[BostonCard]

I know nobody's going to believe this, but I feel a little sad about this. Not that I didn't want it to happen. But Johnny Dawkins is a nice guy, not a jerk (unlike, say, a guy who a couple of coaches back was running the football program), and he certainly didn't go out there trying to fail. It would have been much better for everybody's sake if things had worked out well. I'm sorry that didn't happen.

I believe it.  Look, even as the evidence of Dawkins' futility kept piling up, I continued to hope that he would turn it around.  I would have liked nothing better than for Stanford to have been successful under him, even as I came to understand that the situation was increasingly unlikely.  As you pointed out, it is different than rooting against Walt Harris, who was a jerk AND incompetent.  More like the situation with Buddy Teavens, who wasn't a good coach, but wasn't a bad guy either (and I am glad to see successful in his new job).

As for the future, I want Stanford to hire the best coach out there, whether he has ties to Stanford or not.  Stanford ties are helpful when it comes to navigating admissions, since that is not a skill that even a successful head coach at another school (probably even including the Ivies) would learn prior to coming to Stanford.  But it is not an absolute requirement.  I want a coach who is good a teaching fundamentals.  The advantage of not taking one-and-dones is that we have the chance to invest in them and develop guys who might have potential but be a bit more raw.  I'm torn between looking for a guy who can do what Harbaugh did when he got here (zagging towards a run-first, tight end heavy pro-style offense, when the rest of college football was zigging towards the speed of spread option up-tempo offenses) and someone who sees the writing on the wall as far as the future of the game (which looks like it is going to head in the direction of the pro game; perimeter and three-point shooting oriented).  I do think we have a lot of advantages with regard to instituting a data/analytics oriented program, and I would love to see what we can do with those advantages.  As others, I think the ideal candidate will have experience as a head coach, but I also think it helps to have some experience at a major-program level (so, perhaps someone who was an assistant at a major program, and then went on to be a [successful] head coach at a mid-major.

BC 

[BostonCard]

I know nobody's going to believe this, but I feel a little sad about this. Not that I didn't want it to happen. But Johnny Dawkins is a nice guy, not a jerk (unlike, say, a guy who a couple of coaches back was running the football program), and he certainly didn't go out there trying to fail. It would have been much better for everybody's sake if things had worked out well. I'm sorry that didn't happen.

I believe it.  Look, even as the evidence of Dawkins' futility kept piling up, I continued to hope that he would turn it around.  I would have liked nothing better than for Stanford to have been successful under him, even as I came to understand that the situation was increasingly unlikely.  As you pointed out, it is different than rooting against Walt Harris, who was a jerk AND incompetent.  More like the situation with Buddy Teavens, who wasn't a good coach, but wasn't a bad guy either (and I am glad to see successful in his new job).

As for the future, I want Stanford to hire the best coach out there, whether he has ties to Stanford or not.  Stanford ties are helpful when it comes to navigating admissions, since that is not a skill that even a successful head coach at another school (probably even including the Ivies) would learn prior to coming to Stanford.  But it is not an absolute requirement.  I want a coach who is good a teaching fundamentals.  The advantage of not taking one-and-dones is that we have the chance to invest in them and develop guys who might have potential but be a bit more raw.  I'm torn between looking for a guy who can do what Harbaugh did when he got here (zagging towards a run-first, tight end heavy pro-style offense, when the rest of college football was zigging towards the speed of spread option up-tempo offenses) and someone who sees the writing on the wall as far as the future of the game (which looks like it is going to head in the direction of the pro game; perimeter and three-point shooting oriented).  I do think we have a lot of advantages with regard to instituting a data/analytics oriented program, and I would love to see what we can do with those advantages.  As others, I think the ideal candidate will have experience as a head coach, but I also think it helps to have some experience at a major-program level (so, perhaps someone who was an assistant at a major program, and then went on to be a [successful] head coach at a mid-major.

BC 

[BostonCard]

I know nobody's going to believe this, but I feel a little sad about this. Not that I didn't want it to happen. But Johnny Dawkins is a nice guy, not a jerk (unlike, say, a guy who a couple of coaches back was running the football program), and he certainly didn't go out there trying to fail. It would have been much better for everybody's sake if things had worked out well. I'm sorry that didn't happen.

