[76lsjumb]

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. 

No, 76lsjumb. What I said, quite clearly, was that you consider Trent Johnson a lousy, stinking coach. I further said, quite clearly, that we'll stipulate that's correct for the purposes of the argument. And then I said, clear as can be, that by YOUR definition, Dawkins' record at Stanford is much, much inferior to the crummy Johnson's record at Stanford.

All of this was in response to your -- sorry, but I just don't know what other word to use -- whiny complaint that we're expecting Dawkins to be as good as Mike Montgomery or Tara VanderVeer. No. We're just thinking he ought to be able to compile a record that's at least in the same ballpark as that of a coach you have said, repeatedly, was a hopeless jerkoff.

I also note that you've radically changed the parameters of your argument over the years. When Dawkins first arrived, you repeatedly invoked Dawkins' time at Duke and said he would be an excellent coach. You certainly never suggested it would take him 18 seasons.

Honestly, I can't we're arguing about this. Dawkins is under .500 in conference play over nearly eight seasons and has just one NCAA tournament appearance in that time. There is simply no measure by which this guy has shown himself to be a good coach or even an average coach. You're braying absurdities to suggest otherwise.

Well, since I'm pretty sure I'm being trolled here, I probably shouldn't even respond.  But dinner won't be ready for a few more minutes, so...  Indeed, I might have responded sooner, but I wanted to find a statement in your post that was actually true before doing so, and I finally decided that was a futile task.

I have never said that I consider Trent Johnson to be "a lousy, stinking coach," and I'll give you 20 bucks if you can find that quote by me anywhere.  What I HAVE said is that, over the past 8 seasons [and, in earlier posts, over the past however many seasons had transpired after the first one], Dawkins has had a better record than Johnson at either LSU or TCU.  That comparison, in my mind, is at least comparing apples to apples -- i.e., comparing Johnson without the Lopi to Dawkins without the Lopi -- which I consider to be a fairer comparison than yours [Johnson with the Lopi, coming off the Monty years, to Dawkins without the Lopi, coming off the very awkward transition from Johnson].  To you, my comparison may make Johnson "a lousy, stinking coach" [since he has an indisputably worse overall record than someone you apparently consider to be a less than average coach], but that's your assessment, not mine.

As for being "whiny," I personally think repeating the term mediocre a bazillion times is much more whiny than any of my comments have been, but, hey, that's obviously a matter of taste, so we can agree to disagree on that. 

And, as for my impression that you repeatedly [and, in my view, unfairly] compare Dawkins at head coaching year 8 to Monty and Tara at head coaching year 20+, that is simply fact.  Every time I raise issues with questionable coaching on the women's side over the past two years, for example, you have responded that Tara is entitled to some "slack" because of her PAST record of success over her entire career.  Similarly, when I pointed out that Monty had a 7-23 season that was substantially worse than ANY of Dawkins' seasons, you accused me of disingenuously "manipulating" the statistics because, obviously, Monty was a much better coach over his whole career.  So, if you're not expecting Dawkins to be as good a coach as Monty or Tara -- and, indeed, Monty or Tara as much more experienced coaches -- why do you constantly bring them up?  [By the way, I DO know that there were major injury issues during that 7-23 season (I actually attended all of those home games DESPITE the fact the team was doing so poorly), but, according to others here, injuries apparently aren't reasons for losing, they're merely excuses.]

Finally, I will add another 20 bucks to that first 20 if you can show me anywhere, in any post, that I EVER, let alone repeatedly, "invoked Dawkins' time at Duke and said he would be an excellent coach."  In fact, I believe my "argument parameters" have been remarkably consistent, even as my "benefit of the doubt" optimism has ebbed to its current level.  I said he deserved a chance.  I expressed optimism from time to time -- as, indeed, you did (if only for a millisecond) after the Sweet Sixteen run.  But I do not believe that I ever predicted excellence or invoked his time at Duke other than, perhaps, observing that he seemed to do a pretty good job of developing individual players, such as Nastic, Fields, etc., to reach their personal potential.

Happy hunting...but I don't think I'll be needing to visit the ATM...  :)

[76lsjumb]

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. 

