[BurgXXIII]

...success at Stanford can be attributed almost solely to the Lopez twins. And they were recruited by Monte, not Trent

Actually, they were recruited by their mom.

[BurgXXIII]

...success at Stanford can be attributed almost solely to the Lopez twins. And they were recruited by Monte, not Trent

Actually, they were recruited by their mom.

[washingtonismoney]

But, one thing I do know, is that Trent Johnson didn't do it in the last eight years, either.  And he's the coach we would have had if his contract had been extended and everything else had played out the same.

This is not a terribly convincing argument. To wit:

HARRIS: "I'm doing better than Buddy Teevens is right now over at Dartmouth."
BOWLSBY: "Makes sense to me!!!"
HARBAUGH: "Yo, guys?"

Johnson and Dawkins are both mediocre coaches. So we should...move on from both! This really isn't hard.

[washingtonismoney]

But, one thing I do know, is that Trent Johnson didn't do it in the last eight years, either.  And he's the coach we would have had if his contract had been extended and everything else had played out the same.

This is not a terribly convincing argument. To wit:

HARRIS: "I'm doing better than Buddy Teevens is right now over at Dartmouth."
BOWLSBY: "Makes sense to me!!!"
HARBAUGH: "Yo, guys?"

Johnson and Dawkins are both mediocre coaches. So we should...move on from both! This really isn't hard.

[winflop]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14628.msg156988#msg156988 date=1456175563]
Let's accept for the sake of argument your oft-stated contention that Trent Johnson is a steaming pile of rat feces. Yet he made the NCAA tournament in three out of his four seasons. I'm pretty sure that if Dawkins' team was about to finish out of the money for only the second time in eight years, hardly anybody would be demanding his head. (Certainly I wouldn't be.) So, it's not that anybody is demanding that Dawkins be as good as a hall of fame coach, only that he should be as good as the vermin excreta he replaced.

Agree with everything else you and winflop have said, but I just want to chime in here: Trent Johnson's success at Stanford can be attributed almost solely to the Lopez twins. And they were recruited by Monte, not Trent. I distinctly remember our excitement at their commitments my sophomore year (03-04) while Monty was still coach. And even then, with two NBA starters on our team, the best we did was one Sweet 16.

Dawkins also started with a much more bare cupboard than Trent did because Trent was a horrible recruiter. Landry Fields was the only good player he recruited and even Fields blossomed MUCH more after Trent left. So for me, it's about a wash between the two of them. The difference is that Bowlsby recognized Trent's flaws and acted by refusing to extend his contract. Muir has had more than enough time to assess Dawkins, and Dawkins has had more than enough time to fix our problems. Yet we've largely floundered year after year after year. Our utter mediocrity, coupled with the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, has just been too galling for me for too long. The last straw was blocking Rule of Tree on twitter. That's not only immature, but bound to backfire.
[/quote]

I agree the cupboard was pretty bare when JD showed up which is why I and many other critics of him have given him the first two - even three - years as a pass.  But it's now Year 8 and there's no there there.

I wouldn't hire back Trent.  I would hire an up and coming coach from a mid-major, which BTW is exactly what Monty was when he was hired...

[winflop]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14628.msg156988#msg156988 date=1456175563]
Let's accept for the sake of argument your oft-stated contention that Trent Johnson is a steaming pile of rat feces. Yet he made the NCAA tournament in three out of his four seasons. I'm pretty sure that if Dawkins' team was about to finish out of the money for only the second time in eight years, hardly anybody would be demanding his head. (Certainly I wouldn't be.) So, it's not that anybody is demanding that Dawkins be as good as a hall of fame coach, only that he should be as good as the vermin excreta he replaced.

Agree with everything else you and winflop have said, but I just want to chime in here: Trent Johnson's success at Stanford can be attributed almost solely to the Lopez twins. And they were recruited by Monte, not Trent. I distinctly remember our excitement at their commitments my sophomore year (03-04) while Monty was still coach. And even then, with two NBA starters on our team, the best we did was one Sweet 16.

Dawkins also started with a much more bare cupboard than Trent did because Trent was a horrible recruiter. Landry Fields was the only good player he recruited and even Fields blossomed MUCH more after Trent left. So for me, it's about a wash between the two of them. The difference is that Bowlsby recognized Trent's flaws and acted by refusing to extend his contract. Muir has had more than enough time to assess Dawkins, and Dawkins has had more than enough time to fix our problems. Yet we've largely floundered year after year after year. Our utter mediocrity, coupled with the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, has just been too galling for me for too long. The last straw was blocking Rule of Tree on twitter. That's not only immature, but bound to backfire.
[/quote]

I agree the cupboard was pretty bare when JD showed up which is why I and many other critics of him have given him the first two - even three - years as a pass.  But it's now Year 8 and there's no there there.

I wouldn't hire back Trent.  I would hire an up and coming coach from a mid-major, which BTW is exactly what Monty was when he was hired...

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg157004#msg157004 date=1456185317]
But, one thing I do know, is that Trent Johnson didn't do it in the last eight years, either.  And he's the coach we would have had if his contract had been extended and everything else had played out the same.

This is not a terribly convincing argument. To wit:

HARRIS: "I'm doing better than Buddy Teevens is right now over at Dartmouth."
BOWLSBY: "Makes sense to me!!!"
HARBAUGH: "Yo, guys?"

