Stanford was years late firing coach Jerod Haase but acted swiftly when it finally made the move.
The season ended a few minutes after 8 p.m. on Thursday night, with a loss to Washington State in the quarterfinals of the Pac-12 tournament.
By 8:14, the school had distributed an email announcing the coaching change.
The timing and circumstances produced two immediate questions:
Will the coach who sent Stanford packing, WSU’s Kyle Smith, be leading the Cardinal when it heads into the ACC next fall?
Will athletic director Bernard Muir, who announced the change, have sole authority over the search for Haase’s replacement?
After all, Muir hired Haase in the spring of 2016 and proclaimed: “I have no doubt that Jerod will soon lead our program to Pac-12 championships and that we will be a regular participant in the NCAA tournament.”
Neither of those things happened. Stanford never came close to a Pac-12 title (regular season or conference tournament) during Haase’s eight-year tenure, and it never reached the NCAAs.
Muir could have made a change two years ago, when stagnation was evident to anyone who cared to look, but he declined.
Muir should have made a change last spring, when the Cardinal finished 10th in the conference race and could have hired former star Mark Madsen to take charge of the program, but he declined.
Instead, Madsen accepted Cal’s offer and promptly reinvigorated Stanford’s rival.
During its long, steady fade to irrelevance, Cardinal basketball became a haven for excuses: Players left early for the NBA Draft; players got injured; players were young; the transfer portal was problematic; NIL (name, image and likeness) was a challenge. Something was forever preventing Stanford from ascending to the heights promised upon Haase’s appointment.
Anywhere else, a coaching change would have been made years ago.
But that’s the ugly truth for Stanford, isn’t it? The past 16 years of mediocrity — first during Johnny Dawkins’ eight underwhelming seasons, then under Haase — produced a well of apathy so deep that it removed any pressure on Muir to make a change. Until now.
Will he alone make the call on Haase’s successor? Or might Muir turn to former Stanford coach Mike Montgomery for counsel? Montgomery advised Cal on the Madsen hire and, obviously, got that one right. Will Muir discuss the process with former Stanford players? Or will he lean on the same inner circle that pointed him to Haase in the spring of 2016?
(Muir did not hire Dawkins; that mistake can be traced to former athletic director Bob Bowlsby.)
And what role, if any, will Condoleezza Rice play in the process? The former university provost assisted Stanford with its move into the ACC last summer, according to sources, and has remained influential in athletic department matters.
Which brings us back to the first question posed above: Is Smith a suitable option?
In theory, Muir is well into the process. You don’t dismiss a head coach nine minutes after the season finale on a whim — the decision was likely made weeks ago.
Also, the football coaching search conducted 15 months ago will surely help Muir identify the necessary attributes to navigate the complex university culture and lead the basketball program.
That it was Smith who ushered Haase out the door merely adds a layer of intrigue, for his background and acumen seemingly fit the Stanford model.
Smith graduated from Hamilton, a well-regarded, small private school in upstate New York. He worked for Randy Bennett, the brilliant architect of Saint Mary’s success, then spent six years as a head coach in the Ivy League, leading Columbia to two 20-win seasons.
From there, Smith took charge of a private school in the Bay Area and ripped off 63 wins in three years at San Francisco before WSU wisely hired him in March 2019.
His first season was spent cleaning up the mess he inherited; the second, dealing with the pandemic. But five years into his tenure, on the eve of Selection Sunday, the Cougars have 24 wins and an NCAA Tournament berth secured despite all their intrinsic challenges with geography, resources and talent acquisition.
Even Smith’s style of play fits the Stanford model: It’s known across the basketball world as Nerdball.
At the very least, Smith warrants a spot on the Cardinal’s short list — if, of course, he’s willing to consider the position.
Smith is one of the hottest commodities on the market this spring, and vacancies are surfacing everywhere. Michigan needs a coach. So do Louisville and Oklahoma State. And Vanderbilt, West Virginia and Washington.
If not Smith, where might Stanford turn?
Instead of hiring from the Mike Krzyzewski coaching tree (Dawkins) or the Roy Williams coaching tree (Haase), the Cardinal could consider someone connected to the halcyon years of the Montgomery era.
Several former Stanford players and assistants have been head coaches; others have remained active in the basketball world.
Or Stanford could target a rising talent in the coaching realm, the 2024 version of Smith during his tenure at San Francisco.
Colgate’s Matt Langel comes to mind — all he’s done is lead the Raiders to four consecutive NCAA Tournament berths through the Patriot League.
There are other names available, and the intent here is not to provide a breakdown of six, eight or 10 options. Instead, it’s to highlight one candidate who should be top-of-mind for Stanford fans and lend context to the hiring process.
Whether Muir alone makes the call or others are involved, he’s on the clock to get it right this time.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on Twitter/X: @WilnerHotline
*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.
An earlier version of this story misidentified the college Kyle Smith attended. He went to Hamilton.
