Sources report: Dawkins out - 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: Sources report: Dawkins out (/thread-11721.html)
+- 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: Sources report: Dawkins out (/thread-11721.html)
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - winflop - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 04:38 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
If Stanford won the NIT next year, I would see it as a step in the right direction. There's a big difference winning the NIT in your first or second season vs your 7th.
Also, don't forget that even Dawkins' biggest critics here (like me) gave him a pass on the first two seasons. The next coach will get the same.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - winflop - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 04:38 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
If Stanford won the NIT next year, I would see it as a step in the right direction. There's a big difference winning the NIT in your first or second season vs your 7th.
Also, don't forget that even Dawkins' biggest critics here (like me) gave him a pass on the first two seasons. The next coach will get the same.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - BostonCard - 03-14-2016
OK, I will be the contrarian...
I think we have the talent needed to make the NCAA tournament next year. I won't be calling for our next coach's head if he doesn't get there, but I will be a bit disappointed.
BC
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - BostonCard - 03-14-2016
OK, I will be the contrarian...
I think we have the talent needed to make the NCAA tournament next year. I won't be calling for our next coach's head if he doesn't get there, but I will be a bit disappointed.
BC
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 2006alum - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 07:00 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:OK, I will be the contrarian...
I think we have the talent needed to make the NCAA tournament next year. I won't be calling for our next coach's head if he doesn't get there, but I will be a bit disappointed.
BC
Same. But I also feel this way because, frankly, we should be disappointed every year we don't make the tournament! Given our roster, I think we have a ton of upside potential next year.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 2006alum - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 07:00 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:OK, I will be the contrarian...
I think we have the talent needed to make the NCAA tournament next year. I won't be calling for our next coach's head if he doesn't get there, but I will be a bit disappointed.
BC
Same. But I also feel this way because, frankly, we should be disappointed every year we don't make the tournament! Given our roster, I think we have a ton of upside potential next year.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - stanfan - 03-14-2016
With all due respect, I don't think head coaching experience should be a make or break criterion. While success as a head coach may provide some comfort about a hire, I think coaching talent and extensive coaching experience are more critical. While the examples are obviously from a different sport, we had pretty good luck hiring a couple of guys named Walsh and Shaw. I do not believe either of them had head coaching experience before they were hired as head coaches at the Farm. Unfortunately for us and for him, JD did not make a successful transition from assistant to head coach, but I believe there are many "successful" head coaches who would bomb at Stanford
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - stanfan - 03-14-2016
With all due respect, I don't think head coaching experience should be a make or break criterion. While success as a head coach may provide some comfort about a hire, I think coaching talent and extensive coaching experience are more critical. While the examples are obviously from a different sport, we had pretty good luck hiring a couple of guys named Walsh and Shaw. I do not believe either of them had head coaching experience before they were hired as head coaches at the Farm. Unfortunately for us and for him, JD did not make a successful transition from assistant to head coach, but I believe there are many "successful" head coaches who would bomb at Stanford
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - BostonCard - 03-14-2016
Bill Walsh coached the San Jose Apaches from the CFL for a year. Also, Walsh would have likely been hired as an NFL head coach had it not been for Paul Brown sabotaging his career.
I also think football is different than basketball. By virtue of the sheer number of players, head coaches in football have to delegate much more responsibility to assistants.
BC
P.S. Tyrone Willingham was another coach who went from assistant (not even coordinator) to become a successful Stanford coach.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - BostonCard - 03-14-2016
Bill Walsh coached the San Jose Apaches from the CFL for a year. Also, Walsh would have likely been hired as an NFL head coach had it not been for Paul Brown sabotaging his career.
I also think football is different than basketball. By virtue of the sheer number of players, head coaches in football have to delegate much more responsibility to assistants.
BC
P.S. Tyrone Willingham was another coach who went from assistant (not even coordinator) to become a successful Stanford coach.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 76lsjumb - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 06:44 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
...even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
Oh, come on. We get it: you think everyone else except you has unrealistic expectations. But what you said here is ridiculous. I obviously don't speak for everyone here, but as far as I'm concerned, an NIT championship next year wouldn't be a bad outcome at all, and would be far from a complete failure.
Yes, given the program Dawkins inherited, an NIT championship was a failure. But thanks to the damage that the Dawkins era has done, his successor will inherit a much weaker program. And from that starting point, an NIT championship isn't a bad first year.
[/quote]
If Dawkins had not been fired, and this same group of players, coached by Dawkins as opposed to whomever will be coaching them next year, had once again failed to make the NCAA and, instead, won the NIT for the 3rd time, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 99% of the people on this Board would have been denouncing the season as a failure, since, as winflop said, "success and NIT" cannot be used in the same sentence. So, as a matter of logic, explain to me how that same group of players -- with a different coach -- would be a good first year? It's the EXACT SAME TEAM [unless, of course, there are injuries...but that's no excuse, right?]. After all, it's not as if we're losing the Lopez twins and our top recruit.
Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?
Now, I fully expect the new coach to do better next year than Dawkins would have done, because, as someone else has said already "Stanford basketball is exciting again" -- despite the fact that the only difference between today and yesterday is that we don't have a head coach now. Honestly, if Dawkins had been back next season and won his first 10 games, people would STILL not be going to the home games and would have STILL been openly skeptical about the conference season. With that weight lifted off of the players, it is virtually certain that the results are going to improve. Nevertheless, if the new coach doesn't have a trajectory of success that is steeper and faster than Monty's, people are going to complain. Guaranteed.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 76lsjumb - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 06:44 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
...even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
Oh, come on. We get it: you think everyone else except you has unrealistic expectations. But what you said here is ridiculous. I obviously don't speak for everyone here, but as far as I'm concerned, an NIT championship next year wouldn't be a bad outcome at all, and would be far from a complete failure.