Johnson and Dawkins are both mediocre coaches. So we should...move on from both! This really isn't hard.
[/quote]

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.  Beyond that, my point was that, had Johnson's contract been extended and Bowlsby then left to be replaced by Muir, I don't think it's beyond the pale to assume that Muir would have kept Johnson on, just as he has Dawkins.  You [and I, for that matter] would presumably agree that would not have been the preferred outcome, but it might very well have happened.  Had that happened, would everyone have been supporting Johnson on the grounds that he went to the tourney three out of four years?  It doesn't sound like you would have, but garvin?

Also, comparing Dawkins -- who, by all accounts that I've heard, the players actually like -- to Harris, who, as I understand it, was not so widely liked by the players (and, in any event, had a 1-11 season -- that is, a season that was magnitudes worse than any of Dawkins') also strikes me as not a terribly convincing [or fair] argument.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14628.msg157004#msg157004 date=1456185317]
But, one thing I do know, is that Trent Johnson didn't do it in the last eight years, either.  And he's the coach we would have had if his contract had been extended and everything else had played out the same.

This is not a terribly convincing argument. To wit:

HARRIS: "I'm doing better than Buddy Teevens is right now over at Dartmouth."
BOWLSBY: "Makes sense to me!!!"
HARBAUGH: "Yo, guys?"

Johnson and Dawkins are both mediocre coaches. So we should...move on from both! This really isn't hard.
[/quote]

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.  Beyond that, my point was that, had Johnson's contract been extended and Bowlsby then left to be replaced by Muir, I don't think it's beyond the pale to assume that Muir would have kept Johnson on, just as he has Dawkins.  You [and I, for that matter] would presumably agree that would not have been the preferred outcome, but it might very well have happened.  Had that happened, would everyone have been supporting Johnson on the grounds that he went to the tourney three out of four years?  It doesn't sound like you would have, but garvin?

Also, comparing Dawkins -- who, by all accounts that I've heard, the players actually like -- to Harris, who, as I understand it, was not so widely liked by the players (and, in any event, had a 1-11 season -- that is, a season that was magnitudes worse than any of Dawkins') also strikes me as not a terribly convincing [or fair] argument.

[SamAtoms1980]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14628.msg156989#msg156989 date=1456175875]
You keep saying the anti-Dawkins forces are unreasonable, 76lsjumb. Okay. That's possible. So tell us what is reasonable. How meany seasons should he be head coach before he must make the NCAA two seasons in a row? Remember, we're already at eight. So...10? Twelve? Fifteen? Your call.

Since you asked, Monty did it in his 17th-18th seasons as a head coach [his 9th-10th at Stanford].  Obviously, a lot more teams make the NCAA tourney now, so it shouldn't be anywhere near as long as that.  And, indeed, I think Dawkins should have done it by now. 

But, one thing I do know, is that Trent Johnson didn't do it in the last eight years, either.  And he's the coach we would have had if his contract had been extended and everything else had played out the same.
[/quote]


1995-1996:  NCAA field = 64 teams
2011-now:  NCAA field = 68 teams

Yep, a lot more teams make the NCAA tourney now.  We should still be making the field more often though.

[SamAtoms1980]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14628.msg156989#msg156989 date=1456175875]
You keep saying the anti-Dawkins forces are unreasonable, 76lsjumb. Okay. That's possible. So tell us what is reasonable. How meany seasons should he be head coach before he must make the NCAA two seasons in a row? Remember, we're already at eight. So...10? Twelve? Fifteen? Your call.

Since you asked, Monty did it in his 17th-18th seasons as a head coach [his 9th-10th at Stanford].  Obviously, a lot more teams make the NCAA tourney now, so it shouldn't be anywhere near as long as that.  And, indeed, I think Dawkins should have done it by now. 

But, one thing I do know, is that Trent Johnson didn't do it in the last eight years, either.  And he's the coach we would have had if his contract had been extended and everything else had played out the same.
[/quote]


1995-1996:  NCAA field = 64 teams
2011-now:  NCAA field = 68 teams

Yep, a lot more teams make the NCAA tourney now.  We should still be making the field more often though.

[Treebound]

You are arguing hypotheticals 76.  I believe that BobB let Trent twist in the wind a little and that Trent didn't like it and bolted.    The Lopi were delivered by their mother and by Monty before he took over.  Yes, the former players did lobby for Trent's hire, but his recruiting was questionable, especially for such a prominent program (at the time).  Who knows what BobB or Muir would have done?

The fact is that JD is 1 for 8!  He has taken a top tier basketball program and coached it down to a level of mediocrity, and he's done it with lightening speed.    The fanbase has voted with their feet and Maples is an empty shell of its once proud self.  As others have pointed out, JD is a nice guy (I've met him and would agree) and a career assistant coach, at best.  He's had his chances, more than enough, and he can't get it done.  Unlike football when Harbaugh took over, we knew with hoops that the program could compete at the highest levels.  Did I expect him to go 7 for 8? No.  The quality of play and player development is not where it needs to be the results, or lack thereof, speak volumes.  I'm ever the optimist (as a true Stanford fan), but I've hit my limit.  Muir is now becoming the target and I worry what that will do to the athletic program overall.  Recall that Ted's "Buddys" were his undoing...

