[DenverCard]

Stanford's hanging with Washington early in a sloppy, mistake-prone game thus far.

Anyone know the status of Marcus Sheffield?  If memory serves, he started a couple of games.  However, he did not play against WSU, and I heard no mention of him during the telecast, although I turned it on late.  Again tonight, no mention of his status.

[DenverCard]

Stanford's hanging with Washington early in a sloppy, mistake-prone game thus far.

Anyone know the status of Marcus Sheffield?  If memory serves, he started a couple of games.  However, he did not play against WSU, and I heard no mention of him during the telecast, although I turned it on late.  Again tonight, no mention of his status.

[JJJ]

There was no mention of Sheffield. I believe he took a tumble early in the last game and limped off the court. Box score has him at 0-1 in 2 minutes of play vs WSU.

I have one eye on the hoops game and the other eye on the doubleheader vs Cal State Fullerton, which is looking good so far. More upside here!

[JJJ]

There was no mention of Sheffield. I believe he took a tumble early in the last game and limped off the court. Box score has him at 0-1 in 2 minutes of play vs WSU.

I have one eye on the hoops game and the other eye on the doubleheader vs Cal State Fullerton, which is looking good so far. More upside here!

[76lsjumb]

Sheffield injured his leg [possibly knee or hip] fairly late in the Oregon game last weekend after getting undercut on a rebound effort.  He limped off the court and into the locker room, and he did not return in that game.  I was encouraged to see him out on the court at the WSU game, but, as noted, it was for a very short [and largely ineffective] period.  According to John Platz on the radio pre-game, he was not expected to play today and, indeed, he did not.  I don't know if he is expected back for next weekend.

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

[76lsjumb]

Sheffield injured his leg [possibly knee or hip] fairly late in the Oregon game last weekend after getting undercut on a rebound effort.  He limped off the court and into the locker room, and he did not return in that game.  I was encouraged to see him out on the court at the WSU game, but, as noted, it was for a very short [and largely ineffective] period.  According to John Platz on the radio pre-game, he was not expected to play today and, indeed, he did not.  I don't know if he is expected back for next weekend.

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

[washingtonismoney]

Sheffield injured his leg [possibly knee or hip] fairly late in the Oregon game last weekend after getting undercut on a rebound effort.  He limped off the court and into the locker room, and he did not return in that game.  I was encouraged to see him out on the court at the WSU game, but, as noted, it was for a very short [and largely ineffective] period.  According to John Platz on the radio pre-game, he was not expected to play today and, indeed, he did not.  I don't know if he is expected back for next weekend.

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

How quickly expectations change: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg156769

[washingtonismoney]

Sheffield injured his leg [possibly knee or hip] fairly late in the Oregon game last weekend after getting undercut on a rebound effort.  He limped off the court and into the locker room, and he did not return in that game.  I was encouraged to see him out on the court at the WSU game, but, as noted, it was for a very short [and largely ineffective] period.  According to John Platz on the radio pre-game, he was not expected to play today and, indeed, he did not.  I don't know if he is expected back for next weekend.

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

How quickly expectations change: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg156769

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg156920#msg156920 date=1456026209]
Sheffield injured his leg [possibly knee or hip] fairly late in the Oregon game last weekend after getting undercut on a rebound effort.  He limped off the court and into the locker room, and he did not return in that game.  I was encouraged to see him out on the court at the WSU game, but, as noted, it was for a very short [and largely ineffective] period.  According to John Platz on the radio pre-game, he was not expected to play today and, indeed, he did not.  I don't know if he is expected back for next weekend.

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

How quickly expectations change: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg156769
[/quote]

If that's directed at me, I'm not sure what you mean.  I half-expected us to lose in Pullman and 90%-expected us to lose in Seattle. After all, I still remember March, 2004, in HecEd, and I was at Key Arena for the Alabama game. Seattle has always been where Stanford B'ball hopes go to die...

Now, if it was directed at someone else, though, then nevermind...

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg156920#msg156920 date=1456026209]
Sheffield injured his leg [possibly knee or hip] fairly late in the Oregon game last weekend after getting undercut on a rebound effort.  He limped off the court and into the locker room, and he did not return in that game.  I was encouraged to see him out on the court at the WSU game, but, as noted, it was for a very short [and largely ineffective] period.  According to John Platz on the radio pre-game, he was not expected to play today and, indeed, he did not.  I don't know if he is expected back for next weekend.

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

How quickly expectations change: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg156769
[/quote]

If that's directed at me, I'm not sure what you mean.  I half-expected us to lose in Pullman and 90%-expected us to lose in Seattle. After all, I still remember March, 2004, in HecEd, and I was at Key Arena for the Alabama game. Seattle has always been where Stanford B'ball hopes go to die...

