The CardBoard
Dawkins - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Dawkins (/thread-8965.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Only one thing counts - Redrum - 03-15-2015

After all the analysis, is Bernard Muir the kind of leader who will act before it's so effing obvious to everybody...or, is he able and confident enough to make a change?  He is the chokepoint.  Anything in his past to indicate a decisive executive mindset either for for good or for ill?

Re: Dawkins - Farm93 - 03-15-2015

(03-15-2015, 10:05 AM)terry link Wrote:If you folks want Muir to do something, shouldn't you go directly to Muir?

athleticdirector@stanford.edu

I like to think he is busy looking for another coach already.  No need to distract him from the task.  Besides, I understand that for Stanford University there are voting "A" shares and non-voting "B" shares.  So I really am hoping the members of the voting "A" share community have seen the light.

Great Coach - Just not a great coach for Stanford.  Not him, us.
Dawkins' best chance to get to a Final Four in the next 5 years would be for him to be let go from Stanford today.  Relationship is just not working, better for everyone to move on.

Re: Dawkins - BobK - 03-15-2015

I'll say again the 4-5 hires by Muir this far have been better than the previous except SB which remains unknow with the loss of our top pitcher
 
4-5 as one coach could have been hired after Bowlsby before Muir.  So Red why were those hires bad ?

Re: Dawkins - yvonne - 03-15-2015

I agree with Terry. If you want Muir to do something, you should speak with him. So what if you hold only B shares? Managers understand large numbers of B shares, just as they understand a few A shares. If you feel strongly about something and just post here, you're not effecting change, you're just yapping on a message board. Just BE CIVIL and polite!

Re: Dawkins - Farm93 - 03-15-2015

(03-15-2015, 10:19 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:I agree with Terry. If you want Muir to do something, you should speak with him. So what if you hold only B shares? Managers understand large numbers of B shares, just as they understand a few A shares. If you feel strongly about something and just post here, you're not effecting change, you're just yapping on a message board. Just BE CIVIL and polite!

I voted a long time ago.  Mention something every season I get one of those lovely, "Would you consider season tickets this year?"  My position on this issue is certainly already in the AD realm.  If you will, I expressed my preferences as a non-voting shareholder already.  Clearly I am not a swing vote there.

The non-binding world here is lovely enough.  My concern for Stanford hoops is already so low, that a letter to Muir would imply a level of interest in Stanford Hoops that is no longer present.

Re: Dawkins - Leftcoast - 03-15-2015

Fifteen years ago Stanford basketball prospered through a combination of an excellent coach, strong basketball identity and  a backbone of blue collar, hard nosed recruits drawn to the program each year.  When we sprinkled in the occasional McDonalds All-American in the mid to late 90s the base was in place to lift the program to greatness.  This recipe WORKED for 15 years during which Maples was hopping and NCAA appearances were a given on opening day.  Stanford was routinely mentioned as a contender to join the basketball pantheon of elite programs.  Maples was listed as one of the toughest venues to win at in College ball and, heck, even the Tree was on Sports Center for either scuffling with Oski or being on both the top 10 most loved AND most hated mascots in the same year.

We've managed to squander this Montgomery era capital and let our winning recipe fall into disuse.  I don't believe recruits know what Stanford's identity IS anymore but it doesn't have to stay this way.  I see no reason the Montgomery recipe won't work  if we dust it off and put the proper ingredients back in place.  Numbers work for us.  Basketball takes fewer great players to succeed than football and Stanford has proven it can play the basketball recruiting game under Dawkins even when we aren't very focused on what type of players fit us.

Earlier in this thread someone said the basketball world has changed and the old recipe doesn't work anymore.  I reject that although I understand what prompts that logic.  In my opinion the recipe hasn't failed, Stanford just no longer uses it.

I believe Stanford can still recruit the building block players, the Sauers, Moseleys and Knights we once brought in every year.  All hardworking players with a chip on their shoulders from being overlooked by the run-and-gun blue blood teams.  Remember the energy Brevin Knight brought to Stanford after being overlooked by his beloved Wake Forest?  Maybe we can't outplay Duke, Arizona and UCLA by playing Duke's style without Duke's recruits but we CAN establish a Stanford identity that will play deep into March.  (Think Stanford football playing power football and pro-sets in an era where stretch offenses and 5 wide receiver sets are the flavor of the day.)