[Treebound]

You are arguing hypotheticals 76.  I believe that BobB let Trent twist in the wind a little and that Trent didn't like it and bolted.    The Lopi were delivered by their mother and by Monty before he took over.  Yes, the former players did lobby for Trent's hire, but his recruiting was questionable, especially for such a prominent program (at the time).  Who knows what BobB or Muir would have done?

The fact is that JD is 1 for 8!  He has taken a top tier basketball program and coached it down to a level of mediocrity, and he's done it with lightening speed.    The fanbase has voted with their feet and Maples is an empty shell of its once proud self.  As others have pointed out, JD is a nice guy (I've met him and would agree) and a career assistant coach, at best.  He's had his chances, more than enough, and he can't get it done.  Unlike football when Harbaugh took over, we knew with hoops that the program could compete at the highest levels.  Did I expect him to go 7 for 8? No.  The quality of play and player development is not where it needs to be the results, or lack thereof, speak volumes.  I'm ever the optimist (as a true Stanford fan), but I've hit my limit.  Muir is now becoming the target and I worry what that will do to the athletic program overall.  Recall that Ted's "Buddys" were his undoing...

[winflop]

Minor point but Trent was one of Monty's assistant, and IIRC he was the main recruiter.  So he did have a bit to do with the Lopi.

You won't hear me say that Trent was a materially better coach than Dawkins.  I wouldn't want either one of them.

Did Dawkins need to get 6 or 7 bids in 8 years?  Of course not!  But he did need to field a competitive team that would contend for a conference title sometimes and would make the NCAA at least half the time (after the first 2-3 years to rebuild the roster).  Stanford has NEVER had so much as a whiff of contending in the last 5-6 years and 1 bid is not good enough, especially when the team was Top 25 talent and came in barely above the bubble.

[winflop]

Minor point but Trent was one of Monty's assistant, and IIRC he was the main recruiter.  So he did have a bit to do with the Lopi.

You won't hear me say that Trent was a materially better coach than Dawkins.  I wouldn't want either one of them.

Did Dawkins need to get 6 or 7 bids in 8 years?  Of course not!  But he did need to field a competitive team that would contend for a conference title sometimes and would make the NCAA at least half the time (after the first 2-3 years to rebuild the roster).  Stanford has NEVER had so much as a whiff of contending in the last 5-6 years and 1 bid is not good enough, especially when the team was Top 25 talent and came in barely above the bubble.

[76lsjumb]

You are arguing hypotheticals 76. 

True, but so is everyone else.  It is by definition just as much a hypothetical to argue that a different coach would have done any better than Dawkins has with the same players over the past 8 seasons.  It may very well be true, but it is still completely hypothetical. 

In any event, having already said multiple times today that I think DAWKINS SHOULD BE REPLACED, I've really not got much more to say.  I'll just keep going to the games, cheering on the team [regardless of who the coach is], hope for as many wins as possible, and look forward to the day when more folks decide to do the same.

[76lsjumb]

You are arguing hypotheticals 76. 

True, but so is everyone else.  It is by definition just as much a hypothetical to argue that a different coach would have done any better than Dawkins has with the same players over the past 8 seasons.  It may very well be true, but it is still completely hypothetical. 

In any event, having already said multiple times today that I think DAWKINS SHOULD BE REPLACED, I've really not got much more to say.  I'll just keep going to the games, cheering on the team [regardless of who the coach is], hope for as many wins as possible, and look forward to the day when more folks decide to do the same.

[winflop]

I think DAWKINS SHOULD BE REPLACED

Better late than never

[winflop]

I think DAWKINS SHOULD BE REPLACED

Better late than never

[Treebound]

Minor point but Trent was one of Monty's assistant, and IIRC he was the main recruiter.  So he did have a bit to do with the Lopi.

You won't hear me say that Trent was a materially better coach than Dawkins.  I wouldn't want either one of them.

Did Dawkins need to get 6 or 7 bids in 8 years?  Of course not!  But he did need to field a competitive team that would contend for a conference title sometimes and would make the NCAA at least half the time (after the first 2-3 years to rebuild the roster).  Stanford has NEVER had so much as a whiff of contending in the last 5-6 years and 1 bid is not good enough, especially when the team was Top 25 talent and came in barely above the bubble.

Winflop, Trent was with Monty prior to his five year head coaching stint at Nevada.  I don't think he had much to do with the Lopi recruitment.    Regarding the rest of your post, we agree to agree!

76, JD's record is not a hyopthetical, it's horrible given where the program was when he took over.  As many of us have stated, he's had his chance, but he's come up very short and needs to go.  I no longer believe in his ability to lead the program.  I'm willing to take my chances with what Muir does next.  He's a former player and on the selection committee.  I'm very troubled that it has taken Muir this long, but I think it is out of respect for JDs pedigree (Duke and NBA player, Duke assistant).  He's given him his chance and beyond, but it's time.  Yes, we will continue to go to games and cheer for the players, but unless he either runs the table on the last four conference games or delivers a P12 tourney championship, this team is watching the NCAA's in their dorm rooms...yet again.

[Treebound]

Minor point but Trent was one of Monty's assistant, and IIRC he was the main recruiter.  So he did have a bit to do with the Lopi.

You won't hear me say that Trent was a materially better coach than Dawkins.  I wouldn't want either one of them.

