[Redrum]

by seeming to play inexplicable favorites with his QB,  supporting a maddening, inconsistent Mike Cordivot  while confining Guy Benjamin to sporadic play and the sideline.  A calibrated coach's eye kept a future  NFL player standing watching while Stanford settled into a 12-9-1 mostly middle of the Pac-8 position.

[Redrum]

by seeming to play inexplicable favorites with his QB,  supporting a maddening, inconsistent Mike Cordivot  while confining Guy Benjamin to sporadic play and the sideline.  A calibrated coach's eye kept a future  NFL player standing watching while Stanford settled into a 12-9-1 mostly middle of the Pac-8 position.

[JohnR34231]

He physically resembled Jim Plunkett, and every once in a while he would go out and play like Plunkett (at least in practice), so I think people thought if he could just develop more consistency we'd have another superstar on our hands. Of course he never did, and JC's failure to recognize this and play Benjamin instead was a major reason for his downfall.

[JohnR34231]

He physically resembled Jim Plunkett, and every once in a while he would go out and play like Plunkett (at least in practice), so I think people thought if he could just develop more consistency we'd have another superstar on our hands. Of course he never did, and JC's failure to recognize this and play Benjamin instead was a major reason for his downfall.

[winflop]

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

Hahaha.  I think he actually reports to el Presidente.  But I would be nowhere near calling for Muir's head if he won't replace Dawkins.  I would, however, begin to question his judgment.

[winflop]

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

Hahaha.  I think he actually reports to el Presidente.  But I would be nowhere near calling for Muir's head if he won't replace Dawkins.  I would, however, begin to question his judgment.

[yvonne]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=12000.msg116239#msg116239 date=1428368533]
This letter needs a cc: to Muir's boss, John Arrillaga.

Hahaha.  I think he actually reports to el Presidente.  But I would be nowhere near calling for Muir's head if he won't replace Dawkins.  I would, however, begin to question his judgment.
[/quote]

Muir doesn't report to the president. He reports to the provost.

https://adminguide.stanford.edu/sites/de...0Final.pdf

[yvonne]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=12000.msg116239#msg116239 date=1428368533]
This letter needs a cc: to Muir's boss, John Arrillaga.

Hahaha.  I think he actually reports to el Presidente.  But I would be nowhere near calling for Muir's head if he won't replace Dawkins.  I would, however, begin to question his judgment.
[/quote]

Muir doesn't report to the president. He reports to the provost.

https://adminguide.stanford.edu/sites/de...0Final.pdf

[jacketree]

Thesaurus fight!!

My mansplanation (albeit using my mother's dictionary - which was printed in 1961 to coincide with a run of Stanford football mediocrity) is that most of us understand mediocre to mean not that good and not that bad. Average seems pretty close. In 1961 mediocre meant "of but moderate excellence; ordinary." Sounds pretty damn average to me. And I think we know mediocre when we see it.  To say that Stanford has not accepted mediocre results over the years in any number of sports is not correct in my mediocre opinion, with "accept" meaning "not immediately firing the coach."  Stanford is not always excellence in all things.  I ate the food there once.

[jacketree]

Thesaurus fight!!

My mansplanation (albeit using my mother's dictionary - which was printed in 1961 to coincide with a run of Stanford football mediocrity) is that most of us understand mediocre to mean not that good and not that bad. Average seems pretty close. In 1961 mediocre meant "of but moderate excellence; ordinary." Sounds pretty damn average to me. And I think we know mediocre when we see it.  To say that Stanford has not accepted mediocre results over the years in any number of sports is not correct in my mediocre opinion, with "accept" meaning "not immediately firing the coach."  Stanford is not always excellence in all things.  I ate the food there once.

[stupac2]

Stanford is not always excellence in all things.  I ate the food there once.

Hah! That's quite true. Stanford definitely accepts mediocrity in undergraduate living/dining.

[stupac2]

Stanford is not always excellence in all things.  I ate the food there once.

Hah! That's quite true. Stanford definitely accepts mediocrity in undergraduate living/dining.

[FarmBoy]

Hah! That's quite true. Stanford definitely accepts mediocrity in undergraduate living/dining.

Hasn't it improved? I was under the impression that there was a major arms race in residential living perks between colleges and that Stanford was not shying away.

And to be honest, I was pretty happy with the housing and food situation during my time on The Farm (95-99). Of course, I lived in row houses for my last three years, but even Flo Mo provided decent food, all you can eat ice cream and an evening grill for snacks.