Now, if it was directed at someone else, though, then nevermind...

[JJJ]

Sheffield injured his leg [possibly knee or hip] fairly late in the Oregon game last weekend after getting undercut on a rebound effort.  He limped off the court and into the locker room, and he did not return in that game.  I was encouraged to see him out on the court at the WSU game, but, as noted, it was for a very short [and largely ineffective] period.  According to John Platz on the radio pre-game, he was not expected to play today and, indeed, he did not.  I don't know if he is expected back for next weekend.

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

Thanks for coming to the aid of my faulty memory. Yes, the tumble/limpoff came vs UO. All the games are starting to run together in my challenged brain...

I suppose after today, our only chance at the Big Dance is if we win the Pac12 tourney. So there's a non-zero chance.  ;)

[JJJ]

Sheffield injured his leg [possibly knee or hip] fairly late in the Oregon game last weekend after getting undercut on a rebound effort.  He limped off the court and into the locker room, and he did not return in that game.  I was encouraged to see him out on the court at the WSU game, but, as noted, it was for a very short [and largely ineffective] period.  According to John Platz on the radio pre-game, he was not expected to play today and, indeed, he did not.  I don't know if he is expected back for next weekend.

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

Thanks for coming to the aid of my faulty memory. Yes, the tumble/limpoff came vs UO. All the games are starting to run together in my challenged brain...

I suppose after today, our only chance at the Big Dance is if we win the Pac12 tourney. So there's a non-zero chance.  ;)

[winflop]

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

Sounds like you will be standing right next to Muir makes injury excuses AGAIN.  This loss was like so many before it, regardless of who's on the floor:
- Blew a close game in the final five minutes
- Came out of timeout and blew the play (in this case, a five second call on the inbound).  Turning point of the game IMnsHO.

To answer the question - the only emotions I'm investing is in praying that Muir comes to his senses and hires Russell Turner.

[winflop]

Having to play this game without three of our better players -- Travis, Cartwright, and Sheffield -- and having Humphrey [coming off a career high, monster game on Thursday] go something like 1 for 10, essentially made this an impossible proposition.  Indeed, under the circumstances, the outcome wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been if we hadn't done such a number on Andrews, the #1 scorer in the conference.

Sounds like you will be standing right next to Muir makes injury excuses AGAIN.  This loss was like so many before it, regardless of who's on the floor:
- Blew a close game in the final five minutes
- Came out of timeout and blew the play (in this case, a five second call on the inbound).  Turning point of the game IMnsHO.

To answer the question - the only emotions I'm investing is in praying that Muir comes to his senses and hires Russell Turner.

[Treebound]

We aren't making the Dance.  I will be very curious to see what Muir does if we don't make the NIT?  That last five minutes was terrible.  With football making such epic progress it is beyond me that this level of mediocrity is acceptable to the AD.  I have Duke friends that attend some of our games telling me that Dawkins must go.  This is the only drama left in this season. 

[Treebound]

We aren't making the Dance.  I will be very curious to see what Muir does if we don't make the NIT?  That last five minutes was terrible.  With football making such epic progress it is beyond me that this level of mediocrity is acceptable to the AD.  I have Duke friends that attend some of our games telling me that Dawkins must go.  This is the only drama left in this season. 

[BurgXXIII]

It would be very sad if making the NIT became a standard for the program.

[BurgXXIII]

It would be very sad if making the NIT became a standard for the program.

[76lsjumb]

I'm not sure what it means to "invest emotions." I'm still watching the games, I'm still rooting for the team, and I'm still disappointed when we lose. However, it has been years since I was surprised when we lose.

It has also been years since I was surprised at the contortions 76lsjumb goes through when it comes to Johnny Dawkins. But I surely came close while reading a post that compares a Dawkins loss that deals a blow to our hopes of finishing .500 with a Montgomery loss that ended out chance of finishing undefeated. Next, a post explaining that Dawkins isn't doing so much worse than Johnny Wooden...in 1960.

Okay, here it is:  DAWKINS SHOULD BE REPLACED. 

I'm not sure it is particularly fair [to the coach, that is], but the situation has become so toxic that it is probably the only solution to getting things turned around.  After all, it's gotten to the point where, if the whole team came down with food-poisoning and was unable to play, resulting in a forfeit, winflop would gripe about the game strategy.  As for contortions, anyone who has watched the women and men play this season -- and I'm talking about THIS SEASON, not 1990 or 1992 -- and was inclined to offer reasonable and unbiased assessments would be hard pressed to  pick which coaching job THIS SEASON was better than the other.  Indeed, I got a laugh out of winflop's assessment that the failure to inbound the ball was [implicitly] Dawkins' fault and the turning point in the game, when the women [Kailee Johnson, I believe] had the same thing happen TWICE in the recent loss to ASU.  Coaching error there as well?