I believe it.  Look, even as the evidence of Dawkins' futility kept piling up, I continued to hope that he would turn it around.  I would have liked nothing better than for Stanford to have been successful under him, even as I came to understand that the situation was increasingly unlikely.  As you pointed out, it is different than rooting against Walt Harris, who was a jerk AND incompetent.  More like the situation with Buddy Teavens, who wasn't a good coach, but wasn't a bad guy either (and I am glad to see successful in his new job).

As for the future, I want Stanford to hire the best coach out there, whether he has ties to Stanford or not.  Stanford ties are helpful when it comes to navigating admissions, since that is not a skill that even a successful head coach at another school (probably even including the Ivies) would learn prior to coming to Stanford.  But it is not an absolute requirement.  I want a coach who is good a teaching fundamentals.  The advantage of not taking one-and-dones is that we have the chance to invest in them and develop guys who might have potential but be a bit more raw.  I'm torn between looking for a guy who can do what Harbaugh did when he got here (zagging towards a run-first, tight end heavy pro-style offense, when the rest of college football was zigging towards the speed of spread option up-tempo offenses) and someone who sees the writing on the wall as far as the future of the game (which looks like it is going to head in the direction of the pro game; perimeter and three-point shooting oriented).  I do think we have a lot of advantages with regard to instituting a data/analytics oriented program, and I would love to see what we can do with those advantages.  As others, I think the ideal candidate will have experience as a head coach, but I also think it helps to have some experience at a major-program level (so, perhaps someone who was an assistant at a major program, and then went on to be a [successful] head coach at a mid-major.

BC 

[BostonCard]

I know nobody's going to believe this, but I feel a little sad about this. Not that I didn't want it to happen. But Johnny Dawkins is a nice guy, not a jerk (unlike, say, a guy who a couple of coaches back was running the football program), and he certainly didn't go out there trying to fail. It would have been much better for everybody's sake if things had worked out well. I'm sorry that didn't happen.

I believe it.  Look, even as the evidence of Dawkins' futility kept piling up, I continued to hope that he would turn it around.  I would have liked nothing better than for Stanford to have been successful under him, even as I came to understand that the situation was increasingly unlikely.  As you pointed out, it is different than rooting against Walt Harris, who was a jerk AND incompetent.  More like the situation with Buddy Teavens, who wasn't a good coach, but wasn't a bad guy either (and I am glad to see successful in his new job).

As for the future, I want Stanford to hire the best coach out there, whether he has ties to Stanford or not.  Stanford ties are helpful when it comes to navigating admissions, since that is not a skill that even a successful head coach at another school (probably even including the Ivies) would learn prior to coming to Stanford.  But it is not an absolute requirement.  I want a coach who is good a teaching fundamentals.  The advantage of not taking one-and-dones is that we have the chance to invest in them and develop guys who might have potential but be a bit more raw.  I'm torn between looking for a guy who can do what Harbaugh did when he got here (zagging towards a run-first, tight end heavy pro-style offense, when the rest of college football was zigging towards the speed of spread option up-tempo offenses) and someone who sees the writing on the wall as far as the future of the game (which looks like it is going to head in the direction of the pro game; perimeter and three-point shooting oriented).  I do think we have a lot of advantages with regard to instituting a data/analytics oriented program, and I would love to see what we can do with those advantages.  As others, I think the ideal candidate will have experience as a head coach, but I also think it helps to have some experience at a major-program level (so, perhaps someone who was an assistant at a major program, and then went on to be a [successful] head coach at a mid-major.

BC 

[BostonCard]

Our commit is staying committed:

https://twitter.com/ebosshoops/status/70...1545959424

No Plumlee redux.  Good!

https://twitter.com/nodazsoff/status/709505830295642112

BC

[BostonCard]

Our commit is staying committed:

https://twitter.com/ebosshoops/status/70...1545959424

No Plumlee redux.  Good!

https://twitter.com/nodazsoff/status/709505830295642112

BC

[BostonCard]

Our commit is staying committed:

https://twitter.com/ebosshoops/status/70...1545959424

No Plumlee redux.  Good!

https://twitter.com/nodazsoff/status/709505830295642112

BC

[BostonCard]

Our commit is staying committed:

https://twitter.com/ebosshoops/status/70...1545959424

No Plumlee redux.  Good!

https://twitter.com/nodazsoff/status/709505830295642112

BC

[Robbie]

One theme that I have not heard expressed here: Stanford is not just some Div I basketball program. Recruiting is different. Motivating players is different. Balancing academics and athletics during the season is different.

