[washingtonismoney]

With a contract extension signed I'm belatedly drafted into the Dawkins camp - but drafted I am.  I will cheer for him to take Stanford to the next level.

Others have discussed program talent.  I don't believe Stanford's success depends upon lightning striking in the form of NBA lottery twins - even though we've proven lightning can indeed strike twice (Collins twins, Lopi).  Asking for a THIRD blue moon event risks pressing  the Basketball god's patience.  They may send us the skill equivalent of Greg Oden at Portland rather than Greg Oden at Ohio State. 

My complaint is that in his first years Dawkins tried to win using the run and gun, McDonald's AA route that isn't a match for Stanford.  If Stanford basketball success waits until we have a stable of long, lean McDonalds all-american clones then we will dance once a decade at most.  Stanford needs to develop the Pete Sauer's, the Rob Little's, the Matt Lottich's into top level NCAA players that fit seamlessly into a blue collar TEAM basketball concept that is capable of winning at the NCAA level.  I see flexibility in Dawkins' most recent approach but now I'm worried that while the second model may fit Stanford it may not be a fit for DAWKINS. 

Regardless, we now have another 3-4 years to cheer for Dawkins and wish that the fit - both ways - is a successful one for Stanford. 

Dawkins represents us off the court perfectly - it is time to make the on the court performance match.

Not to pick on you specifically, but I've always thought it's a bit weird the amount of time people talk about coaches representing the school off the field. People tend to say this about Shaw as well ("I may think his offense is the worst thing ever and Shaw can't game-manage his way into a paper bag," some critic will say, "but he represents us so well!" I'd always figured that was just a to-be-fair appendage added on for funsies.) I guess it's a bit weirder that this is mentioned for Dawkins, because I'd always believed that people wouldn't really care if the team in question were doing poorly. (I'm pretty much certain it won't matter for Shaw, assuming his inevitable nadir is anything worse than, say, 7-5 or so.) But, you know, Dawkins's results have not been good and you can only argue context if you'd like it to be average or acceptable.

I guess I have different values, because as long as the coach isn't embarrassing the school, I'm pretty indifferent to how the coach represents the school. Stanford's reputation, at this point, is pretty much set barring a major scandal, so I don't regard Dawkins or Shaw or Marquess or Vanderveer as ambassadors to the school. They're around to win and make sure their kids have good, rewarding college experiences to the best of their ability. Whether they have Harbaugh-esque antics or speak eloquently is not something I really care about.

(I would be more entertained by Harbaugh-esque antics though.)

[washingtonismoney]

With a contract extension signed I'm belatedly drafted into the Dawkins camp - but drafted I am.  I will cheer for him to take Stanford to the next level.

Others have discussed program talent.  I don't believe Stanford's success depends upon lightning striking in the form of NBA lottery twins - even though we've proven lightning can indeed strike twice (Collins twins, Lopi).  Asking for a THIRD blue moon event risks pressing  the Basketball god's patience.  They may send us the skill equivalent of Greg Oden at Portland rather than Greg Oden at Ohio State. 

My complaint is that in his first years Dawkins tried to win using the run and gun, McDonald's AA route that isn't a match for Stanford.  If Stanford basketball success waits until we have a stable of long, lean McDonalds all-american clones then we will dance once a decade at most.  Stanford needs to develop the Pete Sauer's, the Rob Little's, the Matt Lottich's into top level NCAA players that fit seamlessly into a blue collar TEAM basketball concept that is capable of winning at the NCAA level.  I see flexibility in Dawkins' most recent approach but now I'm worried that while the second model may fit Stanford it may not be a fit for DAWKINS. 

Regardless, we now have another 3-4 years to cheer for Dawkins and wish that the fit - both ways - is a successful one for Stanford. 

Dawkins represents us off the court perfectly - it is time to make the on the court performance match.

Not to pick on you specifically, but I've always thought it's a bit weird the amount of time people talk about coaches representing the school off the field. People tend to say this about Shaw as well ("I may think his offense is the worst thing ever and Shaw can't game-manage his way into a paper bag," some critic will say, "but he represents us so well!" I'd always figured that was just a to-be-fair appendage added on for funsies.) I guess it's a bit weirder that this is mentioned for Dawkins, because I'd always believed that people wouldn't really care if the team in question were doing poorly. (I'm pretty much certain it won't matter for Shaw, assuming his inevitable nadir is anything worse than, say, 7-5 or so.) But, you know, Dawkins's results have not been good and you can only argue context if you'd like it to be average or acceptable.

I guess I have different values, because as long as the coach isn't embarrassing the school, I'm pretty indifferent to how the coach represents the school. Stanford's reputation, at this point, is pretty much set barring a major scandal, so I don't regard Dawkins or Shaw or Marquess or Vanderveer as ambassadors to the school. They're around to win and make sure their kids have good, rewarding college experiences to the best of their ability. Whether they have Harbaugh-esque antics or speak eloquently is not something I really care about.

(I would be more entertained by Harbaugh-esque antics though.)