[Phogge]

If little Jesuit schools like USF and St. Peter’s and Villanova (Augustinian Order) can build winning teams why can’t the great Ted Cup perennial winner Stanford do likewise? Muir obviously has no clue so like in other businesses why not take some of that huuuuuuge endowment and hire a basketball consultant to figure it out. Isn’t that the way a flailing company figures it out you titans of industry?

There are a few basketball experts here on the Cardboard who would jump at the opportunity. If not, then
IMO when Stanford takes the championship this weekend let Paye take over the women and have Tara be a CEO for both programs.

[Phogge]

If little Jesuit schools like USF and St. Peter’s and Villanova (Augustinian Order) can build winning teams why can’t the great Ted Cup perennial winner Stanford do likewise? Muir obviously has no clue so like in other businesses why not take some of that huuuuuuge endowment and hire a basketball consultant to figure it out. Isn’t that the way a flailing company figures it out you titans of industry?

There are a few basketball experts here on the Cardboard who would jump at the opportunity. If not, then
IMO when Stanford takes the championship this weekend let Paye take over the women and have Tara be a CEO for both programs.

[lex24]

What is Stanfords basketball identity?  What type of player does Haase recruit?  Montgomery is, of course, the gold standard. But he coached in a different era.  

If I’m Stanford, I look to recruit size, shooting and players that will be likely to stay.  I’d leave the one and done possibilities to others. I’d imitate Wisconsin.  Or Gonzaga (they have the occasional one and done Suggs etc, but generally they stay and develop) Or Villanova.  Or heck, even St. Mary’s. Play tough defense, utilize the 3 and use the bigs.  Recruit more overseas. Concentrate recruiting on guys that you believe will stay. (And btw, to help that their should be Alumni groups forming a collective to fund a massive NIL account. Stanford can out money anyone if it so desires. )  Stanford is not going to win with a wide open style.  Slow the game down.  That’s there best chance, I think.

[lex24]

What is Stanfords basketball identity?  What type of player does Haase recruit?  Montgomery is, of course, the gold standard. But he coached in a different era.  

If I’m Stanford, I look to recruit size, shooting and players that will be likely to stay.  I’d leave the one and done possibilities to others. I’d imitate Wisconsin.  Or Gonzaga (they have the occasional one and done Suggs etc, but generally they stay and develop) Or Villanova.  Or heck, even St. Mary’s. Play tough defense, utilize the 3 and use the bigs.  Recruit more overseas. Concentrate recruiting on guys that you believe will stay. (And btw, to help that their should be Alumni groups forming a collective to fund a massive NIL account. Stanford can out money anyone if it so desires. )  Stanford is not going to win with a wide open style.  Slow the game down.  That’s there best chance, I think.

[teejers1]

Yeah, case in point, just last year with ZW.  Don't remember many thinking he was ready.

I definitely thought he was ready if he was drafted by the right team. And, sure enuf, he's been almost great for Memphis, especially when Brooks was out. I mostly blame Haase for the problems last year, though clearly covid had a crummy effect.

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.

And nor do I place any blame on the recruitment of Terry - no one thought he was a one-and-done (turns out, for good reason).  And that looked like one of the all-time great recruiting coups, on the assumption Terry would stay 3 years.

Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

[teejers1]

Yeah, case in point, just last year with ZW.  Don't remember many thinking he was ready.

I definitely thought he was ready if he was drafted by the right team. And, sure enuf, he's been almost great for Memphis, especially when Brooks was out. I mostly blame Haase for the problems last year, though clearly covid had a crummy effect.

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.

And nor do I place any blame on the recruitment of Terry - no one thought he was a one-and-done (turns out, for good reason).  And that looked like one of the all-time great recruiting coups, on the assumption Terry would stay 3 years.

Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

[TrumpCard]

When I attended Stanford many moons ago, the electives everyone wanted to take were Sleep and Dreams and HumSex. Those classes to some extent reflect the priorities of those long since passed days. Now I hear that people are flocking to Machine Learning. I mean, which would you find more fun?

