Reed against us. Also, as I recall, we were the second #1 seed in the West, so our reward was getting shipped out to the East, so we had jet-lag and UNC had home-court advantage.
6. Yeah, losing to Alabama just sucked so hard. And Maryland--Juan Dixon and that other guy just caught fire from the 3-point line. Every time I think of that game, the phrase "buzz saw" always comes to mind. And I feel like we put Gonzaga on the map--they're welcome.
7. Oh yes, if "will to win" was quantifiable, Art Lee would be the all-time champion. That guy wasn't as lightning-quick as Brevin, but he somehow had some invisible gear that he kicked into when it was insanely important (see last 1:10 against Rhode Island). Monty mentioned that the reason Art Lee got so good was because Brevin's style of "teaching" Art was to try to destroy him during practice, and Art rose to the challenge. I missed the game when he was a sophomore (USC?) when we were behind, and apparently Art Lee decided that he was the best player on the court and took over the whole game and Monty had no choice but to play with a 3-guard lineup from that point on.
8. Another random memory that I never actually saw, but my friend told me about. Chris Hernandez, after we lost to Cal was surrounded by Cal fans who stormed the court. They were taunting him and things were getting scrappy. Apparently, Joe Kirchofer ("The Human Victory Cigar") whose height was only exceeded by his SAT score just plowed through the Cal fans ("it was like the parting of the Red Sea") to retrieve Chris and bring him back to the Stanford side.
7. Anyway, none of this has to do with the present, but it was a nice memory jog to the golden years. I just want Haase to recruit more 5-stars. I'd be be perfectly happy with a starting team of 5 one-and-dones.

[GoodGrief]

Some of my thoughts while reading through this discussion:
1. I would take NCAA Tournament/Bowl disappointments any day over not losing by sitting at home.
2. Agree with OutsiderFan. Monty's specialty was maximizing wins by getting the most out of his frequently good-but-not-elite talent, especially big elbows, I mean guys. But really, I mean elbows. And that works really well against 90% of teams, but when you're facing elite teams with NBA athleticism, you get problems. Also, Monty's talent for maximizing wins meant that we had 20+ wins many years and were often ranked higher than teams with more talent but fewer wins. But that's why we were frequently upset in the tournament. 
3. Monty's coaching style was epitomized by his starting Tony Giovacchini over Julius Barnes. Julius had wild athleticism (could jump out of the gym, rejected Carlos Boozer on a dunk attempt despite being less than 6') and sometimes made dumb PG decisions, while Tony was slow and reliable. So we continued to get wins with Tony, but he reached his ceiling very early without any room to improve. The same could be said for Monty's teams in general. 
4. We coulda had Emeka. 
5. Regarding the UNC upset, there were a few contributing factors: UNC was ranked too low as an 8-seed because their record reflected an injured Brendan Haywood, who naturally, heroically recovered to pull a Willis Reed against us. Also, as I recall, we were the second #1 seed in the West, so our reward was getting shipped out to the East, so we had jet-lag and UNC had home-court advantage.
6. Yeah, losing to Alabama just sucked so hard. And Maryland--Juan Dixon and that other guy just caught fire from the 3-point line. Every time I think of that game, the phrase "buzz saw" always comes to mind. And I feel like we put Gonzaga on the map--they're welcome.
7. Oh yes, if "will to win" was quantifiable, Art Lee would be the all-time champion. That guy wasn't as lightning-quick as Brevin, but he somehow had some invisible gear that he kicked into when it was insanely important (see last 1:10 against Rhode Island). Monty mentioned that the reason Art Lee got so good was because Brevin's style of "teaching" Art was to try to destroy him during practice, and Art rose to the challenge. I missed the game when he was a sophomore (USC?) when we were behind, and apparently Art Lee decided that he was the best player on the court and took over the whole game and Monty had no choice but to play with a 3-guard lineup from that point on.
8. Another random memory that I never actually saw, but my friend told me about. Chris Hernandez, after we lost to Cal was surrounded by Cal fans who stormed the court. They were taunting him and things were getting scrappy. Apparently, Joe Kirchofer ("The Human Victory Cigar") whose height was only exceeded by his SAT score just plowed through the Cal fans ("it was like the parting of the Red Sea") to retrieve Chris and bring him back to the Stanford side.
7. Anyway, none of this has to do with the present, but it was a nice memory jog to the golden years. I just want Haase to recruit more 5-stars. I'd be be perfectly happy with a starting team of 5 one-and-dones.

[DC 86]

My man needs an offensive coordinator! Jerod can recruit; his teams can play some defense; he's, like, not a neanderthal; literally the only element missing from his whole gestalt is putting an *average* offense on the floor.

This really is the key right here. If Haase's problem was that his teams are soft and lack Monty-style toughness and sharp elbows, aren't cohesive and don't work together, etc. then you would expect those problems to manifest themselves first on defense. Haase really needs a sharp offensive mind to implement some modern sets and raise the offensive bar it seems. Different sport, but there are certainly multiple examples where a bright, young college football OC had a brobdingnagian effect (Lane Kiffin, Joe Brady, Josh Gattis).

[DC 86]

My man needs an offensive coordinator! Jerod can recruit; his teams can play some defense; he's, like, not a neanderthal; literally the only element missing from his whole gestalt is putting an *average* offense on the floor.

This really is the key right here. If Haase's problem was that his teams are soft and lack Monty-style toughness and sharp elbows, aren't cohesive and don't work together, etc. then you would expect those problems to manifest themselves first on defense. Haase really needs a sharp offensive mind to implement some modern sets and raise the offensive bar it seems. Different sport, but there are certainly multiple examples where a bright, young college football OC had a brobdingnagian effect (Lane Kiffin, Joe Brady, Josh Gattis).