[FarmBoy]

Hah! That's quite true. Stanford definitely accepts mediocrity in undergraduate living/dining.

Hasn't it improved? I was under the impression that there was a major arms race in residential living perks between colleges and that Stanford was not shying away.

And to be honest, I was pretty happy with the housing and food situation during my time on The Farm (95-99). Of course, I lived in row houses for my last three years, but even Flo Mo provided decent food, all you can eat ice cream and an evening grill for snacks.

[stupac2]

Hasn't it improved?

Maybe since I graduated, but from 05-09 it was pretty bad. Of course, it varied a lot depending on where you were, and I such royally shitty draw luck (I think my combined numbers were in the 6000's, it was at least very high 5000's) that I never lived anywhere nice. The only place I ever ate regularly that had consistently very good food was Yost, which had a private chef and I believe no longer does, I think that happened around the same time the eating clubs got killed. Lag was okay, and GovCo was consistently at least tolerable, but Wilber and the one for Castano/Latana/that-other-one (clearly I'm blanking on some names here) was mostly miserable.

But what really pisses me off is living arrangements. I just don't get why there are so many 2-room doubles when you could just switch that door and have singles. I get that a lot of people want social lives and they're arguably better than that, but given the insane demand for singles there should be more of them. I just don't think adults should be forced to live with other people (or be obscenely rich and live off-campus). Given that Stanford has more than enough money to house undergraduates in reasonable quarters, they should just do it.

Again, I may have just gotten totally screwed (mean number of roommates was 2), but I think that someone who just wants a quiet place to come home to should be able to get it without having to get stupidly lucky in both draws.

[stupac2]

Hasn't it improved?

Maybe since I graduated, but from 05-09 it was pretty bad. Of course, it varied a lot depending on where you were, and I such royally shitty draw luck (I think my combined numbers were in the 6000's, it was at least very high 5000's) that I never lived anywhere nice. The only place I ever ate regularly that had consistently very good food was Yost, which had a private chef and I believe no longer does, I think that happened around the same time the eating clubs got killed. Lag was okay, and GovCo was consistently at least tolerable, but Wilber and the one for Castano/Latana/that-other-one (clearly I'm blanking on some names here) was mostly miserable.

But what really pisses me off is living arrangements. I just don't get why there are so many 2-room doubles when you could just switch that door and have singles. I get that a lot of people want social lives and they're arguably better than that, but given the insane demand for singles there should be more of them. I just don't think adults should be forced to live with other people (or be obscenely rich and live off-campus). Given that Stanford has more than enough money to house undergraduates in reasonable quarters, they should just do it.

Again, I may have just gotten totally screwed (mean number of roommates was 2), but I think that someone who just wants a quiet place to come home to should be able to get it without having to get stupidly lucky in both draws.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=12000.msg116325#msg116325 date=1428502144]Hasn't it improved?

Maybe since I graduated, but from 05-09 it was pretty bad. Of course, it varied a lot depending on where you were, and I such royally shitty draw luck (I think my combined numbers were in the 6000's, it was at least very high 5000's) that I never lived anywhere nice. The only place I ever ate regularly that had consistently very good food was Yost, which had a private chef and I believe no longer does, I think that happened around the same time the eating clubs got killed. Lag was okay, and GovCo was consistently at least tolerable, but Wilber and the one for Castano/Latana/that-other-one (clearly I'm blanking on some names here) was mostly miserable.

But what really pisses me off is living arrangements. I just don't get why there are so many 2-room doubles when you could just switch that door and have singles. I get that a lot of people want social lives and they're arguably better than that, but given the insane demand for singles there should be more of them. I just don't think adults should be forced to live with other people (or be obscenely rich and live off-campus). Given that Stanford has more than enough money to house undergraduates in reasonable quarters, they should just do it.

Again, I may have just gotten totally screwed (mean number of roommates was 2), but I think that someone who just wants a quiet place to come home to should be able to get it without having to get stupidly lucky in both draws.
[/quote]

Two room doubles?  Sounds cushy, I lived in one room doubles 3/4 years (my senior year I managed to get into Lag with our crummy draw number and get the second to last single).

I don't remember the food being awful any of the dining halls I had (and my one year in Murray the food was good), but it certainly wasn't excellent.  I guess it was mediocre.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=12000.msg116325#msg116325 date=1428502144]Hasn't it improved?