[TrumpCard]

When I attended Stanford many moons ago, the electives everyone wanted to take were Sleep and Dreams and HumSex. Those classes to some extent reflect the priorities of those long since passed days. Now I hear that people are flocking to Machine Learning. I mean, which would you find more fun?

[JohnR34231]

Yeah, case in point, just last year with ZW.  Don't remember many thinking he was ready.

I definitely thought he was ready if he was drafted by the right team. And, sure enuf, he's been almost great for Memphis, especially when Brooks was out. I mostly blame Haase for the problems last year, though clearly covid had a crummy effect.

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.

And nor do I place any blame on the recruitment of Terry - no one thought he was a one-and-done (turns out, for good reason).  And that looked like one of the all-time great recruiting coups, on the assumption Terry would stay 3 years.

Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

I think for a kid who is going to college mainly to play sports, the time he has to spend on academics at Stanford might take a lot of the "fun" out of going to college for him. I remember when my son played at Air Force, the time he had to spend on sports and academics left him without a lot of time for anything else. My wife told him to take some easy courses during football season. He said "Mom, there are no easy courses at Air Force".
When I was at Stanford there were some easy courses. Wonder if that still is the case.

[JohnR34231]

Yeah, case in point, just last year with ZW.  Don't remember many thinking he was ready.

I definitely thought he was ready if he was drafted by the right team. And, sure enuf, he's been almost great for Memphis, especially when Brooks was out. I mostly blame Haase for the problems last year, though clearly covid had a crummy effect.

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.

And nor do I place any blame on the recruitment of Terry - no one thought he was a one-and-done (turns out, for good reason).  And that looked like one of the all-time great recruiting coups, on the assumption Terry would stay 3 years.

Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

I think for a kid who is going to college mainly to play sports, the time he has to spend on academics at Stanford might take a lot of the "fun" out of going to college for him. I remember when my son played at Air Force, the time he had to spend on sports and academics left him without a lot of time for anything else. My wife told him to take some easy courses during football season. He said "Mom, there are no easy courses at Air Force".
When I was at Stanford there were some easy courses. Wonder if that still is the case.

[BillBradley]

Yeah, case in point, just last year with ZW.  Don't remember many thinking he was ready.

I definitely thought he was ready if he was drafted by the right team. And, sure enuf, he's been almost great for Memphis, especially when Brooks was out. I mostly blame Haase for the problems last year, though clearly covid had a crummy effect.

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.

And nor do I place any blame on the recruitment of Terry - no one thought he was a one-and-done (turns out, for good reason).  And that looked like one of the all-time great recruiting coups, on the assumption Terry would stay 3 years.

Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

Wholeheartedly agree with all of this Teejers. I believe accountability does reflect on the coach and part of the problem of Stanford's men's team is they just don't leave it all out there. I'm not just talking about effort.  I'm talking about competing.

[BillBradley]

Yeah, case in point, just last year with ZW.  Don't remember many thinking he was ready.

I definitely thought he was ready if he was drafted by the right team. And, sure enuf, he's been almost great for Memphis, especially when Brooks was out. I mostly blame Haase for the problems last year, though clearly covid had a crummy effect.

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.

And nor do I place any blame on the recruitment of Terry - no one thought he was a one-and-done (turns out, for good reason).  And that looked like one of the all-time great recruiting coups, on the assumption Terry would stay 3 years.

Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

Wholeheartedly agree with all of this Teejers. I believe accountability does reflect on the coach and part of the problem of Stanford's men's team is they just don't leave it all out there. I'm not just talking about effort.  I'm talking about competing.

[Goose]

I think for a kid who is going to college mainly to play sports, the time he has to spend on academics at Stanford might take a lot of the "fun" out of going to college for him. I remember when my son played at Air Force, the time he had to spend on sports and academics left him without a lot of time for anything else. My wife told him to take some easy courses during football season. He said "Mom, there are no easy courses at Air Force".
When I was at Stanford there were some easy courses. Wonder if that still is the case.