No, 76lsjumb. What I said, quite clearly, was that you consider Trent Johnson a lousy, stinking coach. I further said, quite clearly, that we'll stipulate that's correct for the purposes of the argument. And then I said, clear as can be, that by YOUR definition, Dawkins' record at Stanford is much, much inferior to the crummy Johnson's record at Stanford.

All of this was in response to your -- sorry, but I just don't know what other word to use -- whiny complaint that we're expecting Dawkins to be as good as Mike Montgomery or Tara VanderVeer. No. We're just thinking he ought to be able to compile a record that's at least in the same ballpark as that of a coach you have said, repeatedly, was a hopeless jerkoff.

I also note that you've radically changed the parameters of your argument over the years. When Dawkins first arrived, you repeatedly invoked Dawkins' time at Duke and said he would be an excellent coach. You certainly never suggested it would take him 18 seasons.

Honestly, I can't we're arguing about this. Dawkins is under .500 in conference play over nearly eight seasons and has just one NCAA tournament appearance in that time. There is simply no measure by which this guy has shown himself to be a good coach or even an average coach. You're braying absurdities to suggest otherwise.

Well, since I'm pretty sure I'm being trolled here, I probably shouldn't even respond.  But dinner won't be ready for a few more minutes, so...  Indeed, I might have responded sooner, but I wanted to find a statement in your post that was actually true before doing so, and I finally decided that was a futile task.

I have never said that I consider Trent Johnson to be "a lousy, stinking coach," and I'll give you 20 bucks if you can find that quote by me anywhere.  What I HAVE said is that, over the past 8 seasons [and, in earlier posts, over the past however many seasons had transpired after the first one], Dawkins has had a better record than Johnson at either LSU or TCU.  That comparison, in my mind, is at least comparing apples to apples -- i.e., comparing Johnson without the Lopi to Dawkins without the Lopi -- which I consider to be a fairer comparison than yours [Johnson with the Lopi, coming off the Monty years, to Dawkins without the Lopi, coming off the very awkward transition from Johnson].  To you, my comparison may make Johnson "a lousy, stinking coach" [since he has an indisputably worse overall record than someone you apparently consider to be a less than average coach], but that's your assessment, not mine.

As for being "whiny," I personally think repeating the term mediocre a bazillion times is much more whiny than any of my comments have been, but, hey, that's obviously a matter of taste, so we can agree to disagree on that. 

And, as for my impression that you repeatedly [and, in my view, unfairly] compare Dawkins at head coaching year 8 to Monty and Tara at head coaching year 20+, that is simply fact.  Every time I raise issues with questionable coaching on the women's side over the past two years, for example, you have responded that Tara is entitled to some "slack" because of her PAST record of success over her entire career.  Similarly, when I pointed out that Monty had a 7-23 season that was substantially worse than ANY of Dawkins' seasons, you accused me of disingenuously "manipulating" the statistics because, obviously, Monty was a much better coach over his whole career.  So, if you're not expecting Dawkins to be as good a coach as Monty or Tara -- and, indeed, Monty or Tara as much more experienced coaches -- why do you constantly bring them up?  [By the way, I DO know that there were major injury issues during that 7-23 season (I actually attended all of those home games DESPITE the fact the team was doing so poorly), but, according to others here, injuries apparently aren't reasons for losing, they're merely excuses.]

Finally, I will add another 20 bucks to that first 20 if you can show me anywhere, in any post, that I EVER, let alone repeatedly, "invoked Dawkins' time at Duke and said he would be an excellent coach."  In fact, I believe my "argument parameters" have been remarkably consistent, even as my "benefit of the doubt" optimism has ebbed to its current level.  I said he deserved a chance.  I expressed optimism from time to time -- as, indeed, you did (if only for a millisecond) after the Sweet Sixteen run.  But I do not believe that I ever predicted excellence or invoked his time at Duke other than, perhaps, observing that he seemed to do a pretty good job of developing individual players, such as Nastic, Fields, etc., to reach their personal potential.

Happy hunting...but I don't think I'll be needing to visit the ATM...  :)