Did Dawkins need to get 6 or 7 bids in 8 years?  Of course not!  But he did need to field a competitive team that would contend for a conference title sometimes and would make the NCAA at least half the time (after the first 2-3 years to rebuild the roster).  Stanford has NEVER had so much as a whiff of contending in the last 5-6 years and 1 bid is not good enough, especially when the team was Top 25 talent and came in barely above the bubble.

Winflop, Trent was with Monty prior to his five year head coaching stint at Nevada.  I don't think he had much to do with the Lopi recruitment.    Regarding the rest of your post, we agree to agree!

76, JD's record is not a hyopthetical, it's horrible given where the program was when he took over.  As many of us have stated, he's had his chance, but he's come up very short and needs to go.  I no longer believe in his ability to lead the program.  I'm willing to take my chances with what Muir does next.  He's a former player and on the selection committee.  I'm very troubled that it has taken Muir this long, but I think it is out of respect for JDs pedigree (Duke and NBA player, Duke assistant).  He's given him his chance and beyond, but it's time.  Yes, we will continue to go to games and cheer for the players, but unless he either runs the table on the last four conference games or delivers a P12 tourney championship, this team is watching the NCAA's in their dorm rooms...yet again.

[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...  :)

[2006alum]

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.

I can't speak for Garvin, but I feel like the question is what flows from an observation that there have been some questionable coaching decisions on the women's team. If it's simply to say hey, this is a problem we need to correct, then I don't think anyone on this board disagrees. Even those of us who followed the women's team closely and think highly of Tara (a group which includes myself) have criticized coaching decisions for the women's team and picked apart various decisions they've made. For example, for the life of me, I just don't see how Kailee Johnson merits starts over Kaylee Johnson, no matter how many intangibles her game has. At a certain point, we need people who can be scoring threats under the basket. I don't understand why we don't regularly use McPhee and Smith, because they often follow a great game with extremely minimal playing time. Etc.

But I think some questionable decisions about how to pick a starting five lineup when ALL of your team's players have notable weaknesses and/or are HIGHLY streaky is also understandable. Kailee is a terrific defender. Kaylee doesn't like to play the four as much, so we can't use her as often when Bird is playing. McPhee is turnover prone. Smith is foul prone. Etc. So while I think we are within our rights to question some of Tara's choices, I don't think that adds up to "fire Tara." And I've not seen anyone on this board say she's unimpeachable to criticism. (After all, what would we talk about?!) I just don't think a reasonable case can be made that Tara is doing as bad or worse than Dawkins, based on objective, subjective, or other factors, even just over these last two seasons. And when you throw in Tara's track record, yes, she does deserve a lot more benefit of the doubt than Dawkins does. If you disagree with that, then we can just agree to disagree.

[2006alum]

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.

I can't speak for Garvin, but I feel like the question is what flows from an observation that there have been some questionable coaching decisions on the women's team. If it's simply to say hey, this is a problem we need to correct, then I don't think anyone on this board disagrees. Even those of us who followed the women's team closely and think highly of Tara (a group which includes myself) have criticized coaching decisions for the women's team and picked apart various decisions they've made. For example, for the life of me, I just don't see how Kailee Johnson merits starts over Kaylee Johnson, no matter how many intangibles her game has. At a certain point, we need people who can be scoring threats under the basket. I don't understand why we don't regularly use McPhee and Smith, because they often follow a great game with extremely minimal playing time. Etc.

But I think some questionable decisions about how to pick a starting five lineup when ALL of your team's players have notable weaknesses and/or are HIGHLY streaky is also understandable. Kailee is a terrific defender. Kaylee doesn't like to play the four as much, so we can't use her as often when Bird is playing. McPhee is turnover prone. Smith is foul prone. Etc. So while I think we are within our rights to question some of Tara's choices, I don't think that adds up to "fire Tara." And I've not seen anyone on this board say she's unimpeachable to criticism. (After all, what would we talk about?!) I just don't think a reasonable case can be made that Tara is doing as bad or worse than Dawkins, based on objective, subjective, or other factors, even just over these last two seasons. And when you throw in Tara's track record, yes, she does deserve a lot more benefit of the doubt than Dawkins does. If you disagree with that, then we can just agree to disagree.

[winflop]

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.

Questionable coaching for two years after a fantastic 20+ years including coaching the Olympic team compared to questionable coaching for at least five years with no prior history of any head coaching success...

When you're in a hole 76, it's time to stop digging. What's next 76 comparisons to Marquess?

[winflop]

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.

Questionable coaching for two years after a fantastic 20+ years including coaching the Olympic team compared to questionable coaching for at least five years with no prior history of any head coaching success...

When you're in a hole 76, it's time to stop digging. What's next 76 comparisons to Marquess?

[CTcard]

You've got to be kidding me. What coach is going to shy away because fans are uninterested in a one-in-seven NCAA appearance record? Only a terminally frightened coach, really. A coach of any ambition realizes that Stanford fan demands are far less, and far more forgiving, than virtually any major job.

I don't wish to take part in most of the silliness of this thread, but somewhere in here is a question I wonder about.

I guess it's sort of two questions, but I think they are related.

Just how attractive is Stanford as a destination for a basketball coach?