I am sure there are some "easy" courses at Stanford, as I am sure there are some at Air Force. The problem is that if you want to complete your major and graduate at either of these places, the number of easy courses you can take is very limited. A "one and done" doesn't care about that, so I don't see how academics could be the issue. I think the real problem is that if you are a "one and done" you really want to be a "zero and gone". There is no real reason for you to be in school. It may just take you a year to figure out that is the case.

[Goose]

I think for a kid who is going to college mainly to play sports, the time he has to spend on academics at Stanford might take a lot of the "fun" out of going to college for him. I remember when my son played at Air Force, the time he had to spend on sports and academics left him without a lot of time for anything else. My wife told him to take some easy courses during football season. He said "Mom, there are no easy courses at Air Force".
When I was at Stanford there were some easy courses. Wonder if that still is the case.

I am sure there are some "easy" courses at Stanford, as I am sure there are some at Air Force. The problem is that if you want to complete your major and graduate at either of these places, the number of easy courses you can take is very limited. A "one and done" doesn't care about that, so I don't see how academics could be the issue. I think the real problem is that if you are a "one and done" you really want to be a "zero and gone". There is no real reason for you to be in school. It may just take you a year to figure out that is the case.

[old spanish trail]

Yeah, case in point, just last year with ZW.  Don't remember many thinking he was ready.

I definitely thought he was ready if he was drafted by the right team. And, sure enuf, he's been almost great for Memphis, especially when Brooks was out. I mostly blame Haase for the problems last year, though clearly covid had a crummy effect.

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.

And nor do I place any blame on the recruitment of Terry - no one thought he was a one-and-done (turns out, for good reason).  And that looked like one of the all-time great recruiting coups, on the assumption Terry would stay 3 years.

Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

I think I recall reading that his uncle was like a father/or helped raise him and he was unusually close to him. We would have expected him to attend his father's funeral and I thought at the time this was similar. Plus, covid made everybody crazy according to a doctor friend.

[old spanish trail]

Yeah, case in point, just last year with ZW.  Don't remember many thinking he was ready.

I definitely thought he was ready if he was drafted by the right team. And, sure enuf, he's been almost great for Memphis, especially when Brooks was out. I mostly blame Haase for the problems last year, though clearly covid had a crummy effect.

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.

And nor do I place any blame on the recruitment of Terry - no one thought he was a one-and-done (turns out, for good reason).  And that looked like one of the all-time great recruiting coups, on the assumption Terry would stay 3 years.

Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

I think I recall reading that his uncle was like a father/or helped raise him and he was unusually close to him. We would have expected him to attend his father's funeral and I thought at the time this was similar. Plus, covid made everybody crazy according to a doctor friend.

[BostonCard]

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.
…
Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

I am very confused about your comment.  If an employee came to you and requested urgent leave to attend an uncle’s funeral, am I really to believe that you would think that says something negative about their character? And then, if that employee were to leave after a year for a new opportunity, do you really think it says nothing about the person who hired him, because you’ve concluded (based on the above) that the person lacked maturity, so it didn’t reflect poorly on the hiring manager?  Ironically, in the end, I don’t completely disagree with you; the decisions of a single player, especially during a pandemically screwed up year, would not lead me to cast a broad conclusion on the coach.

I mean, Trent Johnson contended with the fact that the Lopez brothers didn’t he’d practice to go to Disneyland (https://www.netsdaily.com/2015/10/7/9470...Disneyland).  That is completely irrelevant to the fact that they then left for the NBA draft, and certainly wouldn’t make me judge the coach differently.  The Lopez twins were major contributors while they were here, Johnson’s tenure as coach, while not an unabashed success, certainly has aged a lot better after seeing what his two successors have done.  I don’t judge Johnson harshly because the twins left early, so whether they were or were not immature (*narrator* clearly, they were immature; their own former teammate calls them boys in 7 foot bodies) is irrelevant to that assessment.

But, let’s say that the Lopez twins had, during their time at Stanford, been chronic underachievers, who were constantly getting into trouble, playing well below potential, and that Stanford floundered during their time here, before they left to the NBA early.  Yes, we might point to them having been immature. But isn’t it the coach’s job to recruit players who have the maturity to be team contributors?  If their personal foibles start affecting the team, isn’t it the coach’s job to coach them to get their proverbial heads out of their rears?