I don't think that someone can only succeed if he has previous experience at Stanford, but that might help. I do think that someone has to 100% buy in to the culture, though. Look on the recruiting restrictions as advantages, for example. (As has happened in football.) Find excellent basketball players who really want to be here and are capable to succeeding at this level, getting them through admissions, and then continuing to teach and develop their skills.

We can't just take the list of coaches who have taken a mid-major to the sweet sixteen as our starting point. That might work for Utah or Texas Tech, but we are not Utah or Texas Tech.

[Robbie]

One theme that I have not heard expressed here: Stanford is not just some Div I basketball program. Recruiting is different. Motivating players is different. Balancing academics and athletics during the season is different.

I don't think that someone can only succeed if he has previous experience at Stanford, but that might help. I do think that someone has to 100% buy in to the culture, though. Look on the recruiting restrictions as advantages, for example. (As has happened in football.) Find excellent basketball players who really want to be here and are capable to succeeding at this level, getting them through admissions, and then continuing to teach and develop their skills.

We can't just take the list of coaches who have taken a mid-major to the sweet sixteen as our starting point. That might work for Utah or Texas Tech, but we are not Utah or Texas Tech.

[Robbie]

One theme that I have not heard expressed here: Stanford is not just some Div I basketball program. Recruiting is different. Motivating players is different. Balancing academics and athletics during the season is different.

I don't think that someone can only succeed if he has previous experience at Stanford, but that might help. I do think that someone has to 100% buy in to the culture, though. Look on the recruiting restrictions as advantages, for example. (As has happened in football.) Find excellent basketball players who really want to be here and are capable to succeeding at this level, getting them through admissions, and then continuing to teach and develop their skills.

We can't just take the list of coaches who have taken a mid-major to the sweet sixteen as our starting point. That might work for Utah or Texas Tech, but we are not Utah or Texas Tech.

[Robbie]

One theme that I have not heard expressed here: Stanford is not just some Div I basketball program. Recruiting is different. Motivating players is different. Balancing academics and athletics during the season is different.

I don't think that someone can only succeed if he has previous experience at Stanford, but that might help. I do think that someone has to 100% buy in to the culture, though. Look on the recruiting restrictions as advantages, for example. (As has happened in football.) Find excellent basketball players who really want to be here and are capable to succeeding at this level, getting them through admissions, and then continuing to teach and develop their skills.

We can't just take the list of coaches who have taken a mid-major to the sweet sixteen as our starting point. That might work for Utah or Texas Tech, but we are not Utah or Texas Tech.

[winflop]

I know nobody's going to believe this, but I feel a little sad about this. Not that I didn't want it to happen. But Johnny Dawkins is a nice guy, not a jerk (unlike, say, a guy who a couple of coaches back was running the football program), and he certainly didn't go out there trying to fail. It would have been much better for everybody's sake if things had worked out well. I'm sorry that didn't happen.

You're not alone garvin.  I really do wish things had worked out for Dawkins.  I actually think he will make a better assistant than HC, but I just hope he finds success somewhere.

[winflop]

I know nobody's going to believe this, but I feel a little sad about this. Not that I didn't want it to happen. But Johnny Dawkins is a nice guy, not a jerk (unlike, say, a guy who a couple of coaches back was running the football program), and he certainly didn't go out there trying to fail. It would have been much better for everybody's sake if things had worked out well. I'm sorry that didn't happen.

You're not alone garvin.  I really do wish things had worked out for Dawkins.  I actually think he will make a better assistant than HC, but I just hope he finds success somewhere.

[winflop]

I know nobody's going to believe this, but I feel a little sad about this. Not that I didn't want it to happen. But Johnny Dawkins is a nice guy, not a jerk (unlike, say, a guy who a couple of coaches back was running the football program), and he certainly didn't go out there trying to fail. It would have been much better for everybody's sake if things had worked out well. I'm sorry that didn't happen.

You're not alone garvin.  I really do wish things had worked out for Dawkins.  I actually think he will make a better assistant than HC, but I just hope he finds success somewhere.

