The CardBoard
My letter to Bernard Muir - 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: My letter to Bernard Muir (/thread-9088.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-06-2015

I decided to wait until after the weekend to allow Muir and others to bask in the glow of superior mediocrity that is the NIT championship.  But I'm tired of mediocrity, and I know Stanford can do better - MUCH better.

Dear Mr. Muir,

It’s time for new leadership and a new direction for the Stanford men’s basketball program.  For two decades, Stanford was consistently in the NCAA tournament and more often than not finished in the top three in the Pac-12.  Today, Maples Pavilion is a hollow shell of its former self.  The fan base is apathetic.

Even if you ignore the first two years of the Johnny Dawkins era while he recruited players he wanted and implemented his system, the last five years are simply not good enough:
• Squeaking into the NCAA Tournament once
• Never having a Pac-12 record better than 10-8, and 45-45 overall
• Winning substantially less than 50% of games decided by 5 points or fewer (including OT), and less than 25% of them this year
• Rosters that don’t go more than 7-8 players deep, a sign of inadequate recruiting and development and exposing the roster to a bigger impact from injuries than teams with deeper benches
• Hundreds of empty lower bowl, sideline seats on Senior Day and other big games (embarrassing to see on TV).  NIT attendance was flat out embarrassing
• A lackluster student section whose cheering is frequently drowned out by opponents

I could go on, but there is one word that describes these results: MEDIOCRE.

Yes, Stanford just won the NIT.  So what?  You might be able to say that had the team had played like that a little more often they would have been in the NCAAs.  That is the broken record of every season of the Dawkins era: a lack of consistency and an overall record that does not reflect the talent on the roster.  Winning the NIT with this year’s roster was simply not good enough.  Being a #10 seed last year with two NBA draft picks on the roster was simply not good enough.  Dawkins’ predecessors seemed to get everything and then some out of the talent they had.  Coach Dawkins is not doing that.

You have made some great coaching hires in other sports, and your reputation coming into Stanford was that you were a “basketball guy.”  I fail to understand why you would continue to tolerate mediocrity in a sport for which you are particularly well-regarded to the point of being on the NCAA Selection Committee.  I think the world of Johnny Dawkins – off the court.  But unfortunately his results indicate that he’s a very average head basketball coach at the major conference level.

One of the great sources of pride in my 30+-year affiliation with Stanford is that I believe in my heart that Stanford does not tolerate mediocrity in ANYTHING for very long.  If Johnny Dawkins continues to be head coach, I will have to question whether you share that belief.

There is a brobdingnagian sign on the Stanford football practice field that says, “You’re either getting better or you’re getting worse.”  Mr. Muir, I would be curious to hear a fact-based argument that Stanford men’s basketball is getting better, especially looking ahead to next season without Chasson Randle, Anthony Brown, and Stefan Nastic.

Men’s basketball needs someone who can take the program in a different direction, deliver a more consistent and better performance night in and night out, leave fans with the feeling that the team is playing at or above its talent, re-energize the fan base, and once again make Stanford a feared opponent.  Maples can be a full, loud, and boisterous arena that opponents dread coming to.  Seven years is more than enough to know that Johnny Dawkins cannot deliver that.  It’s up to you to do what’s right for Stanford.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - JohnR34231 - 04-06-2015

Good letter, and I think you will get a polite response from Muir saying he will continue to evaluate the program and make changes when he feels it is appropriate (which isn't now). I think Dawkins coaches just well enough to not get fired.

Whether Stanford tolerates mediocrity in sports is, I think, at least debatable. We were pretty mediocre in football from 1973-2008. The only two coaches who got fired for it were Christiansen and Elway (and I think Elway was fired for other reasons than his lackluster record). The other coaches who were fired (Wiggin, Buddy, Wlat) had truly bad years/records.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - BobK - 04-06-2015

Elway more for other reasons.    Funny but there's a post yesterday how Baseball and Softball are doing poorly.  UCLA could win the Director's Cup.  So winflop you need to concentrate on facts.  Still good letter, same as many of us have written. 
On another site 45 of us signed a petition but that was pre NI. 