Indeed, I've found it fascinating on the Board that the women's struggles this season have been the subject of extremely lengthy and detailed analyses, statistical comparisons, etc. -- some of which have even questioned the coaching [horrors -- somebody get garvin a fainting couch!  ;D ], while the extent of the commentary [with only a few minor exceptions] of the men's season has consisted of little more than "Dawkins stinks."  When the primary shooters on the women's team go a combined 1 for 80, people observe that they need to get their shooting touch back.  When Rosco Allen can't hit the broad side of a barn, or Michael Humphrey goes 1 for 10, the analysis is "Dawkins stinks."  When three of the best players on the team are injured [two of whom being unable to play a single conference game], the analysis is "Dawkins stinks."  When the women time after time after time [after time] either dribble their way into a shot clock violation or heave up a truly awful, desperation shot with :01 left on the clock, people analyze passing techniques or players' willingness to shoot;  when the men do largely the same thing..."Dawkins stinks."

Beyond that, people bemoan close home losses despite the fact that they don't bother to show up to create the atmosphere required to have a home court advantage [and, SURPRISE!, when they do kind of show up in numbers sufficient to make some real noise, Stanford defeats the conference leader! -- although not by enough to make winflop happy...]

It is clear, however, that none of that is going to change while Dawkins is here, as the fans have decided they aren't interested in supporting a team they believe is mediocre with a coach they believe is mediocre.  As a fan attitude, that strikes me as, well, about what mediocre fans would do.  So, given the mix of a mediocre team, coach, and fan base, with the last of three essentially holding the first hostage unless and until the second is let go, the only viable solution seems to be to take that step.

Time to bring back Garvin's favorite, Trent Johnson, I guess.  After all, he's been to more NCAA tournaments than Dawkins, so he's obviously a much better coach [see, garvin argument re Vanderveer, T., above].  Pay no attention to HIS record during the past 8 seasons [116-136], with 1 NCAA appearance and 1 NIT appearance.

Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

[76lsjumb]

I'm not sure what it means to "invest emotions." I'm still watching the games, I'm still rooting for the team, and I'm still disappointed when we lose. However, it has been years since I was surprised when we lose.

It has also been years since I was surprised at the contortions 76lsjumb goes through when it comes to Johnny Dawkins. But I surely came close while reading a post that compares a Dawkins loss that deals a blow to our hopes of finishing .500 with a Montgomery loss that ended out chance of finishing undefeated. Next, a post explaining that Dawkins isn't doing so much worse than Johnny Wooden...in 1960.

Okay, here it is:  DAWKINS SHOULD BE REPLACED. 

I'm not sure it is particularly fair [to the coach, that is], but the situation has become so toxic that it is probably the only solution to getting things turned around.  After all, it's gotten to the point where, if the whole team came down with food-poisoning and was unable to play, resulting in a forfeit, winflop would gripe about the game strategy.  As for contortions, anyone who has watched the women and men play this season -- and I'm talking about THIS SEASON, not 1990 or 1992 -- and was inclined to offer reasonable and unbiased assessments would be hard pressed to  pick which coaching job THIS SEASON was better than the other.  Indeed, I got a laugh out of winflop's assessment that the failure to inbound the ball was [implicitly] Dawkins' fault and the turning point in the game, when the women [Kailee Johnson, I believe] had the same thing happen TWICE in the recent loss to ASU.  Coaching error there as well?

Indeed, I've found it fascinating on the Board that the women's struggles this season have been the subject of extremely lengthy and detailed analyses, statistical comparisons, etc. -- some of which have even questioned the coaching [horrors -- somebody get garvin a fainting couch!  ;D ], while the extent of the commentary [with only a few minor exceptions] of the men's season has consisted of little more than "Dawkins stinks."  When the primary shooters on the women's team go a combined 1 for 80, people observe that they need to get their shooting touch back.  When Rosco Allen can't hit the broad side of a barn, or Michael Humphrey goes 1 for 10, the analysis is "Dawkins stinks."  When three of the best players on the team are injured [two of whom being unable to play a single conference game], the analysis is "Dawkins stinks."  When the women time after time after time [after time] either dribble their way into a shot clock violation or heave up a truly awful, desperation shot with :01 left on the clock, people analyze passing techniques or players' willingness to shoot;  when the men do largely the same thing..."Dawkins stinks."