[winflop]

I know nobody's going to believe this, but I feel a little sad about this. Not that I didn't want it to happen. But Johnny Dawkins is a nice guy, not a jerk (unlike, say, a guy who a couple of coaches back was running the football program), and he certainly didn't go out there trying to fail. It would have been much better for everybody's sake if things had worked out well. I'm sorry that didn't happen.

You're not alone garvin.  I really do wish things had worked out for Dawkins.  I actually think he will make a better assistant than HC, but I just hope he finds success somewhere.

[PalmTree]

Danny Hurley coached a game at Stanford recently.  He is a joke.  Ranting and raving the whole time, no time for his team too busy yelling at the refs.  No nuts and no dookie or dookie connections allowed.

What Bob said, esp in re his bench style!

Also agree with others we need to bring in someone with (proven) head coaching AND college recruiting experience/exposure

[PalmTree]

Danny Hurley coached a game at Stanford recently.  He is a joke.  Ranting and raving the whole time, no time for his team too busy yelling at the refs.  No nuts and no dookie or dookie connections allowed.

What Bob said, esp in re his bench style!

Also agree with others we need to bring in someone with (proven) head coaching AND college recruiting experience/exposure

[PalmTree]

Danny Hurley coached a game at Stanford recently.  He is a joke.  Ranting and raving the whole time, no time for his team too busy yelling at the refs.  No nuts and no dookie or dookie connections allowed.

What Bob said, esp in re his bench style!

Also agree with others we need to bring in someone with (proven) head coaching AND college recruiting experience/exposure

[PalmTree]

Danny Hurley coached a game at Stanford recently.  He is a joke.  Ranting and raving the whole time, no time for his team too busy yelling at the refs.  No nuts and no dookie or dookie connections allowed.

What Bob said, esp in re his bench style!

Also agree with others we need to bring in someone with (proven) head coaching AND college recruiting experience/exposure

[76lsjumb]

Hiring a successful mid-major coach worked out pretty well with Montgomery.

Has it occurred to anyone that -- next to John Wooden and, arguably, Lute Olson -- Monty may very well have been the best coach [over the course of his whole career at Stanford, and even throwing in his stint at K.al] in Pac-8/10/12 history?  Which means it is somewhat naïve to say that doing what "worked out pretty well" with respect to Monty will simply "work out pretty well" again with the next hire [... or the one after that, or the one after that...].  Especially when, as was pointed out earlier, 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.

[76lsjumb]

Hiring a successful mid-major coach worked out pretty well with Montgomery.

Has it occurred to anyone that -- next to John Wooden and, arguably, Lute Olson -- Monty may very well have been the best coach [over the course of his whole career at Stanford, and even throwing in his stint at K.al] in Pac-8/10/12 history?  Which means it is somewhat naïve to say that doing what "worked out pretty well" with respect to Monty will simply "work out pretty well" again with the next hire [... or the one after that, or the one after that...].  Especially when, as was pointed out earlier, 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.

[76lsjumb]

Hiring a successful mid-major coach worked out pretty well with Montgomery.

Has it occurred to anyone that -- next to John Wooden and, arguably, Lute Olson -- Monty may very well have been the best coach [over the course of his whole career at Stanford, and even throwing in his stint at K.al] in Pac-8/10/12 history?  Which means it is somewhat naïve to say that doing what "worked out pretty well" with respect to Monty will simply "work out pretty well" again with the next hire [... or the one after that, or the one after that...].  Especially when, as was pointed out earlier, 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.

[76lsjumb]

Hiring a successful mid-major coach worked out pretty well with Montgomery.

Has it occurred to anyone that -- next to John Wooden and, arguably, Lute Olson -- Monty may very well have been the best coach [over the course of his whole career at Stanford, and even throwing in his stint at K.al] in Pac-8/10/12 history?  Which means it is somewhat naïve to say that doing what "worked out pretty well" with respect to Monty will simply "work out pretty well" again with the next hire [... or the one after that, or the one after that...].  Especially when, as was pointed out earlier, 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.

[DC]

Looking toward the future, I agree with winflop -- we should look for a guy with successful head-coaching experience. Our job should not be a learn-as-you-go internship.

I also think the new coach should try, if possible, to retain somebody from Dawkins' staff. You don't want to start recruiting from scratch.

I think we have two 4-star commits? (A center and a wing). Hope they signed up for the school and not Dawkins.

[DC]

Looking toward the future, I agree with winflop -- we should look for a guy with successful head-coaching experience. Our job should not be a learn-as-you-go internship.