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - yvonne - 04-06-2015

Well, I suggest he appease you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIV4poUZAQo

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - CornFed - 04-06-2015

1000 up arrows!  Lovely, lovely lovely.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - FarmBoy - 04-06-2015

I'll be interested to hear what response you get.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-06-2015

(04-06-2015, 05:54 AM)BobK link Wrote:Elway more for other reasons.    Funny but there's a post yesterday how Baseball and Softball are doing poorly.  UCLA could win the Director's Cup.  So winflop you need to concentrate on facts.  Still good letter, same as many of us have written. 
On another site 45 of us signed a petition but that was pre NI.

URL please Bob?

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - Extra Point - 04-06-2015

(04-06-2015, 09:08 AM)garvin link Wrote:I'd argue that Jack Christiansen was somewhat hamstrung by the rules of his era, which prohibited teams from playing in anything but the Rose Bowl.

Christensen was also hamstrung by a reduction in scholarships. After two rose bowl wins there was an uprising by some people in a power who thought that Stanford was turning into a football factory. At a time when the maximum number of scholarships was 125, the maximum at Stanford was lowered to 95. As soon as Walsh was hired it was raised to 105.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - BobK - 04-06-2015

In 1973 the NCAA imposed a limit of 105 scholarships for football programs, essentially freeing up money for scholarships in other sports, especially women’s sports. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 had forced the hands of university presidents and athletic directors, mandating that they more equitably distribute resources--including athletic scholarships--among different sports and sexes. Further football scholarship reductions were made in 1978--down to 95--and again in 1992, when football scholarships were limited to 85.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8144923_history-sports-scholarships.html

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - CTcard - 04-06-2015

(04-06-2015, 09:08 AM)garvin link Wrote:I wouldn't call the Green/Walsh/Willingham era "mediocre."

Denny Green
1989  3-8  (3-5)
1990  5-6  (4-4)
1991  8-4  (6-2)  Aloha Bowl loss
Total: 16-18 (13-11)
Bill Walsh II
1992  10-3  (6-2)  Blockbuster Bowl win
1993    4-7  (2-6) 
1994  3-7-1  (2-6)
Total: 17-17-1  (10-10)
Tyrone Willingham
1995  7-4-1 (5-3)  Liberty Bowl loss
1996  7-5    (5-3)  Sun Bowl win
1997  5-6    (3-5)
1998  3-8    (2-6)
1999  8-4    (7-1)  Rose Bowl loss
2000  5-6    (4-4)
2001  9-3    (6-2)  Seattle Bowl loss
Total: 44-36-1  (32-24)

--------
The problem with the term "mediocre" is that most people use it to mean bad, rather than the dictionary meaning of average with a somewhat negative connotation.

Going by the dictionary definition, I would have to say that Green and Walsh II added up to something like mediocre. Green was building up to mediocre from bad, but his recruiting was weak enough to leave some serious holes starting in '93 - which was at least one factor in the Walsh drop off.

Willingham was a bit better than that overall (57% conference record), but was up and down enough it is a little hard to tell what the direction was at the point he left. There were certainly some OL recruiting holes, though I suspect if he had stayed things would have looked better than under his two successors (as I guess we all do).




Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-06-2015

(04-06-2015, 08:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I'll be interested to hear what response you get.

I'll be interested if I get ANY response...

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-06-2015

(04-06-2015, 05:14 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Whether Stanford tolerates mediocrity in sports is, I think, at least debatable. We were pretty mediocre in football from 1973-2008. The only two coaches who got fired for it were Christiansen and Elway (and I think Elway was fired for other reasons than his lackluster record). The other coaches who were fired (Wiggin, Buddy, Wlat) had truly bad years/records.

What were you smoking in the 1990s that has made you forget:
- 1991: 2nd in conference and Aloha Bowl
- 1992: tied 1st in conference and destroyed Penn State in Blockbuster Bowl
- 1995-2001: seven straight Big Game wins and a Rose Bowl

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-06-2015

(04-06-2015, 12:20 PM)CTcard link Wrote:The problem with the term "mediocre" is that most people use it to mean bad, rather than the dictionary meaning of average with a somewhat negative connotation.

I used it in its traditional meaning of average, never intending it to imply bad.  The facts I presented were intended to represent average-ness.  I also called Dawkins an average coach.  But my point was that average isn't good enough, especially after 20 years of being substantially above average.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - JohnR34231 - 04-06-2015

(04-06-2015, 12:38 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=12000.msg116182#msg116182 date=1428322445]
Whether Stanford tolerates mediocrity in sports is, I think, at least debatable. We were pretty mediocre in football from 1973-2008. The only two coaches who got fired for it were Christiansen and Elway (and I think Elway was fired for other reasons than his lackluster record). The other coaches who were fired (Wiggin, Buddy, Wlat) had truly bad years/records.