[SamuelMcF]

I posted this on the other board and thought I'd post it here too.

It's a common thought that Haase is a great recruiter. Clearly he's landing a great player pretty much every class. But outside of that, it's a sea of 3*s. (Obviously there have been some external circumstances leading here, but the team is currently what it is.) So...is he?

Here are the current players on the team by 247 composite:
5* frosh Harrison Ingram
4* frosh Isa Silva
4* senior Jaiden Delaire
EIGHT 3* sophs/jrs/srs
Two more 3* frosh

Does 10 3*s on a 13-player team sound like great recruiting to you? Does that sound like "the talent is there?"

IMO, to be truly competitive and "have the talent on paper" to be a competitive team, we should be signing at least one more 4* every class. We need more top 100ish guys who will most likely stay all 4 years and become good veteran players. (Daejon Davis and Jaiden Delaire are cases in point. Cormac Ryan and Tyrell Terry were supposed to be too.) You simply can't rely on the 3* guys to become good veteran players, while the majority of 4*s appear to get there from what I've seen.

I don't think Carlyle is a one-and-done, which is a good thing for us. But to truly be labeled a "great recruiter," Haase needs to land more 4* talent that sticks around. I would argue that lately he is appearing to do so better than in the past couple classes. 2021 has Silva, 2022 has 4* Jaylen Thompson and just-barely-missed-the-4*-cutoff Ryan Agarwal, and again I think Carlyle isn't a OAD. Landing another 4* or two in 2023 would really be building something...but at that point, we'll be on year 8 without a March Madness run, which is just pathetic.

[SamuelMcF]

I posted this on the other board and thought I'd post it here too.

It's a common thought that Haase is a great recruiter. Clearly he's landing a great player pretty much every class. But outside of that, it's a sea of 3*s. (Obviously there have been some external circumstances leading here, but the team is currently what it is.) So...is he?

Here are the current players on the team by 247 composite:
5* frosh Harrison Ingram
4* frosh Isa Silva
4* senior Jaiden Delaire
EIGHT 3* sophs/jrs/srs
Two more 3* frosh

Does 10 3*s on a 13-player team sound like great recruiting to you? Does that sound like "the talent is there?"

IMO, to be truly competitive and "have the talent on paper" to be a competitive team, we should be signing at least one more 4* every class. We need more top 100ish guys who will most likely stay all 4 years and become good veteran players. (Daejon Davis and Jaiden Delaire are cases in point. Cormac Ryan and Tyrell Terry were supposed to be too.) You simply can't rely on the 3* guys to become good veteran players, while the majority of 4*s appear to get there from what I've seen.

I don't think Carlyle is a one-and-done, which is a good thing for us. But to truly be labeled a "great recruiter," Haase needs to land more 4* talent that sticks around. I would argue that lately he is appearing to do so better than in the past couple classes. 2021 has Silva, 2022 has 4* Jaylen Thompson and just-barely-missed-the-4*-cutoff Ryan Agarwal, and again I think Carlyle isn't a OAD. Landing another 4* or two in 2023 would really be building something...but at that point, we'll be on year 8 without a March Madness run, which is just pathetic.

[SamuelMcF]

Why is WBB recruiting pinned but MBB recruiting isn't?

[SamuelMcF]

Why is WBB recruiting pinned but MBB recruiting isn't?

[2006alum]

Why is WBB recruiting pinned but MBB recruiting isn't?

Probably because this thread is on page 5 in 1.5 years and the women's thread got to page 37 within a year. I guess we can defer to a critical mass of posters slash preferences of the admins on this one. There's certainly a sweet spot between pinning our most popular recurring threads and leaving only a small portion of the landing page for one-off threads.

[2006alum]

Why is WBB recruiting pinned but MBB recruiting isn't?

Probably because this thread is on page 5 in 1.5 years and the women's thread got to page 37 within a year. I guess we can defer to a critical mass of posters slash preferences of the admins on this one. There's certainly a sweet spot between pinning our most popular recurring threads and leaving only a small portion of the landing page for one-off threads.

[magnus]

Why is WBB recruiting pinned but MBB recruiting isn't?

Title IX?

[magnus]

Why is WBB recruiting pinned but MBB recruiting isn't?

Title IX?

[CompSci87]

Why is WBB recruiting pinned but MBB recruiting isn't?

Probably because this thread is on page 5 in 1.5 years and the women's thread got to page 37 within a year. I guess we can defer to a critical mass of posters slash preferences of the admins on this one. There's certainly a sweet spot between pinning our most popular recurring threads and leaving only a small portion of the landing page for one-off threads.

WBB recruiting was pinned by popular request. I'm sure MBB recruiting could be pinned too, but it would be nice if people would post to it now and then with news.

There is quick access to all recruiting threads from the last few years in the recruiting board: https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=9

If we're missing links to any recruiting threads there (M/W soccer, baseball, volleyball, ...?), let a mod know. Or I think you can post a link to the relevant thread(s) in the recruiting talk board yourself.

[CompSci87]

Why is WBB recruiting pinned but MBB recruiting isn't?

Probably because this thread is on page 5 in 1.5 years and the women's thread got to page 37 within a year. I guess we can defer to a critical mass of posters slash preferences of the admins on this one. There's certainly a sweet spot between pinning our most popular recurring threads and leaving only a small portion of the landing page for one-off threads.

WBB recruiting was pinned by popular request. I'm sure MBB recruiting could be pinned too, but it would be nice if people would post to it now and then with news.

There is quick access to all recruiting threads from the last few years in the recruiting board: https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=9

If we're missing links to any recruiting threads there (M/W soccer, baseball, volleyball, ...?), let a mod know. Or I think you can post a link to the relevant thread(s) in the recruiting talk board yourself.