No real idea here, but Stanford's pitiful history in men's basketball makes one wonder if the attraction is all that high. For the most part "fans demand less" is probably not a positive feature for most coaches - certainly aggressive ones. I don't see any reason basketball coaches would have a different view of having actual academic standards any differently than football coaches would, but I am not certain. Which leads to ...

Is there any reason it should be harder for Stanford to succeed as men's basketball than football?

I think the answer is no, in fact it should be a little easier as Stanford only needs to recruit a few good hoops players to have a top team (at least compared to the number of football players needed).
The only reason the question comes up at all is that outside of the Monty years, Stanford basketball has been almost uniformly awful.

Here are Stanford bastketball coaches since WWII. Overall it's a rather sorry record, with a very clear exception of Monty and the arguable case of Johnson (which has been argued ad nauseum in this thread).
The whole thing makes me fear that whomever becomes Dawkins replacement is unlikely to do better.

Everett Dean*
11 seasons, 1939-51 (no basketball 1944,1945)
58% wins overall, 45% in conference

Robert Burnett
3 seasons, 1952-54
51% overall, 31% in conference

Howie Dallmar**
21 seasons, 1955-1975
49% overall, 45% in conference

Richard DiBiaso
7 seasons, 1976-82
37% overall, 25% in conference

Tom Davis
4 seasons, 1983-86
50% overall, 35% in conference

Mike Montgomery
13 seasons, 1987-04
70% overall, 65% in conference

Trent Johnson
4 seasons, 2005-08
63% overall, 63% in conference

Johnny Dawkins***
<8 seasons, 2009-16
58% overall, 46% in conference

* Dean did win a national title, which I guess means his evaluation should get an extra boost over and above his overall record. On the other hand, that really good year (which really was two really good years) means the others were even worse to end up at that average.

** I had to do the counting of conference total myself from the Stanford basketball wikipedia page. Dallmar has so many seasons there is a chance I made a mistake - glancing at the year by year records would seem to indicate the conference record shouldn't be that high.

*** The Wikipedia page has math errors in adding the overall wins and losses for Dawkins. I suspect the totals were added mid-last season. But, that does make me wonder if the total weren't correct for some of the others (though I didn't catch other mistakes).

[CTcard]

You've got to be kidding me. What coach is going to shy away because fans are uninterested in a one-in-seven NCAA appearance record? Only a terminally frightened coach, really. A coach of any ambition realizes that Stanford fan demands are far less, and far more forgiving, than virtually any major job.

I don't wish to take part in most of the silliness of this thread, but somewhere in here is a question I wonder about.

I guess it's sort of two questions, but I think they are related.

Just how attractive is Stanford as a destination for a basketball coach?

No real idea here, but Stanford's pitiful history in men's basketball makes one wonder if the attraction is all that high. For the most part "fans demand less" is probably not a positive feature for most coaches - certainly aggressive ones. I don't see any reason basketball coaches would have a different view of having actual academic standards any differently than football coaches would, but I am not certain. Which leads to ...

Is there any reason it should be harder for Stanford to succeed as men's basketball than football?

I think the answer is no, in fact it should be a little easier as Stanford only needs to recruit a few good hoops players to have a top team (at least compared to the number of football players needed).
The only reason the question comes up at all is that outside of the Monty years, Stanford basketball has been almost uniformly awful.

Here are Stanford bastketball coaches since WWII. Overall it's a rather sorry record, with a very clear exception of Monty and the arguable case of Johnson (which has been argued ad nauseum in this thread).
The whole thing makes me fear that whomever becomes Dawkins replacement is unlikely to do better.

Everett Dean*
11 seasons, 1939-51 (no basketball 1944,1945)
58% wins overall, 45% in conference

Robert Burnett
3 seasons, 1952-54
51% overall, 31% in conference

Howie Dallmar**
21 seasons, 1955-1975
49% overall, 45% in conference

Richard DiBiaso
7 seasons, 1976-82
37% overall, 25% in conference

Tom Davis
4 seasons, 1983-86
50% overall, 35% in conference

Mike Montgomery
13 seasons, 1987-04
70% overall, 65% in conference

Trent Johnson
4 seasons, 2005-08
63% overall, 63% in conference

Johnny Dawkins***
<8 seasons, 2009-16
58% overall, 46% in conference

* Dean did win a national title, which I guess means his evaluation should get an extra boost over and above his overall record. On the other hand, that really good year (which really was two really good years) means the others were even worse to end up at that average.

** I had to do the counting of conference total myself from the Stanford basketball wikipedia page. Dallmar has so many seasons there is a chance I made a mistake - glancing at the year by year records would seem to indicate the conference record shouldn't be that high.

*** The Wikipedia page has math errors in adding the overall wins and losses for Dawkins. I suspect the totals were added mid-last season. But, that does make me wonder if the total weren't correct for some of the others (though I didn't catch other mistakes).

[Papa John]

I think I figured it out. This thread is the CARDBoard's equivalent of the Argument Clinic.

[Papa John]

I think I figured it out. This thread is the CARDBoard's equivalent of the Argument Clinic.

[76lsjumb]

I think I figured it out. This thread is the CARDBoard's equivalent of the Argument Clinic.

+1  ;D

I had another post already drafted to respond to 2006alum [with whom I don't actually disagree much], but I think this is the perfect ending. 

Honestly, I had no idea that posting "DAWKINS SHOULD BE REPLACED" would engender such a negative and vituperative response from so many...