Beyond that, people bemoan close home losses despite the fact that they don't bother to show up to create the atmosphere required to have a home court advantage [and, SURPRISE!, when they do kind of show up in numbers sufficient to make some real noise, Stanford defeats the conference leader! -- although not by enough to make winflop happy...]

It is clear, however, that none of that is going to change while Dawkins is here, as the fans have decided they aren't interested in supporting a team they believe is mediocre with a coach they believe is mediocre.  As a fan attitude, that strikes me as, well, about what mediocre fans would do.  So, given the mix of a mediocre team, coach, and fan base, with the last of three essentially holding the first hostage unless and until the second is let go, the only viable solution seems to be to take that step.

Time to bring back Garvin's favorite, Trent Johnson, I guess.  After all, he's been to more NCAA tournaments than Dawkins, so he's obviously a much better coach [see, garvin argument re Vanderveer, T., above].  Pay no attention to HIS record during the past 8 seasons [116-136], with 1 NCAA appearance and 1 NIT appearance.

Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

[washingtonismoney]

Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

You've got to be kidding me. What coach is going to shy away because fans are uninterested in a one-in-seven NCAA appearance record? Only a terminally frightened coach, really. A coach of any ambition realizes that Stanford fan demands are far less, and far more forgiving, than virtually any major job.

[washingtonismoney]

Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

You've got to be kidding me. What coach is going to shy away because fans are uninterested in a one-in-seven NCAA appearance record? Only a terminally frightened coach, really. A coach of any ambition realizes that Stanford fan demands are far less, and far more forgiving, than virtually any major job.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg156981#msg156981 date=1456170669]
Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

You've got to be kidding me. What coach is going to shy away because fans are uninterested in a one-in-seven NCAA appearance record? Only a terminally frightened coach, really. A coach of any ambition realizes that Stanford fan demands are far less, and far more forgiving, than virtually any major job.
[/quote]

I'm sorry.  I meant to say "more talented head coach..."  Oh, wait a minute, that's what I did say.  Because the type of coach I think you are describing is going to meet the same fate as Dawkins -- that is, fans who aren't going to show up and are going to be calling for his head -- much more quickly than even Dawkins did if he doesn't get to the tournament pretty much right away.

Remember, Dawkins was a brand new head coach when he started at Stanford and people think he's lousy because, in his 8th year, he's not as good as a 30-year HoF women's coach and a 30+-year [should be] HoF men's coach [who also coached in the NBA].  Indeed, beginning NEXT year, Dawkins will have the same amount of head coaching experience that Monty had when he coached his FIRST game at Stanford.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg156981#msg156981 date=1456170669]
Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

You've got to be kidding me. What coach is going to shy away because fans are uninterested in a one-in-seven NCAA appearance record? Only a terminally frightened coach, really. A coach of any ambition realizes that Stanford fan demands are far less, and far more forgiving, than virtually any major job.
[/quote]

I'm sorry.  I meant to say "more talented head coach..."  Oh, wait a minute, that's what I did say.  Because the type of coach I think you are describing is going to meet the same fate as Dawkins -- that is, fans who aren't going to show up and are going to be calling for his head -- much more quickly than even Dawkins did if he doesn't get to the tournament pretty much right away.

Remember, Dawkins was a brand new head coach when he started at Stanford and people think he's lousy because, in his 8th year, he's not as good as a 30-year HoF women's coach and a 30+-year [should be] HoF men's coach [who also coached in the NBA].  Indeed, beginning NEXT year, Dawkins will have the same amount of head coaching experience that Monty had when he coached his FIRST game at Stanford.

[76lsjumb]

You just keep clinging to that mantra that Dawkins is better than Trent Edwards. Putting aside the objective, statistical fact that Johnson's Stanford career was better that Dawkins' in every single respect, so what? Buddy Teevens was better than Cactus Jack Curtice, too. Should we also have kept him until hell froze over? Was he also just the victim of a fickle and ignorant fan base that stupidly craved winning teams when the realpolitik thinkers like you know that's impossible to achieve at Stanford? It is absolutely surreal to me that you are still dumping on Edwards eight years after he left in the wake of a Sweet 16 season, while leveling scathing criticism at fans who are unhappy with the program's current NIT-or-bust mentality.

But don't take my criticism too hard. I'm sure Bernard Muir agrees with you that it's the fans and not the coach who deserve to be fired. And when I see all those empty seats on TV, it sure looks to me like he's succeeding.

No, I think Trent Edwards was a much better passer...

Also, I think it's kind of funny, but the rabidity [rabidness?] with which you dislike Dawkins apparently kept you from seeing the first line of my post.  That would be the one where I said Dawkins should be replaced.  In all caps.