Yes, given the program Dawkins inherited, an NIT championship was a failure. But thanks to the damage that the Dawkins era has done, his successor will inherit a much weaker program. And from that starting point, an NIT championship isn't a bad first year.
[/quote]
If Dawkins had not been fired, and this same group of players, coached by Dawkins as opposed to whomever will be coaching them next year, had once again failed to make the NCAA and, instead, won the NIT for the 3rd time, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 99% of the people on this Board would have been denouncing the season as a failure, since, as winflop said, "success and NIT" cannot be used in the same sentence. So, as a matter of logic, explain to me how that same group of players -- with a different coach -- would be a good first year? It's the EXACT SAME TEAM [unless, of course, there are injuries...but that's no excuse, right?]. After all, it's not as if we're losing the Lopez twins and our top recruit.
Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?
Now, I fully expect the new coach to do better next year than Dawkins would have done, because, as someone else has said already "Stanford basketball is exciting again" -- despite the fact that the only difference between today and yesterday is that we don't have a head coach now. Honestly, if Dawkins had been back next season and won his first 10 games, people would STILL not be going to the home games and would have STILL been openly skeptical about the conference season. With that weight lifted off of the players, it is virtually certain that the results are going to improve. Nevertheless, if the new coach doesn't have a trajectory of success that is steeper and faster than Monty's, people are going to complain. Guaranteed.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 76lsjumb - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 06:57 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
Even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
If Stanford won the NIT next year, I would see it as a step in the right direction. There's a big difference winning the NIT in your first or second season vs your 7th.
[/quote]
So you're assuming we will be hiring someone with no head coaching experience? I'd be really surprised if that happened.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 76lsjumb - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 06:57 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
Even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
If Stanford won the NIT next year, I would see it as a step in the right direction. There's a big difference winning the NIT in your first or second season vs your 7th.
[/quote]
So you're assuming we will be hiring someone with no head coaching experience? I'd be really surprised if that happened.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 2006alum - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 07:46 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?
I think it's fair to assume a new coach has a steep learning curve to get to know the players, maximize their talents, figure out a school's culture, develop offensive and defensive schemes that work for the particular permutations on hand, etc. In other words, all other things equal, it's reasonable to think a new coach's team would perform worse in year 1 than a mediocre coach's same team in year 9.
I agree with you that it might seem nonsensical on the surface, but I also think most fans care more about trajectory and prospects for the future. I would have preferred Dawkins to have several years of 10-20 in the beginning but a 25-5 season at year 8. The problem with Dawkins was that in year one we went 18-13 (pre-CBI) with limited talent after the loss of the Lopi and seven years later we went 15-15 with far superior talent to that team. That doesn't provide much hope for the future, and it suggests the coach has plateaued in terms of his ability to succeed at a school.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 2006alum - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 07:46 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?
I think it's fair to assume a new coach has a steep learning curve to get to know the players, maximize their talents, figure out a school's culture, develop offensive and defensive schemes that work for the particular permutations on hand, etc. In other words, all other things equal, it's reasonable to think a new coach's team would perform worse in year 1 than a mediocre coach's same team in year 9.
I agree with you that it might seem nonsensical on the surface, but I also think most fans care more about trajectory and prospects for the future. I would have preferred Dawkins to have several years of 10-20 in the beginning but a 25-5 season at year 8. The problem with Dawkins was that in year one we went 18-13 (pre-CBI) with limited talent after the loss of the Lopi and seven years later we went 15-15 with far superior talent to that team. That doesn't provide much hope for the future, and it suggests the coach has plateaued in terms of his ability to succeed at a school.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 2006alum - 03-14-2016
Interestingly, Tara seems to disagree with the Board's collective wisdom:
Quote:"I don't believe they can hire a better man," said Tara VanDerveer, Stanford's hall of fame women's coach. "He is a class act in everything he does. He handled it better than I did. I was really upset."Per the Mercury.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - 2006alum - 03-14-2016
Interestingly, Tara seems to disagree with the Board's collective wisdom:
Quote:"I don't believe they can hire a better man," said Tara VanDerveer, Stanford's hall of fame women's coach. "He is a class act in everything he does. He handled it better than I did. I was really upset."Per the Mercury.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - washingtonismoney - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 08:10 PM)2006alum link Wrote:Interestingly, Tara seems to disagree with the Board's collective wisdom:Quote:"I don't believe they can hire a better man," said Tara VanDerveer, Stanford's hall of fame women's coach. "He is a class act in everything he does. He handled it better than I did. I was really upset."Per the Mercury.
She seems to be saying Dawkins is a good person. Which no one seems to disagree with here.
Re: Sources report: Dawkins out - washingtonismoney - 03-14-2016
(03-14-2016, 08:10 PM)2006alum link Wrote:Interestingly, Tara seems to disagree with the Board's collective wisdom:Quote:"I don't believe they can hire a better man," said Tara VanDerveer, Stanford's hall of fame women's coach. "He is a class act in everything he does. He handled it better than I did. I was really upset."Per the Mercury.
She seems to be saying Dawkins is a good person. Which no one seems to disagree with here.