Sad to say, but Stanford is now a fixer-upper that needs a coach willing to take on a distressed property.  But we still live in a good neighborhood and who else in the Pac 12 has grabbed our old identity (except perhaps Utah?).  If I am Muir than rebuilding this fixer-upper starts with reclaiming our old identity and adding a coach that "gets" Stanford and can build a team that fits who we can become.  This is something that Dawkins for all his admittedly admirable qualities hasn't shown he is willing to do in his 7 years in Palo Alto. 

I've been to one Final Four rooting for Stanford - Is it Dawkins that gets us back there?  If the answer is "No" for Muir than he knows what he needs to do.  Sure, change is risky and rebuilding efforts sometime fail but let's take that risk before we watch Stanford's real estate fortunes fall from run down/mediocre to condemned/irrelevant. 

Heck, maybe the Tree will even move up a weight class and get a rematch with Wilbur Wildcat after a dominating Stanford win at McKale.  Oh, the major and minor joys of renewed relevance.



How about... - Mick - 03-15-2015

...this guy?

http://www.ukathletics.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/payne_kenny00.html

or this guy?

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=205149556

or this guy?

http://www.villanova.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/baker_dunleavy_244177.html

Re: Dawkins - BobK - 03-15-2015

We have hired 2 assistants to be head coaches in the last 50 years.  Dawkins and di be as hole

Please no assistants and especially none with no academic background

Re: Dawkins - Mick - 03-15-2015

(03-15-2015, 02:15 PM)BobK link Wrote:We have hired 2 assistants to be head coaches in the last 50 years.  Dawkins and di be as hole

Please no assistants and especially none with no academic background

I think it's a bit much to draw a straight line inference based upon two examples.  But I like all three guys.

Capel was 175-110 as a head coach and coaches for Duke.  Leeetle bit of an academic background there.  And they're #2 in the country.

Baker Dunleavy's father was Mike Dunleavy, long time head NBA coach.  He is a young up and comer at Villanova, #4 in the country.  His brother is NBA player.  Villanova is a leeeetle bit academic.  He grew up in Oregon.  Or if you don't like Dunleavy, Associate Head Coach Billy Lange coached Navy for seven seasons.

Kenny Payne, great recruiter and developer of big men, well traveled.  #1 team in the country, spent six years in Pac-10 at Oregon.



Re: Dawkins - BobK - 03-15-2015

Do you think Dawkins understood Stanford's academic recruiting requirements after 12 or whatever to years at Duke?  Nope not close. 

Dunleavy's brother said no to Stanford as a player. 

Tom Davis was good Trent was good Monty was outstanding.  That's just 3 samples but all came from being head coaches.  We HS e only had 5 head coaches since Howie.   

Please Mir no one with a donor Connection
😀

Re: Dawkins - winflop - 03-15-2015

(03-15-2015, 10:05 AM)terry link Wrote:If you folks want Muir to do something, shouldn't you go directly to Muir?

athleticdirector@stanford.edu

I plan to and I will post my letter here.  And it will be polite and fact-based, just like the one I sent him two years ago.  But unlike some others who may have already done so (not necessarily members of this board), I am going to wait until the season is over to send it.  It's not fair to Muir, Dawkins, or the players to do otherwise.

Re: Dawkins - BobK - 03-15-2015

I sent mine.  But the possiblity of another Assistants scraes the heck outa me.

Here's a thought which I posted somewhere to include if you wish.  Stanford is due a summer trip this summer.  It would be a great starting point for a new coach to be with his new players and great for the recruits coming in to be with the new coach.  :)

Re: Dawkins - terry - 03-15-2015

(03-15-2015, 10:05 AM)terry link Wrote:If you folks want Muir to do something, shouldn't you go directly to Muir?

athleticdirector@stanford.edu

Contact info for those who want to contact Muir by other methods:

(650) 723-4596

Department of Athletics
Stanford University
Arrillaga Family Sports Center
641 East Campus Drive
Stanford, CA 94305-6150

Re: Dawkins - DenverCard - 03-15-2015

Although I dimly recall some discussions about Dawkins' assistant coaches in the past, I don't remember the details.  As one who values the way in which Dawkins always comes across as such a good man, which I think must be a tremendous attribute in recruiting (not to mention its value, period), I wonder why assistant coaches can't be found to compensate for his weaknesses.  Seems he could find one or two coaches who would focus on X's and O's/offensive strategy, and perhaps another with the personality to stir up emotions when needed.