Apparently, replacing him isn't enough for you.  You want to make sure the door hits him on the way out, too.  :)

[76lsjumb]

You just keep clinging to that mantra that Dawkins is better than Trent Edwards. Putting aside the objective, statistical fact that Johnson's Stanford career was better that Dawkins' in every single respect, so what? Buddy Teevens was better than Cactus Jack Curtice, too. Should we also have kept him until hell froze over? Was he also just the victim of a fickle and ignorant fan base that stupidly craved winning teams when the realpolitik thinkers like you know that's impossible to achieve at Stanford? It is absolutely surreal to me that you are still dumping on Edwards eight years after he left in the wake of a Sweet 16 season, while leveling scathing criticism at fans who are unhappy with the program's current NIT-or-bust mentality.

But don't take my criticism too hard. I'm sure Bernard Muir agrees with you that it's the fans and not the coach who deserve to be fired. And when I see all those empty seats on TV, it sure looks to me like he's succeeding.

No, I think Trent Edwards was a much better passer...

Also, I think it's kind of funny, but the rabidity [rabidness?] with which you dislike Dawkins apparently kept you from seeing the first line of my post.  That would be the one where I said Dawkins should be replaced.  In all caps.

Apparently, replacing him isn't enough for you.  You want to make sure the door hits him on the way out, too.  :)

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14628.msg156983#msg156983 date=1456172082]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg156981#msg156981 date=1456170669]
Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

You've got to be kidding me. What coach is going to shy away because fans are uninterested in a one-in-seven NCAA appearance record? Only a terminally frightened coach, really. A coach of any ambition realizes that Stanford fan demands are far less, and far more forgiving, than virtually any major job.
[/quote]

I'm sorry.  I meant to say "more talented head coach..."  Oh, wait a minute, that's what I did say.  Because the type of coach I think you are describing is going to meet the same fate as Dawkins -- that is, fans who aren't going to show up and are going to be calling for his head -- much more quickly than even Dawkins did if he doesn't get to the tournament pretty much right away.

Remember, Dawkins was a brand new head coach when he started at Stanford and people think he's lousy because, in his 8th year, he's not as good as a 30-year HoF women's coach and a 30+-year [should be] HoF men's coach [who also coached in the NBA].  Indeed, beginning NEXT year, Dawkins will have the same amount of head coaching experience that Monty had when he coached his FIRST game at Stanford.
[/quote]

1. It's possible, but who knows. At any rate, coaches have egos. They will think they can do better than Dawkins -- which is not unreasonable, since Dawkins is average at the most charitable. And they will know that fans everywhere are fickle. If they have aspirations of competing for championships or coaching at places like Kentucky or UCLA or the New York Knicks, they will know that Stanford fans are kittens compared to the jungle cats. They will not care. This is a ridiculous idea.

2. Experience is nice, I suppose, but it's silly to use experience on its own as a qualification. We value experience because of what it imparts -- judgment, wisdom, skill. But experience doesn't have a uniform effect. There are plenty of dumb codgers and brilliant youth out there. Your example only proves this point all the better: Dawkins has gotten, at best, minimally better with age. That's nice.

And what your straw-manning approach steadfastly ignores is that there are many intermediate stops between "what Dawkins has done" and a "David Shaw, Mark Marquess or Tara Vanderveer" standard. A prospective head coach could go to the NCAAs half the time and be a vast improvement over Dawkins; I wouldn't complain too loudly, if at all.

What's most bizarre is that most people would use a strong track record of success as a reason to aspire to more. You're using it to despair. Most people would look at this record and think, "if we can do it in men's basketball, football, women's basketball [speech redacted for brevity]... then why the hell can't we do it in men's basketball now?" You've never tried to answer it, which is why your argument makes so little sense. 

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14628.msg156983#msg156983 date=1456172082]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg156981#msg156981 date=1456170669]
Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

You've got to be kidding me. What coach is going to shy away because fans are uninterested in a one-in-seven NCAA appearance record? Only a terminally frightened coach, really. A coach of any ambition realizes that Stanford fan demands are far less, and far more forgiving, than virtually any major job.
[/quote]

I'm sorry.  I meant to say "more talented head coach..."  Oh, wait a minute, that's what I did say.  Because the type of coach I think you are describing is going to meet the same fate as Dawkins -- that is, fans who aren't going to show up and are going to be calling for his head -- much more quickly than even Dawkins did if he doesn't get to the tournament pretty much right away.