In the end, I do agree with your conclusion, that it is hard to judge Williams given all the other stuff that was going on.  And certainly, had he been a single outlier, Haase could totally be forgiven.  But the list of significant contributors who bailed on the Stanford program (especially those who did so before getting a degree when they were in a position to contribute significantly to the program) is quite damning, and suggests problems deeper than playing time or money.

In the end, of course, the results speak for themselves, and if Ingram leaves for NBA and Taitz follows through on his transfer, I expect an epically bad result for Stanford next year.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.
…
Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

I am very confused about your comment.  If an employee came to you and requested urgent leave to attend an uncle’s funeral, am I really to believe that you would think that says something negative about their character? And then, if that employee were to leave after a year for a new opportunity, do you really think it says nothing about the person who hired him, because you’ve concluded (based on the above) that the person lacked maturity, so it didn’t reflect poorly on the hiring manager?  Ironically, in the end, I don’t completely disagree with you; the decisions of a single player, especially during a pandemically screwed up year, would not lead me to cast a broad conclusion on the coach.

I mean, Trent Johnson contended with the fact that the Lopez brothers didn’t he’d practice to go to Disneyland (https://www.netsdaily.com/2015/10/7/9470...Disneyland).  That is completely irrelevant to the fact that they then left for the NBA draft, and certainly wouldn’t make me judge the coach differently.  The Lopez twins were major contributors while they were here, Johnson’s tenure as coach, while not an unabashed success, certainly has aged a lot better after seeing what his two successors have done.  I don’t judge Johnson harshly because the twins left early, so whether they were or were not immature (*narrator* clearly, they were immature; their own former teammate calls them boys in 7 foot bodies) is irrelevant to that assessment.

But, let’s say that the Lopez twins had, during their time at Stanford, been chronic underachievers, who were constantly getting into trouble, playing well below potential, and that Stanford floundered during their time here, before they left to the NBA early.  Yes, we might point to them having been immature. But isn’t it the coach’s job to recruit players who have the maturity to be team contributors?  If their personal foibles start affecting the team, isn’t it the coach’s job to coach them to get their proverbial heads out of their rears?

In the end, I do agree with your conclusion, that it is hard to judge Williams given all the other stuff that was going on.  And certainly, had he been a single outlier, Haase could totally be forgiven.  But the list of significant contributors who bailed on the Stanford program (especially those who did so before getting a degree when they were in a position to contribute significantly to the program) is quite damning, and suggests problems deeper than playing time or money.

In the end, of course, the results speak for themselves, and if Ingram leaves for NBA and Taitz follows through on his transfer, I expect an epically bad result for Stanford next year.

BC

[teejers1]

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.
…
Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

I am very confused about your comment.  If an employee came to you and requested urgent leave to attend an uncle’s funeral, am I really to believe that you would think that says something negative about their character? And then, if that employee were to leave after a year for a new opportunity, do you really think it says nothing about the person who hired him, because you’ve concluded (based on the above) that the person lacked maturity, so it didn’t reflect poorly on the hiring manager?  Ironically, in the end, I don’t completely disagree with you; the decisions of a single player, especially during a pandemically screwed up year, would not lead me to cast a broad conclusion on the coach.

I mean, Trent Johnson contended with the fact that the Lopez brothers didn’t he’d practice to go to Disneyland (https://www.netsdaily.com/2015/10/7/9470...Disneyland).  That is completely irrelevant to the fact that they then left for the NBA draft, and certainly wouldn’t make me judge the coach differently.  The Lopez twins were major contributors while they were here, Johnson’s tenure as coach, while not an unabashed success, certainly has aged a lot better after seeing what his two successors have done.  I don’t judge Johnson harshly because the twins left early, so whether they were or were not immature (*narrator* clearly, they were immature; their own former teammate calls them boys in 7 foot bodies) is irrelevant to that assessment.

