[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
...even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.

Oh, come on.  We get it: you think everyone else except you has unrealistic expectations.  But what you said here is ridiculous.  I obviously don't speak for everyone here, but as far as I'm concerned, an NIT championship next year wouldn't be a bad outcome at all, and would be far from a complete failure.

Yes, given the program Dawkins inherited, an NIT championship was a failure.  But thanks to the damage that the Dawkins era has done, his successor will inherit a much weaker program.  And from that starting point, an NIT championship isn't a bad first year.
[/quote]

If Dawkins had not been fired, and this same group of players, coached by Dawkins as opposed to whomever will be coaching them next year, had once again failed to make the NCAA and, instead, won the NIT for the 3rd time, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 99% of the people on this Board would have been denouncing the season as a failure, since, as winflop said, "success and NIT" cannot be used in the same sentence.  So, as a matter of logic, explain to me how that same group of players -- with a different coach -- would be a good first year?  It's the EXACT SAME TEAM [unless, of course, there are injuries...but that's no excuse, right?].  After all, it's not as if we're losing the Lopez twins and our top recruit.

Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?

Now, I fully expect the new coach to do better next year than Dawkins would have done, because, as someone else has said already "Stanford basketball is exciting again"  -- despite the fact that the only difference between today and yesterday is that we don't have a head coach now.  Honestly, if Dawkins had been back next season and won his first 10 games, people would STILL not be going to the home games and would have STILL been openly skeptical about the conference season.  With that weight lifted off of the players, it is virtually certain that the results are going to improve.  Nevertheless, if the new coach doesn't have a trajectory of success that is steeper and faster than Monty's, people are going to complain.  Guaranteed.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
...even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.

Oh, come on.  We get it: you think everyone else except you has unrealistic expectations.  But what you said here is ridiculous.  I obviously don't speak for everyone here, but as far as I'm concerned, an NIT championship next year wouldn't be a bad outcome at all, and would be far from a complete failure.

Yes, given the program Dawkins inherited, an NIT championship was a failure.  But thanks to the damage that the Dawkins era has done, his successor will inherit a much weaker program.  And from that starting point, an NIT championship isn't a bad first year.
[/quote]

If Dawkins had not been fired, and this same group of players, coached by Dawkins as opposed to whomever will be coaching them next year, had once again failed to make the NCAA and, instead, won the NIT for the 3rd time, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 99% of the people on this Board would have been denouncing the season as a failure, since, as winflop said, "success and NIT" cannot be used in the same sentence.  So, as a matter of logic, explain to me how that same group of players -- with a different coach -- would be a good first year?  It's the EXACT SAME TEAM [unless, of course, there are injuries...but that's no excuse, right?].  After all, it's not as if we're losing the Lopez twins and our top recruit.

Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?

Now, I fully expect the new coach to do better next year than Dawkins would have done, because, as someone else has said already "Stanford basketball is exciting again"  -- despite the fact that the only difference between today and yesterday is that we don't have a head coach now.  Honestly, if Dawkins had been back next season and won his first 10 games, people would STILL not be going to the home games and would have STILL been openly skeptical about the conference season.  With that weight lifted off of the players, it is virtually certain that the results are going to improve.  Nevertheless, if the new coach doesn't have a trajectory of success that is steeper and faster than Monty's, people are going to complain.  Guaranteed.