Remember, Dawkins was a brand new head coach when he started at Stanford and people think he's lousy because, in his 8th year, he's not as good as a 30-year HoF women's coach and a 30+-year [should be] HoF men's coach [who also coached in the NBA].  Indeed, beginning NEXT year, Dawkins will have the same amount of head coaching experience that Monty had when he coached his FIRST game at Stanford.
[/quote]

1. It's possible, but who knows. At any rate, coaches have egos. They will think they can do better than Dawkins -- which is not unreasonable, since Dawkins is average at the most charitable. And they will know that fans everywhere are fickle. If they have aspirations of competing for championships or coaching at places like Kentucky or UCLA or the New York Knicks, they will know that Stanford fans are kittens compared to the jungle cats. They will not care. This is a ridiculous idea.

2. Experience is nice, I suppose, but it's silly to use experience on its own as a qualification. We value experience because of what it imparts -- judgment, wisdom, skill. But experience doesn't have a uniform effect. There are plenty of dumb codgers and brilliant youth out there. Your example only proves this point all the better: Dawkins has gotten, at best, minimally better with age. That's nice.

And what your straw-manning approach steadfastly ignores is that there are many intermediate stops between "what Dawkins has done" and a "David Shaw, Mark Marquess or Tara Vanderveer" standard. A prospective head coach could go to the NCAAs half the time and be a vast improvement over Dawkins; I wouldn't complain too loudly, if at all.

What's most bizarre is that most people would use a strong track record of success as a reason to aspire to more. You're using it to despair. Most people would look at this record and think, "if we can do it in men's basketball, football, women's basketball [speech redacted for brevity]... then why the hell can't we do it in men's basketball now?" You've never tried to answer it, which is why your argument makes so little sense. 

[BurgXXIII]

Here's a somewhat different take on all this. Perhaps JD is simply unsuited to the career of head basketball coach at the Div. 1 level. At the time of his hiring, any answer to this question was entirely speculative. He had been a successful player at a high level, a long-tenured assistant in a high-level program and a demonstrably cool, level-headed, pleasant personality. He clearly had made a career choice for whatever reasons. But perhaps his background just didn't translate to head coach. I'm sure there is something else he could be doing at which he would be superb.

Some of the same questions floated around Harbaugh's hire, as he had never lead a scholarship, recruiting program. He had, however, been demonstrably successful on the field and so expectations were not completely unfounded.

Muir should be investigating opportunities for JD to flourish in some other capacity, so the whole thing could be a win-win.

[BurgXXIII]

Here's a somewhat different take on all this. Perhaps JD is simply unsuited to the career of head basketball coach at the Div. 1 level. At the time of his hiring, any answer to this question was entirely speculative. He had been a successful player at a high level, a long-tenured assistant in a high-level program and a demonstrably cool, level-headed, pleasant personality. He clearly had made a career choice for whatever reasons. But perhaps his background just didn't translate to head coach. I'm sure there is something else he could be doing at which he would be superb.

Some of the same questions floated around Harbaugh's hire, as he had never lead a scholarship, recruiting program. He had, however, been demonstrably successful on the field and so expectations were not completely unfounded.

Muir should be investigating opportunities for JD to flourish in some other capacity, so the whole thing could be a win-win.

[winflop]

It would be very sad if making the NIT became a standard for the program.

What do you mean "became"?  It is.

[winflop]

It would be very sad if making the NIT became a standard for the program.

What do you mean "became"?  It is.

[winflop]

I almost don't even know where to start with this gross mischaracterization and borderline slanderous attack on me and others (although mostly me since I'm personally called out multiple times).

First, Tara doesn't deserve the same level of criticism as Dawkins because SHE GETS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BECAUSE SHE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SUCCESSFUL AS A HEAD COACH FOR A LONG, LONG TIME whereas Dawkins hasn't accomplished jack other than one week in March two years ago.  The higher frequency of Dawkins-esque mistakes this season in WBB can be viewed as a hiccup, whereas with MBB it is more of the same crap we've been subjected to for eight years.

Oh yeah, and WBB is still ranked in the top 20 and looking at a possible top four seed.  So there's that dinstinction too.

When three of the best players on the team are injured [two of whom being unable to play a single conference game], the analysis is "Dawkins stinks." 

Wrong.  When the AD uses that excuse for many of the last six years, it starts to ring hollow.  And again, like other comparisons, when it happens in WBB it doesn't happen as frequently, and Tara seems to be able to coach through it and still deliver results.

Beyond that, people bemoan close home losses despite the fact that they don't bother to show up to create the atmosphere required to have a home court advantage [and, SURPRISE!, when they do kind of show up in numbers sufficient to make some real noise, Stanford defeats the conference leader! -- although not by enough to make winflop happy...]