But, let’s say that the Lopez twins had, during their time at Stanford, been chronic underachievers, who were constantly getting into trouble, playing well below potential, and that Stanford floundered during their time here, before they left to the NBA early.  Yes, we might point to them having been immature. But isn’t it the coach’s job to recruit players who have the maturity to be team contributors?  If their personal foibles start affecting the team, isn’t it the coach’s job to coach them to get their proverbial heads out of their rears?

In the end, I do agree with your conclusion, that it is hard to judge Williams given all the other stuff that was going on.  And certainly, had he been a single outlier, Haase could totally be forgiven.  But the list of significant contributors who bailed on the Stanford program (especially those who did so before getting a degree when they were in a position to contribute significantly to the program) is quite damning, and suggests problems deeper than playing time or money.

In the end, of course, the results speak for themselves, and if Ingram leaves for NBA and Taitz follows through on his transfer, I expect an epically bad result for Stanford next year.

BC

I read your whole post and am not sure where we disagree - I said, at bottom, departures reflect poorly on the coach and that this certainly applies to Haase.

If the disagreement pertains to Williams, then I'm not sure there is much more that needs to be said.  You have your views of the validity of his absences (presumably including length of absences, the rationale for same, and reports on what he was doing in SoCal while mourning the loss of family members) - and how that reflects on his commitment to the program for which he was given admission to Stanford University; and I have mine.  And although I didn't use the word "character" - you did - I don't really object to folding that into the analysis.  We just disagree on the conclusions to draw from the information we have.

That's fine.

[teejers1]

Interesting.  Of all the departures from the program under Haase, I think the Williams fiasco is the one he is least at fault for, based on one simple reason:  when I played HS ball, it would never cross my mind to miss a game (let alone multiple games) for an uncle's funeral(s).  Nor do I think my parents would have wanted, let alone expected, that.  And this from a passable (not great) HS player - not a scholarship, D1 athlete who is attending college based on hoops prowess.  Those bails by Williams told me enough about the kid's maturity and/or commitment to team.  There rally was very little of that.
…
Having said that, I've always believed that kids bailing on a sports program reflects poorly on the coach, and that certainly applies to Haase.  As I've said on TOS, I'm also wondering if Stanford University isn't as much fun to attend these days as it was in olden times.  I mean, if the kids "loved being at Stanford," then we wouldn't see so many bails from our major programs . . . would we?

I am very confused about your comment.  If an employee came to you and requested urgent leave to attend an uncle’s funeral, am I really to believe that you would think that says something negative about their character? And then, if that employee were to leave after a year for a new opportunity, do you really think it says nothing about the person who hired him, because you’ve concluded (based on the above) that the person lacked maturity, so it didn’t reflect poorly on the hiring manager?  Ironically, in the end, I don’t completely disagree with you; the decisions of a single player, especially during a pandemically screwed up year, would not lead me to cast a broad conclusion on the coach.

I mean, Trent Johnson contended with the fact that the Lopez brothers didn’t he’d practice to go to Disneyland (https://www.netsdaily.com/2015/10/7/9470...Disneyland).  That is completely irrelevant to the fact that they then left for the NBA draft, and certainly wouldn’t make me judge the coach differently.  The Lopez twins were major contributors while they were here, Johnson’s tenure as coach, while not an unabashed success, certainly has aged a lot better after seeing what his two successors have done.  I don’t judge Johnson harshly because the twins left early, so whether they were or were not immature (*narrator* clearly, they were immature; their own former teammate calls them boys in 7 foot bodies) is irrelevant to that assessment.

But, let’s say that the Lopez twins had, during their time at Stanford, been chronic underachievers, who were constantly getting into trouble, playing well below potential, and that Stanford floundered during their time here, before they left to the NBA early.  Yes, we might point to them having been immature. But isn’t it the coach’s job to recruit players who have the maturity to be team contributors?  If their personal foibles start affecting the team, isn’t it the coach’s job to coach them to get their proverbial heads out of their rears?

