[OutsiderFan]

doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.

Of course not.  I don't see them winning in the first round against any 6 or 7 seed.  I'll guess Stanford is an 11 seed. But honestly, to me, they deserve to play in the play-in game.

Johnny Dawkins is like the "Pat" character from SNL fame.  You're not sure what he is, so you observe him, and just when you think he's not going to cut it,  he does something to make you think maybe he's about to turn it around.  And then, just when you think he's going to, he does something to make you think he needs to go.  Rinse.  Repeat.

But here's the thing.  Good to great coaches get results almost immediately.  Dawkins has proven he is a mediocre coach at best.  Does Stanford settle for mediocrity?

Dawkins has been a fine recruiter, so the question is will another coach be able to maintain the same recruiting level and get better on court results, or not be able to recruit as well, but coach and develop the team better.  And at the end of the day will another guy with less recruiting success be able to make the team better than a low seed one and done in the NCAA tournament?

[OutsiderFan]

doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.

Of course not.  I don't see them winning in the first round against any 6 or 7 seed.  I'll guess Stanford is an 11 seed. But honestly, to me, they deserve to play in the play-in game.

Johnny Dawkins is like the "Pat" character from SNL fame.  You're not sure what he is, so you observe him, and just when you think he's not going to cut it,  he does something to make you think maybe he's about to turn it around.  And then, just when you think he's going to, he does something to make you think he needs to go.  Rinse.  Repeat.

But here's the thing.  Good to great coaches get results almost immediately.  Dawkins has proven he is a mediocre coach at best.  Does Stanford settle for mediocrity?

Dawkins has been a fine recruiter, so the question is will another coach be able to maintain the same recruiting level and get better on court results, or not be able to recruit as well, but coach and develop the team better.  And at the end of the day will another guy with less recruiting success be able to make the team better than a low seed one and done in the NCAA tournament?