I DID SHOW UP FOR MULTIPLE YEARS OF THOSE CLOSE LOSSES - MORE TIMES THAN I CARE TO REMEMBER - AND I MADE A HELL OF A LOT OF NOISE SITTING VERY CLOSE TO THE FLOOR.  I stopped showing up when I got tired of it happening over and over again and saw no signs of it getting less frequent.

It is clear, however, that none of that is going to change while Dawkins is here, as the fans have decided they aren't interested in supporting a team they believe is mediocre with a coach they believe is mediocre.

Who said the team was mediocre?  I think I've consistently said that one of my major criticisms of Dawkins is that the whole seems less than the sum of its parts - even the Sweet 16 year that was Top 25 talent that got a #10 seed.  The talent is there to be more competitive than the results show.  It takes good coaching to get them to function as a cohesive unit, and I think even you can admit that has been the exception not the rule.

Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

I think a coach from a mid-major can see an opportunity to resurrect a once-great major conference program and get the fans back in the building.  Is it likely a stepping-stone position he will take for 4-5 years and then jump?  Probably, but when you've been this mediocre for this long you can't expect more than that.

I can't speak for other fans, but I can guarantee you that when there is a new coach on the sidelines I will be come to several games.  I will cheer - loudly - and I won't care much whether they win or lose for the first year or two because I will be optimistic that there is a new and better direction for the program.

[winflop]

I almost don't even know where to start with this gross mischaracterization and borderline slanderous attack on me and others (although mostly me since I'm personally called out multiple times).

First, Tara doesn't deserve the same level of criticism as Dawkins because SHE GETS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BECAUSE SHE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SUCCESSFUL AS A HEAD COACH FOR A LONG, LONG TIME whereas Dawkins hasn't accomplished jack other than one week in March two years ago.  The higher frequency of Dawkins-esque mistakes this season in WBB can be viewed as a hiccup, whereas with MBB it is more of the same crap we've been subjected to for eight years.

Oh yeah, and WBB is still ranked in the top 20 and looking at a possible top four seed.  So there's that dinstinction too.

When three of the best players on the team are injured [two of whom being unable to play a single conference game], the analysis is "Dawkins stinks." 

Wrong.  When the AD uses that excuse for many of the last six years, it starts to ring hollow.  And again, like other comparisons, when it happens in WBB it doesn't happen as frequently, and Tara seems to be able to coach through it and still deliver results.

Beyond that, people bemoan close home losses despite the fact that they don't bother to show up to create the atmosphere required to have a home court advantage [and, SURPRISE!, when they do kind of show up in numbers sufficient to make some real noise, Stanford defeats the conference leader! -- although not by enough to make winflop happy...]

I DID SHOW UP FOR MULTIPLE YEARS OF THOSE CLOSE LOSSES - MORE TIMES THAN I CARE TO REMEMBER - AND I MADE A HELL OF A LOT OF NOISE SITTING VERY CLOSE TO THE FLOOR.  I stopped showing up when I got tired of it happening over and over again and saw no signs of it getting less frequent.

It is clear, however, that none of that is going to change while Dawkins is here, as the fans have decided they aren't interested in supporting a team they believe is mediocre with a coach they believe is mediocre.

Who said the team was mediocre?  I think I've consistently said that one of my major criticisms of Dawkins is that the whole seems less than the sum of its parts - even the Sweet 16 year that was Top 25 talent that got a #10 seed.  The talent is there to be more competitive than the results show.  It takes good coaching to get them to function as a cohesive unit, and I think even you can admit that has been the exception not the rule.

Are there more talented head coaches out there than Dawkins?  Of course there are.  Would one of them want to come to Stanford?  Who knows?  If they do, though, it won't be because of the supportive fan base...

I think a coach from a mid-major can see an opportunity to resurrect a once-great major conference program and get the fans back in the building.  Is it likely a stepping-stone position he will take for 4-5 years and then jump?  Probably, but when you've been this mediocre for this long you can't expect more than that.

I can't speak for other fans, but I can guarantee you that when there is a new coach on the sidelines I will be come to several games.  I will cheer - loudly - and I won't care much whether they win or lose for the first year or two because I will be optimistic that there is a new and better direction for the program.

[winflop]

Here's a somewhat different take on all this. Perhaps JD is simply unsuited to the career of head basketball coach at the Div. 1 level.

I said at least two years ago that I thought JD could be a fanastic assistant coach who focused on the guards.  He has enormous experience at the highest levels to impart on young kids with high potential.  But the rest of the job of head coach doesn't seem to suit him very well.