I also think the new coach should try, if possible, to retain somebody from Dawkins' staff. You don't want to start recruiting from scratch.

I think we have two 4-star commits? (A center and a wing). Hope they signed up for the school and not Dawkins.

[DC]

Looking toward the future, I agree with winflop -- we should look for a guy with successful head-coaching experience. Our job should not be a learn-as-you-go internship.

I also think the new coach should try, if possible, to retain somebody from Dawkins' staff. You don't want to start recruiting from scratch.

I think we have two 4-star commits? (A center and a wing). Hope they signed up for the school and not Dawkins.

[DC]

Looking toward the future, I agree with winflop -- we should look for a guy with successful head-coaching experience. Our job should not be a learn-as-you-go internship.

I also think the new coach should try, if possible, to retain somebody from Dawkins' staff. You don't want to start recruiting from scratch.

I think we have two 4-star commits? (A center and a wing). Hope they signed up for the school and not Dawkins.

[winflop]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14741.msg158565#msg158565 date=1457994158]
Looking toward the future, I agree with winflop -- we should look for a guy with successful head-coaching experience. Our job should not be a learn-as-you-go internship.

I also think the new coach should try, if possible, to retain somebody from Dawkins' staff. You don't want to start recruiting from scratch.

I think we have two 4-star commits? (A center and a wing). Hope they signed up for the school and not Dawkins.
[/quote]

One of them has already reaffirmed his commitment

[winflop]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14741.msg158565#msg158565 date=1457994158]
Looking toward the future, I agree with winflop -- we should look for a guy with successful head-coaching experience. Our job should not be a learn-as-you-go internship.

I also think the new coach should try, if possible, to retain somebody from Dawkins' staff. You don't want to start recruiting from scratch.

I think we have two 4-star commits? (A center and a wing). Hope they signed up for the school and not Dawkins.
[/quote]

One of them has already reaffirmed his commitment

[winflop]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14741.msg158565#msg158565 date=1457994158]
Looking toward the future, I agree with winflop -- we should look for a guy with successful head-coaching experience. Our job should not be a learn-as-you-go internship.

I also think the new coach should try, if possible, to retain somebody from Dawkins' staff. You don't want to start recruiting from scratch.

I think we have two 4-star commits? (A center and a wing). Hope they signed up for the school and not Dawkins.
[/quote]

One of them has already reaffirmed his commitment

[winflop]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14741.msg158565#msg158565 date=1457994158]
Looking toward the future, I agree with winflop -- we should look for a guy with successful head-coaching experience. Our job should not be a learn-as-you-go internship.

I also think the new coach should try, if possible, to retain somebody from Dawkins' staff. You don't want to start recruiting from scratch.

I think we have two 4-star commits? (A center and a wing). Hope they signed up for the school and not Dawkins.
[/quote]

One of them has already reaffirmed his commitment

[2006alum]

Jeff Goodman on "Why Stanford parted ways with Dawkins." Jeff's take: "ultimately it came down to what have you done in the NCAA Tournament?" Somehow the clip makes the case for firing Dawkins seem weaker than it was. Then again, Prim introduces the segment by calling us the "Cardinals", so what do they know?!  :D

[2006alum]

Jeff Goodman on "Why Stanford parted ways with Dawkins." Jeff's take: "ultimately it came down to what have you done in the NCAA Tournament?" Somehow the clip makes the case for firing Dawkins seem weaker than it was. Then again, Prim introduces the segment by calling us the "Cardinals", so what do they know?!  :D

[2006alum]

Jeff Goodman on "Why Stanford parted ways with Dawkins." Jeff's take: "ultimately it came down to what have you done in the NCAA Tournament?" Somehow the clip makes the case for firing Dawkins seem weaker than it was. Then again, Prim introduces the segment by calling us the "Cardinals", so what do they know?!  :D

[2006alum]

Jeff Goodman on "Why Stanford parted ways with Dawkins." Jeff's take: "ultimately it came down to what have you done in the NCAA Tournament?" Somehow the clip makes the case for firing Dawkins seem weaker than it was. Then again, Prim introduces the segment by calling us the "Cardinals", so what do they know?!  :D

[Roberton3]

...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.

[Roberton3]

...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.

[Roberton3]

...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.

[Roberton3]

...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.