[76lsjumb]

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

Well...maybe it's a good thing that wasn't the thinking back in 1986-87 when Monty started.  His 7-year mean conference finish in the [then] Pac-10 was... 5.3 [with one 2d place and one last place] -- all in all pretty similar to Dawkins'.  Of course, Monty didn't really have the talent in those first seven years that Dawkins has had.  He had to get by with guys like Lichti and Keefe...

As for the expectations at ASU for Sendek, it may be that they were lower than for Dawkins at Stanford, but, by all rights, they probably shouldn't have been.  Sendek had 13 years of head coaching experience before going to ASU, including 6 NCAA trips and 6 NIT trips.  Dawkins had 0 years of head coaching experience.  There aren't many jobs where it's reasonable to expect someone with 13 years of experience [and relatively decent success] to do a worse job than someone with zero experience.  It may have been a mistake to hire a new head coach at Stanford with zero head coaching experience, but can't blame Dawkins for being hired.  Also, the situation at Stanford [in basketball] was pretty toxic when Dawkins took over, which, as I recall, created a fair amount of uncertainty as to exactly WHAT to expect.

I heartily agree that we should strive to be at the top of the conference on a regular basis, and Dawkins may not be the guy who can get us there.  But he at least deserves to have the arguments against him, and the comparisons with other coaches, be fair and consistently applied.

[76lsjumb]

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

Well...maybe it's a good thing that wasn't the thinking back in 1986-87 when Monty started.  His 7-year mean conference finish in the [then] Pac-10 was... 5.3 [with one 2d place and one last place] -- all in all pretty similar to Dawkins'.  Of course, Monty didn't really have the talent in those first seven years that Dawkins has had.  He had to get by with guys like Lichti and Keefe...

As for the expectations at ASU for Sendek, it may be that they were lower than for Dawkins at Stanford, but, by all rights, they probably shouldn't have been.  Sendek had 13 years of head coaching experience before going to ASU, including 6 NCAA trips and 6 NIT trips.  Dawkins had 0 years of head coaching experience.  There aren't many jobs where it's reasonable to expect someone with 13 years of experience [and relatively decent success] to do a worse job than someone with zero experience.  It may have been a mistake to hire a new head coach at Stanford with zero head coaching experience, but can't blame Dawkins for being hired.  Also, the situation at Stanford [in basketball] was pretty toxic when Dawkins took over, which, as I recall, created a fair amount of uncertainty as to exactly WHAT to expect.

I heartily agree that we should strive to be at the top of the conference on a regular basis, and Dawkins may not be the guy who can get us there.  But he at least deserves to have the arguments against him, and the comparisons with other coaches, be fair and consistently applied.