[76lsjumb]

I think I figured it out. This thread is the CARDBoard's equivalent of the Argument Clinic.

+1  ;D

I had another post already drafted to respond to 2006alum [with whom I don't actually disagree much], but I think this is the perfect ending. 

Honestly, I had no idea that posting "DAWKINS SHOULD BE REPLACED" would engender such a negative and vituperative response from so many...

[chimera]

I guess I might as well chime in as a long time women's basketball fan who follows the men's team a bit also.  IMO there is zero reason to compare anything that Dawkins has done with what Tara has done.  Women have a bad end of game against ASU does not equal the men struggling at the end of games multiple times a year in recent years.  The past two seasons for WBB have been down years compared to the strong of Final Fours but there is just no comparison with the men's results.  Last year's down year was 26-10, a Pac-12 tourney title, and a S16 NCAA finish.  The team was ranked all year.  This season, another with less talent than the F4 years, is now ranked in the top 15 at 22-6.  I nitpick the Tara's coaching plenty but trying to compare her coaching with what's going on with the men just seems a waste of time to me. 

[chimera]

I guess I might as well chime in as a long time women's basketball fan who follows the men's team a bit also.  IMO there is zero reason to compare anything that Dawkins has done with what Tara has done.  Women have a bad end of game against ASU does not equal the men struggling at the end of games multiple times a year in recent years.  The past two seasons for WBB have been down years compared to the strong of Final Fours but there is just no comparison with the men's results.  Last year's down year was 26-10, a Pac-12 tourney title, and a S16 NCAA finish.  The team was ranked all year.  This season, another with less talent than the F4 years, is now ranked in the top 15 at 22-6.  I nitpick the Tara's coaching plenty but trying to compare her coaching with what's going on with the men just seems a waste of time to me. 

[76lsjumb]

I guess I might as well chime in as a long time women's basketball fan who follows the men's team a bit also.  IMO there is zero reason to compare anything that Dawkins has done with what Tara has done.  Women have a bad end of game against ASU does not equal the men struggling at the end of games multiple times a year in recent years.  The past two seasons for WBB have been down years compared to the strong of Final Fours but there is just no comparison with the men's results.  Last year's down year was 26-10, a Pac-12 tourney title, and a S16 NCAA finish.  The team was ranked all year.  This season, another with less talent than the F4 years, is now ranked in the top 15 at 22-6.  I nitpick the Tara's coaching plenty but trying to compare her coaching with what's going on with the men just seems a waste of time to me.

I gather you were fortunate enough not to watch the 01/04 game against ASU and the 01/24 game against UCLA.  As low-scoring [and many would likely say, anemic] as the men's offense has been under Dawkins, I don't believe it has ever failed to score at least 40 points, while the women's team managed that feat TWICE [31 and 36, respectively] in less than 3 weeks.  And, of course, there was the meltdown against OSU and that rather ugly early home loss to Santa Clara.  You may place all of the blame for those outcomes on the players; I don't.  And, while I certainly acknowledge questionable coaching has contributed substantially to the men's late game struggles over the past few seasons, I don't believe it has been the sole cause [as I recall, for example, a number of instances where almost certain game-winning free throws were missed].  As a result, I think "zero reason to compare anything" is simply not supported by the facts.  But I do agree that it's a waste of time...

[76lsjumb]

I guess I might as well chime in as a long time women's basketball fan who follows the men's team a bit also.  IMO there is zero reason to compare anything that Dawkins has done with what Tara has done.  Women have a bad end of game against ASU does not equal the men struggling at the end of games multiple times a year in recent years.  The past two seasons for WBB have been down years compared to the strong of Final Fours but there is just no comparison with the men's results.  Last year's down year was 26-10, a Pac-12 tourney title, and a S16 NCAA finish.  The team was ranked all year.  This season, another with less talent than the F4 years, is now ranked in the top 15 at 22-6.  I nitpick the Tara's coaching plenty but trying to compare her coaching with what's going on with the men just seems a waste of time to me.

I gather you were fortunate enough not to watch the 01/04 game against ASU and the 01/24 game against UCLA.  As low-scoring [and many would likely say, anemic] as the men's offense has been under Dawkins, I don't believe it has ever failed to score at least 40 points, while the women's team managed that feat TWICE [31 and 36, respectively] in less than 3 weeks.  And, of course, there was the meltdown against OSU and that rather ugly early home loss to Santa Clara.  You may place all of the blame for those outcomes on the players; I don't.  And, while I certainly acknowledge questionable coaching has contributed substantially to the men's late game struggles over the past few seasons, I don't believe it has been the sole cause [as I recall, for example, a number of instances where almost certain game-winning free throws were missed].  As a result, I think "zero reason to compare anything" is simply not supported by the facts.  But I do agree that it's a waste of time...

[2006alum]

I gather you were fortunate enough not to watch the 01/04 game against ASU and the 01/24 game against UCLA.  As low-scoring [and many would likely say, anemic] as the men's offense has been under Dawkins, I don't believe it has ever failed to score at least 40 points, while the women's team managed that feat TWICE [31 and 36, respectively] in less than 3 weeks.  And, of course, there was the meltdown against OSU and that rather ugly early home loss to Santa Clara.  You may place all of the blame for those outcomes on the players; I don't.  And, while I certainly acknowledge questionable coaching has contributed substantially to the men's late game struggles over the past few seasons, I don't believe it has been the sole cause [as I recall, for example, a number of instances where almost certain game-winning free throws were missed].  As a result, I think "zero reason to compare anything" is simply not supported by the facts.  But I do agree that it's a waste of time...

