[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg157004#msg157004 date=1456185317]
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.

This is not a terribly convincing argument. To wit:

HARRIS: "I'm doing better than Buddy Teevens is right now over at Dartmouth."
BOWLSBY: "Makes sense to me!!!"
HARBAUGH: "Yo, guys?"

Johnson and Dawkins are both mediocre coaches. So we should...move on from both! This really isn't hard.
[/quote]

I guess it depends on what the argument is.  In my case, I was responding to what I understood to be garvin's argument, to wit, that Trent Johnson was a better coach than Dawkins because, at some point in his past, he had been to the NCAA tourney more than Dawkins, and that we would have been better off with Johnson than Dawkins.  I disagree, based on the fact that Dawkins' teams, except for one of the eight years, outperformed Johnson's teams.  Beyond that, my point was that, had Johnson's contract been extended and Bowlsby then left to be replaced by Muir, I don't think it's beyond the pale to assume that Muir would have kept Johnson on, just as he has Dawkins.  You [and I, for that matter] would presumably agree that would not have been the preferred outcome, but it might very well have happened.  Had that happened, would everyone have been supporting Johnson on the grounds that he went to the tourney three out of four years?  It doesn't sound like you would have, but garvin?

Also, comparing Dawkins -- who, by all accounts that I've heard, the players actually like -- to Harris, who, as I understand it, was not so widely liked by the players (and, in any event, had a 1-11 season -- that is, a season that was magnitudes worse than any of Dawkins') also strikes me as not a terribly convincing [or fair] argument.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg157004#msg157004 date=1456185317]
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.

This is not a terribly convincing argument. To wit:

HARRIS: "I'm doing better than Buddy Teevens is right now over at Dartmouth."
BOWLSBY: "Makes sense to me!!!"
HARBAUGH: "Yo, guys?"

Johnson and Dawkins are both mediocre coaches. So we should...move on from both! This really isn't hard.
[/quote]

I guess it depends on what the argument is.  In my case, I was responding to what I understood to be garvin's argument, to wit, that Trent Johnson was a better coach than Dawkins because, at some point in his past, he had been to the NCAA tourney more than Dawkins, and that we would have been better off with Johnson than Dawkins.  I disagree, based on the fact that Dawkins' teams, except for one of the eight years, outperformed Johnson's teams.  Beyond that, my point was that, had Johnson's contract been extended and Bowlsby then left to be replaced by Muir, I don't think it's beyond the pale to assume that Muir would have kept Johnson on, just as he has Dawkins.  You [and I, for that matter] would presumably agree that would not have been the preferred outcome, but it might very well have happened.  Had that happened, would everyone have been supporting Johnson on the grounds that he went to the tourney three out of four years?  It doesn't sound like you would have, but garvin?

Also, comparing Dawkins -- who, by all accounts that I've heard, the players actually like -- to Harris, who, as I understand it, was not so widely liked by the players (and, in any event, had a 1-11 season -- that is, a season that was magnitudes worse than any of Dawkins') also strikes me as not a terribly convincing [or fair] argument.