Maybe since I graduated, but from 05-09 it was pretty bad. Of course, it varied a lot depending on where you were, and I such royally shitty draw luck (I think my combined numbers were in the 6000's, it was at least very high 5000's) that I never lived anywhere nice. The only place I ever ate regularly that had consistently very good food was Yost, which had a private chef and I believe no longer does, I think that happened around the same time the eating clubs got killed. Lag was okay, and GovCo was consistently at least tolerable, but Wilber and the one for Castano/Latana/that-other-one (clearly I'm blanking on some names here) was mostly miserable.

But what really pisses me off is living arrangements. I just don't get why there are so many 2-room doubles when you could just switch that door and have singles. I get that a lot of people want social lives and they're arguably better than that, but given the insane demand for singles there should be more of them. I just don't think adults should be forced to live with other people (or be obscenely rich and live off-campus). Given that Stanford has more than enough money to house undergraduates in reasonable quarters, they should just do it.

Again, I may have just gotten totally screwed (mean number of roommates was 2), but I think that someone who just wants a quiet place to come home to should be able to get it without having to get stupidly lucky in both draws.
[/quote]

Two room doubles?  Sounds cushy, I lived in one room doubles 3/4 years (my senior year I managed to get into Lag with our crummy draw number and get the second to last single).

I don't remember the food being awful any of the dining halls I had (and my one year in Murray the food was good), but it certainly wasn't excellent.  I guess it was mediocre.

[yvonne]

I liked two-room doubles even though I had the outer room. I had a loft, so I didn't have to see people coming in and out, if there was anybody. About the only problem was that our clothes closet and drawers were in my roommates room, but that functionally gave me a larger room. I had company when I wanted it and privacy when I didn't.

[yvonne]

I liked two-room doubles even though I had the outer room. I had a loft, so I didn't have to see people coming in and out, if there was anybody. About the only problem was that our clothes closet and drawers were in my roommates room, but that functionally gave me a larger room. I had company when I wanted it and privacy when I didn't.

[CornFed]

I was the fifth man in a four-man trailer and slept on a couch my sophomore year.

[CornFed]

I was the fifth man in a four-man trailer and slept on a couch my sophomore year.

[stupac2]

Two room doubles?  Sounds cushy, I lived in one room doubles 3/4 years (my senior year I managed to get into Lag with our crummy draw number and get the second to last single).

Oh, don't get me wrong, two-room doubles are cushy, and the only reason I ever got one was that I finally figured out I could use insomnia as a disability and guarantee myself one. I was in a Roble quad freshman year (which I think is great for freshman), then a one-room triple and a two-room triple. So my personal experience with draws was always significantly worse than a two-room double.

But I think that two-room doubles are just flat-out stupid, and having so many of them is ridiculous. Just put the goddamn door on the other goddamn wall so it's two singles!

[stupac2]

Two room doubles?  Sounds cushy, I lived in one room doubles 3/4 years (my senior year I managed to get into Lag with our crummy draw number and get the second to last single).

Oh, don't get me wrong, two-room doubles are cushy, and the only reason I ever got one was that I finally figured out I could use insomnia as a disability and guarantee myself one. I was in a Roble quad freshman year (which I think is great for freshman), then a one-room triple and a two-room triple. So my personal experience with draws was always significantly worse than a two-room double.

But I think that two-room doubles are just flat-out stupid, and having so many of them is ridiculous. Just put the goddamn door on the other goddamn wall so it's two singles!

[Mick]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=12000.msg116325#msg116325 date=1428502144]Hasn't it improved?

Maybe since I graduated, but from 05-09 it was pretty bad. Of course, it varied a lot depending on where you were, and I such royally shitty draw luck (I think my combined numbers were in the 6000's, it was at least very high 5000's) that I never lived anywhere nice. The only place I ever ate regularly that had consistently very good food was Yost, which had a private chef and I believe no longer does, I think that happened around the same time the eating clubs got killed. Lag was okay, and GovCo was consistently at least tolerable, but Wilber and the one for Castano/Latana/that-other-one (clearly I'm blanking on some names here) was mostly miserable.

But what really pisses me off is living arrangements. I just don't get why there are so many 2-room doubles when you could just switch that door and have singles. I get that a lot of people want social lives and they're arguably better than that, but given the insane demand for singles there should be more of them. I just don't think adults should be forced to live with other people (or be obscenely rich and live off-campus). Given that Stanford has more than enough money to house undergraduates in reasonable quarters, they should just do it.