In the end, I do agree with your conclusion, that it is hard to judge Williams given all the other stuff that was going on.  And certainly, had he been a single outlier, Haase could totally be forgiven.  But the list of significant contributors who bailed on the Stanford program (especially those who did so before getting a degree when they were in a position to contribute significantly to the program) is quite damning, and suggests problems deeper than playing time or money.

In the end, of course, the results speak for themselves, and if Ingram leaves for NBA and Taitz follows through on his transfer, I expect an epically bad result for Stanford next year.

BC

I read your whole post and am not sure where we disagree - I said, at bottom, departures reflect poorly on the coach and that this certainly applies to Haase.

If the disagreement pertains to Williams, then I'm not sure there is much more that needs to be said.  You have your views of the validity of his absences (presumably including length of absences, the rationale for same, and reports on what he was doing in SoCal while mourning the loss of family members) - and how that reflects on his commitment to the program for which he was given admission to Stanford University; and I have mine.  And although I didn't use the word "character" - you did - I don't really object to folding that into the analysis.  We just disagree on the conclusions to draw from the information we have.

That's fine.

[fullmetal]

Ingram will probably get the word from the NBA to return for another season, but even if he knows this, he ought to go through the process, meet the scouts, really internalize the need to improve, and get ready to take a real shot after next season or the one after.  Getting a dry run through the first part of the draft process is a great way to get a leg up next time.  

Now, if he slacks off in his coursework this quarter...then we know we're in trouble.

[fullmetal]

Ingram will probably get the word from the NBA to return for another season, but even if he knows this, he ought to go through the process, meet the scouts, really internalize the need to improve, and get ready to take a real shot after next season or the one after.  Getting a dry run through the first part of the draft process is a great way to get a leg up next time.  

Now, if he slacks off in his coursework this quarter...then we know we're in trouble.

[Phogge]

If he doesn't go pro there is always the transfer portal.

[Phogge]

If he doesn't go pro there is always the transfer portal.

[BostonCard]

Did I miss something in the Williams story? I wasn’t aware that he had done anything at the funeral? I always thought that the length of the absence was due to the COVID protocols in place at the time, but it is entirely possible that I don’t have the whole story?

Also, note that he had two uncles die during the season.

BC

[BostonCard]

Did I miss something in the Williams story? I wasn’t aware that he had done anything at the funeral? I always thought that the length of the absence was due to the COVID protocols in place at the time, but it is entirely possible that I don’t have the whole story?

Also, note that he had two uncles die during the season.

BC

[gailtate]

When I attended Stanford many moons ago, the electives everyone wanted to take were Sleep and Dreams and HumSex. Those classes to some extent reflect the priorities of those long since passed days. Now I hear that people are flocking to Machine Learning. I mean, which would you find more fun?

"...Now I hear that people are flocking to Machine Learning."  Hah! Can't wait to read Phogge's take on this.

[gailtate]

When I attended Stanford many moons ago, the electives everyone wanted to take were Sleep and Dreams and HumSex. Those classes to some extent reflect the priorities of those long since passed days. Now I hear that people are flocking to Machine Learning. I mean, which would you find more fun?

"...Now I hear that people are flocking to Machine Learning."  Hah! Can't wait to read Phogge's take on this.

[Phogge]

We had several Sleep and Dreams classes at Lake Merced... Health Ed 123, Doctor Basham, beautiful married lady however sleep inducing. Three units, mostly athletes. All we had to do was submit six abstracts. Absolutely no thinking so we could dream about Joanie the Surfer sitting in the second row.

I don’t think we had Sexhum but I would have signed up.

Machine Learning? I knew some robot coeds but they were all in one sorority.

[Phogge]

We had several Sleep and Dreams classes at Lake Merced... Health Ed 123, Doctor Basham, beautiful married lady however sleep inducing. Three units, mostly athletes. All we had to do was submit six abstracts. Absolutely no thinking so we could dream about Joanie the Surfer sitting in the second row.

I don’t think we had Sexhum but I would have signed up.

Machine Learning? I knew some robot coeds but they were all in one sorority.