While I'm not nearly enough of an expert to have an informed opinion about the quality of the Stanford brand of basketball, I do get the impression that other teams -- well, some of them -- have a much better sense of what they are trying to do with each possession.  However,  I'm too fond of Dawkins the man as I see him to be willing to try to get him fired.

Re: Dawkins - Langdude - 03-16-2015

I'm sorry to say this, but I just don't think that Dawkins is going anywhere. I wish he was, but I doubt it. Not after that extension. I would love to be wrong on this.

Monty looks like a better and better coach all the time. Not only was he a great teacher who got his players to overachieve, but he also had a plan that he methodically executed over the years, recruiting a certain sort of player for a certain style of basketball. I wish that we would have capitalized on our success a bit more in some of those recruiting classes under Montgomery, but I think we did about as well as we could. He established a culture. What is the culture of Stanford basketball right now? Scrappy?

-m.

Re: Dawkins - 81alum - 03-16-2015

I was an avid MBB fan in the Monty days, kept it up under Trent, but then lost interest and have been unable to get it back.  I cannot say I have followed the team closely enough to diagnose the problems with the coaching, but I can say that every time I have tried to reclaim my old interest levels I have failed.  The games are not all that interesting when we win, and of course we lose a lot more than we used to. 

Maybe some of this is expectations.  When Monty came on board MBB was so incredibly bad that having mediocre seasons like we have recently been having seemed positively uplifting.  But the truth of the matter is that Monty got the team to the point where it contended for league championships and went to the NCAAs with some regularity.  Yes, his players were overachievers--but that is a mark of good coaching, as opposed to what we seem to have now--underachievers.

Re: Dawkins - OutsiderFan - 03-16-2015

This isn't that complicated, is it?  You set the expectation or standard or performance.  Give the coach 4-5 years to meet it.  If he doesn't, you replace him with someone else.  If the next one meets the standard you try to retain him.  If he doesn't, you replace him too.  Rinse, repeat until you get the right guy.

I really don't think one NCAA tournament appearance in seven seasons is Stanford's standard or performance, so keeping Dawkins for another year sends a clear message that winning just isn't that important in the hoops program. 



Re: Dawkins - Cowboy1 - 03-16-2015

I'm sure glad someone cares enough to write a letter.  I lost interest years ago.

My guess as how Muir could view it - Redrum - 03-16-2015

Last year, NCAA tourney.  This year NIT. Two previous years NIT including one championship. Ergo: We are a consistent postseason tournament team with lots of potential upside.  The phrasing or framing "postseason tournament" makes it seem more accomplished than it is.

We feel urgency in the need to change  He could look at it as a solid "floor" below which we don't fall.  Of course, fans see it as a minimum acceptable standard of performance above which Stanford/ Dawkins seldom rises.

Re: My guess as how Muir could view it - JohnR34231 - 03-16-2015

(03-16-2015, 09:48 AM)Redrum link Wrote:Last year, NCAA tourney.  This year NIT. Two previous years NIT including one championship. Ergo: We are a consistent postseason tournament team with lots of potential upside.  The phrasing or framing "postseason tournament" makes it seem more accomplished than it is.

We feel urgency in the need to change  He could look at it as a solid "floor" below which we don't fall.  Of course, fans see it as a minimum acceptable standard of performance above which Stanford/ Dawkins seldom rises.

Yep, my guess would be that if Muir sees the performance of the last 3-4 years as a problem at all, he sees it as a much less dire one than the fans do. With the sweet 16 appearance of last year, Dawkins bought himself at least another couple of years, short of a total disaster (which this season wasn't).