To me, here's the difference:

-UCLA killed us, absolutely killed us, with a zone defense. So what happened between that game and our game against Washington? Presumably, the coaches worked relentlessly on it, because when Washington came out and tried the same thing, we overcame them to the degree that, if memory serves, they actually abandoned it midway through the game.
-Early in the season, Erica was avoiding jump shots and back-to-the-basket plays. I haven't been able to watch many games, but based on 81alum's very thorough writeups, my sense is that she's greatly expanded her offensive repertoire. The same applies to Kaylee.
-Until recently, Marta has basically completely avoided shooting the ball. Last few games, she's not only driven to the basket for layups, but even hit a jump shot or two. This is extremely encouraging. And her Assist-to-Turnover ratio has gone from below 1.00 to well north of 2.00 in the last few games. When interviewed, she has repeatedly stated how much the coaches have been working with her on these things and how much she appreciates it.

Can the coaches get all the credit for this? No, of course not. Players naturally develop too. They get bigger, stronger, and more confident. But on the women's side, they're developing before their senior year, and in ways that are clearly the result of coaching as well as natural development. By contrast, part of my frustration with the men's team is that most players only really seem to "break out" their senior year, when it's kind of too little, too late (the latest examples of this are Nastic last year and Rosco this year). And the players who *do* come in very naturally gifted, such as Randle and Powell, don't really seem to grow, and kind of plateau early on. Even Chiney, who came in very gifted, was a demonstrably better player by senior year. Her freshman year she often fouled out and was a little spastic under the basket. By senior year, she was a reliable rebounding and scoring machine.

All of this, to me, is evidence that while Tara isn't the perfect coach all the time and is prone to mistakes (especially, IMHO, in who she gives playing time to), I feel like we do seem to make strides on fixable errors in ways that is very encouraging. I just don't see that happening on the men's side.

[2006alum]

I gather you were fortunate enough not to watch the 01/04 game against ASU and the 01/24 game against UCLA.  As low-scoring [and many would likely say, anemic] as the men's offense has been under Dawkins, I don't believe it has ever failed to score at least 40 points, while the women's team managed that feat TWICE [31 and 36, respectively] in less than 3 weeks.  And, of course, there was the meltdown against OSU and that rather ugly early home loss to Santa Clara.  You may place all of the blame for those outcomes on the players; I don't.  And, while I certainly acknowledge questionable coaching has contributed substantially to the men's late game struggles over the past few seasons, I don't believe it has been the sole cause [as I recall, for example, a number of instances where almost certain game-winning free throws were missed].  As a result, I think "zero reason to compare anything" is simply not supported by the facts.  But I do agree that it's a waste of time...

To me, here's the difference:

-UCLA killed us, absolutely killed us, with a zone defense. So what happened between that game and our game against Washington? Presumably, the coaches worked relentlessly on it, because when Washington came out and tried the same thing, we overcame them to the degree that, if memory serves, they actually abandoned it midway through the game.
-Early in the season, Erica was avoiding jump shots and back-to-the-basket plays. I haven't been able to watch many games, but based on 81alum's very thorough writeups, my sense is that she's greatly expanded her offensive repertoire. The same applies to Kaylee.
-Until recently, Marta has basically completely avoided shooting the ball. Last few games, she's not only driven to the basket for layups, but even hit a jump shot or two. This is extremely encouraging. And her Assist-to-Turnover ratio has gone from below 1.00 to well north of 2.00 in the last few games. When interviewed, she has repeatedly stated how much the coaches have been working with her on these things and how much she appreciates it.

Can the coaches get all the credit for this? No, of course not. Players naturally develop too. They get bigger, stronger, and more confident. But on the women's side, they're developing before their senior year, and in ways that are clearly the result of coaching as well as natural development. By contrast, part of my frustration with the men's team is that most players only really seem to "break out" their senior year, when it's kind of too little, too late (the latest examples of this are Nastic last year and Rosco this year). And the players who *do* come in very naturally gifted, such as Randle and Powell, don't really seem to grow, and kind of plateau early on. Even Chiney, who came in very gifted, was a demonstrably better player by senior year. Her freshman year she often fouled out and was a little spastic under the basket. By senior year, she was a reliable rebounding and scoring machine.

All of this, to me, is evidence that while Tara isn't the perfect coach all the time and is prone to mistakes (especially, IMHO, in who she gives playing time to), I feel like we do seem to make strides on fixable errors in ways that is very encouraging. I just don't see that happening on the men's side.

[chimera]

[quote author=chimera link=topic=14628.msg157124#msg157124 date=1456336941]
I guess I might as well chime in as a long time women's basketball fan who follows the men's team a bit also.  IMO there is zero reason to compare anything that Dawkins has done with what Tara has done.  Women have a bad end of game against ASU does not equal the men struggling at the end of games multiple times a year in recent years.  The past two seasons for WBB have been down years compared to the strong of Final Fours but there is just no comparison with the men's results.  Last year's down year was 26-10, a Pac-12 tourney title, and a S16 NCAA finish.  The team was ranked all year.  This season, another with less talent than the F4 years, is now ranked in the top 15 at 22-6.  I nitpick the Tara's coaching plenty but trying to compare her coaching with what's going on with the men just seems a waste of time to me.