Again, I may have just gotten totally screwed (mean number of roommates was 2), but I think that someone who just wants a quiet place to come home to should be able to get it without having to get stupidly lucky in both draws.
[/quote]

I remember my first semester junior year was utter bliss because my roommate to be transferred to UCLA a week before school started.  I had the room to myself (ecstasy).  Then, I found out the type of guy who has to wait a semester to get into the dorms.  I literally never saw him eat anything other than nacho cheese Doritos or drink anything other than Coca Cola.  He was not, shall we say, the most popular guy around the dorm.

[Mick]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=12000.msg116325#msg116325 date=1428502144]Hasn't it improved?

Maybe since I graduated, but from 05-09 it was pretty bad. Of course, it varied a lot depending on where you were, and I such royally shitty draw luck (I think my combined numbers were in the 6000's, it was at least very high 5000's) that I never lived anywhere nice. The only place I ever ate regularly that had consistently very good food was Yost, which had a private chef and I believe no longer does, I think that happened around the same time the eating clubs got killed. Lag was okay, and GovCo was consistently at least tolerable, but Wilber and the one for Castano/Latana/that-other-one (clearly I'm blanking on some names here) was mostly miserable.

But what really pisses me off is living arrangements. I just don't get why there are so many 2-room doubles when you could just switch that door and have singles. I get that a lot of people want social lives and they're arguably better than that, but given the insane demand for singles there should be more of them. I just don't think adults should be forced to live with other people (or be obscenely rich and live off-campus). Given that Stanford has more than enough money to house undergraduates in reasonable quarters, they should just do it.

Again, I may have just gotten totally screwed (mean number of roommates was 2), but I think that someone who just wants a quiet place to come home to should be able to get it without having to get stupidly lucky in both draws.
[/quote]

I remember my first semester junior year was utter bliss because my roommate to be transferred to UCLA a week before school started.  I had the room to myself (ecstasy).  Then, I found out the type of guy who has to wait a semester to get into the dorms.  I literally never saw him eat anything other than nacho cheese Doritos or drink anything other than Coca Cola.  He was not, shall we say, the most popular guy around the dorm.

[winflop]

So Muir called me last night and we had a nice conversation for about 15 minutes.  It's clear that Dawkins isn't going anywhere, and I told him that's a real problem for me.  I made sure he understood that my viewpoint wasn't because the team missed the tournament this year, or any game here or there, or any play call here or there.  I also told him that I was looking at the last five years, and I don't see acceptable results, but more importantly I don't see improvement and I don't see that the team is playing to the level of its talent - in sharp contrast to the previous 20+ years.

My greatest disappointment from the call, however, was that it seems to me that Muir is resigned to Stanford MBB not being capable of regaining its former stature.  His view "from the inside" as he put it, is that the landscape of college basketball has changed to one where Stanford would need to embrace the "one and done" if it is going to succeed.  He talked a lot about how the top teams are loaded with McDonald's All-Americans.  I got a little animated and said, "Mr. Muir I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.  At one point that was the attitude about football, and look what a couple of great coaching hires did.  And prior to Mike Montgomery, that was also the attitude about men's basketball."

He also said he didn't think it was fair to put this all on Johnny.  I rather pointedly asked him, "well who are you going to put this on if not him?" and he started talking about injuries and a game or a play here or there.  I told him that we were simply going to have to agree to disagree because lots of teams deal with injuries, and that each of the last five years it's been a game here or there so it's not just this season it's a pattern of inconsistency and not getting the most out of the talent on the roster.

Bottom line is that we agreed to disagree about keeping Dawkins, but he did acknowledge that things need to change with MBB in a significant way going forward.  I'm sure next year's excuse will be that it's a young, inexperienced roster and that we shouldn't expect a team that loses over 50% of its firepower to graduation to be at that level.

I was really disappointed in the conversation.  It surprised me greatly to see the extent to which Muir focused on just this season, and to which he made the same excuses he made to me two years ago.  It sounded like a broken record.

Bottom line - get ready for a lot of empty lower bowl and Sixth Man seats next season.

[winflop]

So Muir called me last night and we had a nice conversation for about 15 minutes.  It's clear that Dawkins isn't going anywhere, and I told him that's a real problem for me.  I made sure he understood that my viewpoint wasn't because the team missed the tournament this year, or any game here or there, or any play call here or there.  I also told him that I was looking at the last five years, and I don't see acceptable results, but more importantly I don't see improvement and I don't see that the team is playing to the level of its talent - in sharp contrast to the previous 20+ years.

