03-24-2015, 04:25 PM
If we use Sendak as a comparison, Dawkins doesn't look so bad. Not only was Sendak held on for two years longer, he has a significantly worse record, a significantly worse conference record, fewer NCAA tournament wins, fewer NIT wins (and feewer NIT championships), a worse average finish, two years finishing dead last (something Dawkins hasn't "accomplished" yet). The only thing he has on Dawkins is that his best year, he had a better conference finish than Dawkins did. But if Sendak is the standard, Dawkins should reasonably expect at least two more years, and probably more unless they are bad years.
Of course, I don't think Sendak should be the standard, especially for Stanford. The below-average mean conference finish for Dawkins is just devastating, in my opinion. One or two bad years is excusable, but an average finish over seven years that is less than the midpoint is unacceptable for Stanford basketball. I think we should reasonably strive to be in the top third of the conference (average finish of 4 or better). Dawkins is never going to get there.
BC
Of course, I don't think Sendak should be the standard, especially for Stanford. The below-average mean conference finish for Dawkins is just devastating, in my opinion. One or two bad years is excusable, but an average finish over seven years that is less than the midpoint is unacceptable for Stanford basketball. I think we should reasonably strive to be in the top third of the conference (average finish of 4 or better). Dawkins is never going to get there.
BC