I gather you were fortunate enough not to watch the 01/04 game against ASU and the 01/24 game against UCLA.  As low-scoring [and many would likely say, anemic] as the men's offense has been under Dawkins, I don't believe it has ever failed to score at least 40 points, while the women's team managed that feat TWICE [31 and 36, respectively] in less than 3 weeks.  And, of course, there was the meltdown against OSU and that rather ugly early home loss to Santa Clara.  You may place all of the blame for those outcomes on the players; I don't.  And, while I certainly acknowledge questionable coaching has contributed substantially to the men's late game struggles over the past few seasons, I don't believe it has been the sole cause [as I recall, for example, a number of instances where almost certain game-winning free throws were missed].  As a result, I think "zero reason to compare anything" is simply not supported by the facts.  But I do agree that it's a waste of time...
[/quote]

You are misrepresenting what I wrote.  I certainly did not say that I place all the blame on the players.  If you followed WBB and read my posts here you would know that I have not liked some of the coaching choices this season.  You also gather wrong about what I've seen.  I've been to every home game this year (and pretty much all of them over the past 15+ seasons) and I've seen all the televised games.  We stunk against UCLA, ASU, and at the end of the OSU game.  Nobody is saying otherwise.   

What I am saying is that it's really silly to ignore the rest of this season or many seasons of past success because of a few clunker games this year when comparing coaches.  WBB went to F4s six out of seven years from 2008 to 2014, has been a #1 NCAA seed multiple times in that span, won the conference for many years running until last year, won the conference tournament all but I believe two (maybe three?) times since its inception, and even this year with the ugly games you mention, is still ranked #13, RPI 10 and is on track for probably a 4 or 5 seed in the NCAAs.  So a few stinker games this season means more than all that success and makes for a reasonable argument that Dawkins is a better coach this season?  Is that your argument in favor of Dawkins?  If so, well good luck with that.  I don't think you will convince many people.  I also find it a bit sad that you apparently feel your best argument in favor of Dawkins is to try to chop down another Stanford coach.  Dawkins' merits have nothing to do with whether or not Tara could have done a better job against ASU or UCLA or OSU (who are all ranked in the top 15 by the way).

[chimera]

[quote author=chimera link=topic=14628.msg157124#msg157124 date=1456336941]
I guess I might as well chime in as a long time women's basketball fan who follows the men's team a bit also.  IMO there is zero reason to compare anything that Dawkins has done with what Tara has done.  Women have a bad end of game against ASU does not equal the men struggling at the end of games multiple times a year in recent years.  The past two seasons for WBB have been down years compared to the strong of Final Fours but there is just no comparison with the men's results.  Last year's down year was 26-10, a Pac-12 tourney title, and a S16 NCAA finish.  The team was ranked all year.  This season, another with less talent than the F4 years, is now ranked in the top 15 at 22-6.  I nitpick the Tara's coaching plenty but trying to compare her coaching with what's going on with the men just seems a waste of time to me.

I gather you were fortunate enough not to watch the 01/04 game against ASU and the 01/24 game against UCLA.  As low-scoring [and many would likely say, anemic] as the men's offense has been under Dawkins, I don't believe it has ever failed to score at least 40 points, while the women's team managed that feat TWICE [31 and 36, respectively] in less than 3 weeks.  And, of course, there was the meltdown against OSU and that rather ugly early home loss to Santa Clara.  You may place all of the blame for those outcomes on the players; I don't.  And, while I certainly acknowledge questionable coaching has contributed substantially to the men's late game struggles over the past few seasons, I don't believe it has been the sole cause [as I recall, for example, a number of instances where almost certain game-winning free throws were missed].  As a result, I think "zero reason to compare anything" is simply not supported by the facts.  But I do agree that it's a waste of time...
[/quote]

You are misrepresenting what I wrote.  I certainly did not say that I place all the blame on the players.  If you followed WBB and read my posts here you would know that I have not liked some of the coaching choices this season.  You also gather wrong about what I've seen.  I've been to every home game this year (and pretty much all of them over the past 15+ seasons) and I've seen all the televised games.  We stunk against UCLA, ASU, and at the end of the OSU game.  Nobody is saying otherwise.   

What I am saying is that it's really silly to ignore the rest of this season or many seasons of past success because of a few clunker games this year when comparing coaches.  WBB went to F4s six out of seven years from 2008 to 2014, has been a #1 NCAA seed multiple times in that span, won the conference for many years running until last year, won the conference tournament all but I believe two (maybe three?) times since its inception, and even this year with the ugly games you mention, is still ranked #13, RPI 10 and is on track for probably a 4 or 5 seed in the NCAAs.  So a few stinker games this season means more than all that success and makes for a reasonable argument that Dawkins is a better coach this season?  Is that your argument in favor of Dawkins?  If so, well good luck with that.  I don't think you will convince many people.  I also find it a bit sad that you apparently feel your best argument in favor of Dawkins is to try to chop down another Stanford coach.  Dawkins' merits have nothing to do with whether or not Tara could have done a better job against ASU or UCLA or OSU (who are all ranked in the top 15 by the way).