My greatest disappointment from the call, however, was that it seems to me that Muir is resigned to Stanford MBB not being capable of regaining its former stature.  His view "from the inside" as he put it, is that the landscape of college basketball has changed to one where Stanford would need to embrace the "one and done" if it is going to succeed.  He talked a lot about how the top teams are loaded with McDonald's All-Americans.  I got a little animated and said, "Mr. Muir I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.  At one point that was the attitude about football, and look what a couple of great coaching hires did.  And prior to Mike Montgomery, that was also the attitude about men's basketball."

He also said he didn't think it was fair to put this all on Johnny.  I rather pointedly asked him, "well who are you going to put this on if not him?" and he started talking about injuries and a game or a play here or there.  I told him that we were simply going to have to agree to disagree because lots of teams deal with injuries, and that each of the last five years it's been a game here or there so it's not just this season it's a pattern of inconsistency and not getting the most out of the talent on the roster.

Bottom line is that we agreed to disagree about keeping Dawkins, but he did acknowledge that things need to change with MBB in a significant way going forward.  I'm sure next year's excuse will be that it's a young, inexperienced roster and that we shouldn't expect a team that loses over 50% of its firepower to graduation to be at that level.

I was really disappointed in the conversation.  It surprised me greatly to see the extent to which Muir focused on just this season, and to which he made the same excuses he made to me two years ago.  It sounded like a broken record.

Bottom line - get ready for a lot of empty lower bowl and Sixth Man seats next season.

[Mick]

As my first boss used to say, "1's hire 1's, 2's hire 3's."

[Mick]

As my first boss used to say, "1's hire 1's, 2's hire 3's."

[Bruce Wang]

My greatest disappointment from the call, however, was that it seems to me that Muir is resigned to Stanford MBB not being capable of regaining its former stature.  His view "from the inside" as he put it, is that the landscape of college basketball has changed to one where Stanford would need to embrace the "one and done" if it is going to succeed.  He talked a lot about how the top teams are loaded with McDonald's All-Americans. 

That is disappointing and wrong.  Wisconsin made the title game this year.  Butler made it that far two years in a row.  All we need is a Brad Stevens, preferably a Stanford alum.

[Bruce Wang]

My greatest disappointment from the call, however, was that it seems to me that Muir is resigned to Stanford MBB not being capable of regaining its former stature.  His view "from the inside" as he put it, is that the landscape of college basketball has changed to one where Stanford would need to embrace the "one and done" if it is going to succeed.  He talked a lot about how the top teams are loaded with McDonald's All-Americans. 

That is disappointing and wrong.  Wisconsin made the title game this year.  Butler made it that far two years in a row.  All we need is a Brad Stevens, preferably a Stanford alum.

[burger]

It sounds like Muir is in denial about the state of the program and ignorant about the critical role of good coaching in MBB success.  As fans, I guess we just have to be resigned to years more mediocrity.  Damn.

[burger]

It sounds like Muir is in denial about the state of the program and ignorant about the critical role of good coaching in MBB success.  As fans, I guess we just have to be resigned to years more mediocrity.  Damn.

[yvonne]

I wonder whether Messrs Etchemendy and Arrillaga share his view.

[yvonne]

I wonder whether Messrs Etchemendy and Arrillaga share his view.

[chicard]

It sounds like Muir is in denial about the state of the program and ignorant about the critical role of good coaching in MBB success.  As fans, I guess we just have to be resigned to years more mediocrity.  Damn.

Muir just keeps playing his fiddle...

[chicard]

It sounds like Muir is in denial about the state of the program and ignorant about the critical role of good coaching in MBB success.  As fans, I guess we just have to be resigned to years more mediocrity.  Damn.

Muir just keeps playing his fiddle...

[winflop]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12000.msg116396#msg116396 date=1428591082]
I wonder whether Messrs Etchemendy and Arrillaga share his view.

winflop should write a letter to them since Muir now sounds like part of the problem.
[/quote]

I would encourage any and all who are unhappy about MBB to write Muir. Your silence means that he sees me as more of a fly in the ointment than part of a larger group of dissatisfied but very loyal Stanford fans

I'm not ready to question Muir he's d be a hell of a lot right but this does give me cause for concern

[winflop]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12000.msg116396#msg116396 date=1428591082]
I wonder whether Messrs Etchemendy and Arrillaga share his view.

winflop should write a letter to them since Muir now sounds like part of the problem.
[/quote]

I would encourage any and all who are unhappy about MBB to write Muir. Your silence means that he sees me as more of a fly in the ointment than part of a larger group of dissatisfied but very loyal Stanford fans

I'm not ready to question Muir he's d be a hell of a lot right but this does give me cause for concern