03-15-2013, 07:48 PM
Thought about this too. I don't really understand the move.
The current talent rich team probably would love a change. A new coach would likely love the talent and the ability to recruit the class to replace those guys. Would anyone associated with Stanford have been outraged if Muir fired Dawkins? I am sure someone somewhere wants Dawkins to stay, but would they not at least accept Muir's desire to try something different?
Keeping Dawkins is loaded with downsides. Dawkins will bolt if he ever finds a way to win. A large portion of the season ticket holders will bolt now knowing they can donate their way back to good seats when Dawkins is fired. Recruits will be told that Dawkins' time is limited.
Maybe Muir is trying to replicate the football team's turnaround. First the team needs to go 1-31 or so before the true turnaround can commence. Then a few years later Stanford will win the Pac-12 and make it to the Final Four. So the only way to get to those depths is to keep Dawkins as the coach.
The current talent rich team probably would love a change. A new coach would likely love the talent and the ability to recruit the class to replace those guys. Would anyone associated with Stanford have been outraged if Muir fired Dawkins? I am sure someone somewhere wants Dawkins to stay, but would they not at least accept Muir's desire to try something different?
Keeping Dawkins is loaded with downsides. Dawkins will bolt if he ever finds a way to win. A large portion of the season ticket holders will bolt now knowing they can donate their way back to good seats when Dawkins is fired. Recruits will be told that Dawkins' time is limited.
Maybe Muir is trying to replicate the football team's turnaround. First the team needs to go 1-31 or so before the true turnaround can commence. Then a few years later Stanford will win the Pac-12 and make it to the Final Four. So the only way to get to those depths is to keep Dawkins as the coach.