[winflop]

Here's a somewhat different take on all this. Perhaps JD is simply unsuited to the career of head basketball coach at the Div. 1 level.

I said at least two years ago that I thought JD could be a fanastic assistant coach who focused on the guards.  He has enormous experience at the highest levels to impart on young kids with high potential.  But the rest of the job of head coach doesn't seem to suit him very well.

[2006alum]

Let's accept for the sake of argument your oft-stated contention that Trent Johnson is a steaming pile of rat feces. Yet he made the NCAA tournament in three out of his four seasons. I'm pretty sure that if Dawkins' team was about to finish out of the money for only the second time in eight years, hardly anybody would be demanding his head. (Certainly I wouldn't be.) So, it's not that anybody is demanding that Dawkins be as good as a hall of fame coach, only that he should be as good as the vermin excreta he replaced.

Agree with everything else you and winflop have said, but I just want to chime in here: Trent Johnson's success at Stanford can be attributed almost solely to the Lopez twins. And they were recruited by Monte, not Trent. I distinctly remember our excitement at their commitments my sophomore year (03-04) while Monty was still coach. And even then, with two NBA starters on our team, the best we did was one Sweet 16.

Dawkins also started with a much more bare cupboard than Trent did because Trent was a horrible recruiter. Landry Fields was the only good player he recruited and even Fields blossomed MUCH more after Trent left. So for me, it's about a wash between the two of them. The difference is that Bowlsby recognized Trent's flaws and acted by refusing to extend his contract. Muir has had more than enough time to assess Dawkins, and Dawkins has had more than enough time to fix our problems. Yet we've largely floundered year after year after year. Our utter mediocrity, coupled with the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, has just been too galling for me for too long. The last straw was blocking Rule of Tree on twitter. That's not only immature, but bound to backfire.

[2006alum]

Let's accept for the sake of argument your oft-stated contention that Trent Johnson is a steaming pile of rat feces. Yet he made the NCAA tournament in three out of his four seasons. I'm pretty sure that if Dawkins' team was about to finish out of the money for only the second time in eight years, hardly anybody would be demanding his head. (Certainly I wouldn't be.) So, it's not that anybody is demanding that Dawkins be as good as a hall of fame coach, only that he should be as good as the vermin excreta he replaced.

Agree with everything else you and winflop have said, but I just want to chime in here: Trent Johnson's success at Stanford can be attributed almost solely to the Lopez twins. And they were recruited by Monte, not Trent. I distinctly remember our excitement at their commitments my sophomore year (03-04) while Monty was still coach. And even then, with two NBA starters on our team, the best we did was one Sweet 16.

Dawkins also started with a much more bare cupboard than Trent did because Trent was a horrible recruiter. Landry Fields was the only good player he recruited and even Fields blossomed MUCH more after Trent left. So for me, it's about a wash between the two of them. The difference is that Bowlsby recognized Trent's flaws and acted by refusing to extend his contract. Muir has had more than enough time to assess Dawkins, and Dawkins has had more than enough time to fix our problems. Yet we've largely floundered year after year after year. Our utter mediocrity, coupled with the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, has just been too galling for me for too long. The last straw was blocking Rule of Tree on twitter. That's not only immature, but bound to backfire.

[76lsjumb]

You keep saying the anti-Dawkins forces are unreasonable, 76lsjumb. Okay. That's possible. So tell us what is reasonable. How meany seasons should he be head coach before he must make the NCAA two seasons in a row? Remember, we're already at eight. So...10? Twelve? Fifteen? Your call.

Since you asked, Monty did it in his 17th-18th seasons as a head coach [his 9th-10th at Stanford].  Obviously, a lot more teams make the NCAA tourney now, so it shouldn't be anywhere near as long as that.  And, indeed, I think Dawkins should have done it by now. 

But, one thing I do know, is that Trent Johnson didn't do it in the last eight years, either.  And he's the coach we would have had if his contract had been extended and everything else had played out the same.

[76lsjumb]

You keep saying the anti-Dawkins forces are unreasonable, 76lsjumb. Okay. That's possible. So tell us what is reasonable. How meany seasons should he be head coach before he must make the NCAA two seasons in a row? Remember, we're already at eight. So...10? Twelve? Fifteen? Your call.

Since you asked, Monty did it in his 17th-18th seasons as a head coach [his 9th-10th at Stanford].  Obviously, a lot more teams make the NCAA tourney now, so it shouldn't be anywhere near as long as that.  And, indeed, I think Dawkins should have done it by now. 

But, one thing I do know, is that Trent Johnson didn't do it in the last eight years, either.  And he's the coach we would have had if his contract had been extended and everything else had played out the same.