What were you smoking in the 1990s that has made you forget:
- 1991: 2nd in conference and Aloha Bowl
- 1992: tied 1st in conference and destroyed Penn State in Blockbuster Bowl
- 1995-2001: seven straight Big Game wins and a Rose Bowl
[/quote]

Everybody has a different definition of mediocre.
Our overall record from 1991-2001 was 69-57-2. That's pretty much the equivalent of 6-5 every year. If you want to consider that great because we went to a couple of good bowl games and/or beat Kal most of the time that's up to you. I consider it pretty mediocre.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - yvonne - 04-06-2015

Quote:mediocre
adjective me·di·o·cre \ˌmē-dē-ˈō-kər\
: not very good

Full Definition of MEDIOCRE

:  of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance :  ordinary, so-so

Related to MEDIOCRE
Synonyms
common, fair, indifferent, medium, middling, ordinary, passable, run-of-the-mill, run-of-the-mine (or run-of-mine), second-class, second-rate, so-so
Antonyms
excellent, fine, first-class, first-rate, good, high-grade, superior, top-notch

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediocre

Sorry, but mediocre doesn't mean average. It means barely passable.

The problem with Stanford football before 2009 wasn't that it was mediocre. It was that it ebbed and flowed too much. It was unsteady.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - BobK - 04-06-2015

Ironically Dawkins has a better record, 140-100

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - CTcard - 04-06-2015

(04-06-2015, 01:11 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:
Quote:Full Definition of MEDIOCRE

:  of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance :  ordinary, so-so

Related to MEDIOCRE
Synonyms
common, fair, indifferent, medium, middling, ordinary, passable, run-of-the-mill, run-of-the-mine (or run-of-mine), second-class, second-rate, so-so
Antonyms
excellent, fine, first-class, first-rate, good, high-grade, superior, top-notch

Sorry, but mediocre doesn't mean average. It means barely passable.

No need to apologize.
In the case at hand, it appears to have been used to mean not-passable at all.

The definition you linked indicates average with a negative connotation - matching the definition I came up with off the top of my head. 

There are many dictionaries with many definitions of mediocre which run from "average with a negative connotation" to the more common use in sports-related discussions that is much closer to "bad".

Indeed, I could have been more precise in my framing of the issue. I should have edited my preface to be something closer to: The problem with the term "mediocre" is that it has a range of meaning from bad to average, and one is never quite sure where along the spectrum the writer is aiming.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - yvonne - 04-06-2015

Thanks for the mansplanation.  I didn't realize that "not very good" meant average. Oh, that's right. You deleted that part.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - CrazedZooChimp - 04-06-2015

(04-06-2015, 01:11 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:
Quote:mediocre
adjective me·di·o·cre \ˌmē-dē-ˈō-kər\
: not very good

Full Definition of MEDIOCRE

:  of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance :  ordinary, so-so

Related to MEDIOCRE
Synonyms
common, fair, indifferent, medium, middling, ordinary, passable, run-of-the-mill, run-of-the-mine (or run-of-mine), second-class, second-rate, so-so
Antonyms
excellent, fine, first-class, first-rate, good, high-grade, superior, top-notch

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediocre

Sorry, but mediocre doesn't mean average. It means barely passable.

The problem with Stanford football before 2009 wasn't that it was mediocre. It was that it ebbed and flowed too much. It was unsteady.

I dunno, if someone gave me a list of synonyms that included so-so, middling, fine, passable, medium, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, etc. I think my first guess at the word would be average...

Of course, when I use mediocre I usually use it to mean slightly below average, or average with no upside.  Stanford football was pretty average, but at least had some decent upside in the 90s.  Johnny Dawkins doesn't seem to have much upside, although the sweet 16 last year was kind of close, and his last four years have definitely been better than the first three.  I certainly don't think Trent was significantly better and we'd have had any more success with him still here (I'm not sure anyone is saying that, though).

Don't take this to mean I don't want Dawkins fired, I do.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - Bruce Wang - 04-06-2015

This letter needs a cc: to Muir's boss, John Arrillaga.