The CardBoard
U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - 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: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 (/thread-4831.html)


Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - Farm93 - 02-15-2013

Sigh 

This is the team.  I almost would be willing to invest in the 6 or 7 year project as Dawkins learns to be a better coach, but I KNOW that even if that happens he would then be off to Duke just when we are set to harvest our multi-year investment.

Oh and by the way, I am not certain that Dawkins will ever be a good coach.  I am just certain that if he becomes a great coach he will then leave us for Duke.

Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - socalstanfan1 - 02-15-2013

I'm sure that coaches grow and develop, just as players do.  But I think, by this point, we would have a bit more of a hint that Dawkins was due for greatness, if that is in the cards.  I just don't see it.  What I see is a guy whose teams never really seem to develop over the course of the year (I was suckered in a bit by winning the NIT last year, but this year we seem right back at the same mediocre level). 

Really disappointing.

Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - Bruce Wang - 02-15-2013

Stanford has confirmed on its nickel what everybody in the ACC already knew.  Dawkins is not a head coach.  How else do you explain why he was an assistant for so long and never got a head coaching job?

Farm93 is right.  There was no real upside with Dawkins.  If he had success here, he would have left for a job with loose academic standards (like his former school).

We need a Shaw.  Somebody who played at Stanford, with emotional ties.  If only there was an assistant on the staff that fit that description . . .

Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - burger - 02-15-2013

We shot 4-12 on FTs--at home.  Enough said.

Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - OutsiderFan - 02-15-2013

I just looked at some box scores of the USC games.  Stanford lost by two at USC while shooting 61% FTs, and Owens missed three dunks to boot.  Last night they lost by one and shot a ghastly and unforgivable THIRTY THREE PERCENT (4-12) from the FT line in a one point loss.  I honestly don't know how anyone could stand to watch this team play.

Madsen as head coach?

Looks like one Bay Area Pac-12 men's hoops team has managed to regain some relevance by getting to 15-9 (7-5) with a beat down of UCLA last night, following wins against Arizona and Oregon.

I have been so uninterested in college hoops (given how uninspiring the Bay Area teams have been) that I have hardly seen either California or Stanford play this year.  Few would argue Monty is a superior coach to Dawkins, but who has more talent on its roster, California or Stanford?

Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - FarmBoy - 02-15-2013

I watched the first half. The last 10 minutes were a pathetic display of a stagnant offense where Bright or Randle would try to get Powell or Huestis in an isolation situation and let them try to create a shot. Powell was being double teamed and there was not movement to get an open man. I gave up when a USC player hit a 3 point shot just over half court to end the 1st half around midnight EST to go up a dozen or so at the half. I'm surprised it got close at the end.

I totally agree with garvin. No way did I think we were a "last four in" team with our weak resume agains the RPI top 50 and RPI in the 50s, but Lunardi saying it so gives credibility given his history of picking the field. There's no way we're going to run the table with the team we're fielding now. And even if we did, I don't think the resume is strong enough to warrant an invite. Hopefully the boys can pull off a conference tourney miracle.

On the topic of the wisdom on hiring Dawkins, I'm also in the camp that the only upside to hiring Dawkins was a few good years of performance IF he ended up being a decent head coach. He's East Coast royalty and would return to the ACC/Big East at the first opportunity, let alone the widely rumored agreement that he would take over from Coach K after he retired. I actually thought taking the Stanford job was a big risk for him, because there was more down side in failing at Stanford, where it's harder to succeed, than just waiting out Coach K's career and hoping to get the position without HC experience. It was always a red herring that his hiring made sense because winning at Duke could translate to winning at Stanford. Regardless, it's clear that Dawkins is not a good coach and is very unlikey to become a great coach.

If we're looking at former Stanford players as potential targets, would Nick Robinson be a more likely candidate than Madsen? Robinson stayed on the farm and coached under Trent Johnson. He has more experience in dealing with the admissions on the Farm and he has much more coaching experience, although I just checked out Southern Utah's performance this year and it hasn't been great.

I think a proven winner without Stanford ties will have to be the path forward.

Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - Farm93 - 02-15-2013

I agree, no need to have the next coach come from Stanford.  That is nice when you can get it, but should not be a job requirement.

However, I would prefer that the next coach not be a coach-in-waiting type at another BCS conference.  Also agree that the current coach is not going anywhere any time soon, unless of course Coach K has a major health or family issue that forces him into retirement.

Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - FarmBoy - 02-15-2013

I'm personally more hopeful that this season will close the books on Dawkins. While Dawkins was signed to an extension not long ago, there are no details about the buy-out clauses included. ANd Muir's basketball background would imply that would be an area of special attention in his regime. Last, seeing the value of football success must raise the bar for performance.

I'm curious to know how many winners of the NIT go on to play in the NCAA the year after. I would imagine that conversion rate would be pretty high. Our finals competition, Minnesota, looks like they'll probably make it (earlier in the season they were doing great but have slumped of late.) Owens was a great player, but I don't think you can excuse the lack of progress to his graduation. We should be better than last year, with all that was returning.

Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - Kathy - 02-15-2013

(02-15-2013, 11:29 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:Also agree that the current coach is not going anywhere any time soon, unless of course Coach K has a major health or family issue that forces him into retirement.

There's nothing in Dawkins' body of work as an HC  to suggest that he would appeal to Duke -- no matter what the health of Coach K may be.

I certainly hope Stanford's strategy is not to wait until Dawkins gets another HC job offer to get out of that ill-conceived contract extension he received a couple of years ago. I can't stand the thought of having to put up with this mediocrity until 2016 (or even until 2014).

And FarmBoy, the last time Stanford won the NIT in 1991, we followed up with an NCAA tournament appearance in 1992.

Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - Kathy - 02-15-2013

This Rule of Tree post back in 2011 references Jon Wilner's speculation that the extension has some sort of clause that allows Stanford to cut ties with Dawkins before the extension kicks in next year.
http://www.ruleoftree.com/2011/7/7/2264212/stanford-gives-johnny-dawkins-2-year-contract-extension

What Wilner actually wrote, among other musings on the extension, was:
Quote:Action: Stanford coach Johnny Dawkins signs two-year contract extension which, when combined with the three years remaining on his original deal, will keep him on The Farm through the 2015-16 season.
Reaction I: The financial terms were not disclosed, and Stanford, as a private university, is not subject to an open records request. But I cannot fathom that athletic director Bob Bowlsby would have put the school on the hook for two more years at close to $1 million/yr. (That would be a fireable offense, even with the influx of Pac-12 TV revenue.) Most likely, the deal includes some sort of school option allowing Stanford to cut ties with Dawkins at no additional cost before the extension years kick in — in other words: at the end of Dawkins’ original six-year deal.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/07/07/actionreaction-stanford-basketball-oregon-football-and-the-pac-12s-looming-pr-problem/

Like much of Wilner's speculations, though, this makes no sense to me. Why would Dawkins sign a meaningless extension with a buyout  that wouldn't kick in if Stanford decided to fire him at the end of the original contract?


Re: U.S.C. 65, Stanford 64 - FarmBoy - 02-15-2013

I always thought the speculation on his extension was so that he could credibly tell recruits that he would be there for their senior year. Even if there's no tangible NPV for either the school or Dawkins, that would be a rationale for why both would want to communicate to one important constituency the stability of the HC position.

But I agree with whoever noted that the empty stands represent a clear cost-benefit tradeoff of staying the course. Even if the buy-out isn't cheap, looking at the football team success has got to show the potential value to be had in hiring a winner.