[washingtonismoney]

The sanctions haven't really affected USC much yet. For the past two years juniors and seniors could transfer without penalty. But they've still been able to bring in full recruiting classes, which Kiffin et. al. have availed themselves of. Theoretically the 15 scholarships/year limit should crop up this year and that's when the pain should begin.

[washingtonismoney]

The sanctions haven't really affected USC much yet. For the past two years juniors and seniors could transfer without penalty. But they've still been able to bring in full recruiting classes, which Kiffin et. al. have availed themselves of. Theoretically the 15 scholarships/year limit should crop up this year and that's when the pain should begin.

[terry]

You say Christiansen was mediocre because he consistently beat five of his seven conference opponents.

No, that's not what I said. What I said was that I think Christiansen was a mediocre coach, and that his W/L record benefitted from the fact that 4 of his 7 conference opponents were really bad during those years.

Christiansen was able to beat up on the four weaklings in the northwest, but that doesn't change the fact that he was mediocre. Even a mediocre coach often can beat bad opponents. For example, BuddyTeevens -- who was less than mediocre -- still went 3-0 against San Jose State. Christiansen had four conference games every year that were comparable to BuddyTeevens' games against San Jose State. Christiansen went 18-2 in those games. He went 12-20-3 (.386) in all other games.

[terry]

You say Christiansen was mediocre because he consistently beat five of his seven conference opponents.

No, that's not what I said. What I said was that I think Christiansen was a mediocre coach, and that his W/L record benefitted from the fact that 4 of his 7 conference opponents were really bad during those years.

Christiansen was able to beat up on the four weaklings in the northwest, but that doesn't change the fact that he was mediocre. Even a mediocre coach often can beat bad opponents. For example, BuddyTeevens -- who was less than mediocre -- still went 3-0 against San Jose State. Christiansen had four conference games every year that were comparable to BuddyTeevens' games against San Jose State. Christiansen went 18-2 in those games. He went 12-20-3 (.386) in all other games.

[76lsjumb]

Having been at Stanford for the Christiansen/Cor-divot era – arriving just after the Rose Bowls and leaving the year before the first coming of Bill Walsh – I actually have percipient knowledge [at least to the extent I haven’t forgotten it] of those teams.  Based on that knowledge, I’m inclined to go with the JPRI/Terry side, rather than the garvin side, in this debate.

Garvin’s got the winning percentage stats argument, for sure, but I [along with several others] spent the better part of the past two weeks arguing to the self-immolating [at least as far as “respect" points are concerned] D.C. B.e.a.r. and other Baylor-ites that stats can sometimes [often?] give a distorted picture of what really happened on the field.  No need to beat that dead horse any more.  Garvin’s other point – that Christiansen’s teams would likely have gone to at least two bowl games under the current bowl regime – is also one that I have repeated on numerous occasions over the years [generally in the midst of a baleful rant about how, when I was in the Band, we never got to go to a bowl game…not that I’m still bitter about that 35 years later or anything].  I even recall being present at few reasonably impressive wins during those years -- as well as, unfortunately, a number of not-so-impressive losses.

Nevertheless, for all of the points garvin makes, I can’t shake the general recollection that Stanford, for the most part, underachieved during those years and that the “underachievement” rested with the coaching as much as, or more so than, with the players.  I will grant you that I’m still waiting, after more than 35 years, for Ron Inge to actually turn the corner on a sweep, but with the likes of Tony Hill and Guy Benjamin [who always seemed to throw a touchdown pass when he was put in, but never seemed to be put in enough], I’ve always thought that we left a couple of wins on the field each season.  Maybe not enough to get us to the Rose Bowl, but still…

Finally, my unscientific test for the quality of a coach whose tenure ends “involuntarily” is to look at what happens the following season.  If, as I recall was the case here, the following year’s coach gets demonstrably better results with basically the same set of people – think Harbaugh at SF, Hoke at Michigan, for example – I think that is legitimate evidence upon which to question the prior coach’s overall ability.  Not a perfect test, by any means, and I’m sure there are numerous exceptions, but it still makes sense to me.

The thing about this whole thread that really makes me smile, though, is the thought that, 30 or so years from now, garvin may very well be pointing out that Johnny Dawkins really was a good coach [since, after all, his winning percentage is better than Tom D.a.vi.s.’ and even Howie Dallmar’s…]  ;D

[76lsjumb]

Having been at Stanford for the Christiansen/Cor-divot era – arriving just after the Rose Bowls and leaving the year before the first coming of Bill Walsh – I actually have percipient knowledge [at least to the extent I haven’t forgotten it] of those teams.  Based on that knowledge, I’m inclined to go with the JPRI/Terry side, rather than the garvin side, in this debate.

Garvin’s got the winning percentage stats argument, for sure, but I [along with several others] spent the better part of the past two weeks arguing to the self-immolating [at least as far as “respect" points are concerned] D.C. B.e.a.r. and other Baylor-ites that stats can sometimes [often?] give a distorted picture of what really happened on the field.  No need to beat that dead horse any more.  Garvin’s other point – that Christiansen’s teams would likely have gone to at least two bowl games under the current bowl regime – is also one that I have repeated on numerous occasions over the years [generally in the midst of a baleful rant about how, when I was in the Band, we never got to go to a bowl game…not that I’m still bitter about that 35 years later or anything].  I even recall being present at few reasonably impressive wins during those years -- as well as, unfortunately, a number of not-so-impressive losses.

Nevertheless, for all of the points garvin makes, I can’t shake the general recollection that Stanford, for the most part, underachieved during those years and that the “underachievement” rested with the coaching as much as, or more so than, with the players.  I will grant you that I’m still waiting, after more than 35 years, for Ron Inge to actually turn the corner on a sweep, but with the likes of Tony Hill and Guy Benjamin [who always seemed to throw a touchdown pass when he was put in, but never seemed to be put in enough], I’ve always thought that we left a couple of wins on the field each season.  Maybe not enough to get us to the Rose Bowl, but still…

Finally, my unscientific test for the quality of a coach whose tenure ends “involuntarily” is to look at what happens the following season.  If, as I recall was the case here, the following year’s coach gets demonstrably better results with basically the same set of people – think Harbaugh at SF, Hoke at Michigan, for example – I think that is legitimate evidence upon which to question the prior coach’s overall ability.  Not a perfect test, by any means, and I’m sure there are numerous exceptions, but it still makes sense to me.

The thing about this whole thread that really makes me smile, though, is the thought that, 30 or so years from now, garvin may very well be pointing out that Johnny Dawkins really was a good coach [since, after all, his winning percentage is better than Tom D.a.vi.s.’ and even Howie Dallmar’s…]  ;D

[terry]

I'm happy to point out that your hero and role model Johnny Dawkins went 20-14 (and, more significantly, 6-12 in conference) after taking over for the talentless jerkoff Trent Johnson (28-8, 13-5). Though, as I'm sure you'll point out, Johnson was only 2-3 in NCAA tournament games, while the exalted Dawkins is undefeated.

Do you think the Lopez twins might have had something to do with that?  :)

[terry]

I'm happy to point out that your hero and role model Johnny Dawkins went 20-14 (and, more significantly, 6-12 in conference) after taking over for the talentless jerkoff Trent Johnson (28-8, 13-5). Though, as I'm sure you'll point out, Johnson was only 2-3 in NCAA tournament games, while the exalted Dawkins is undefeated.

Do you think the Lopez twins might have had something to do with that?  :)

[76lsjumb]

Okay, garvin, I'll bite...

First, of course, I did include a disclaimer about my "what did the next coach do..." standard.  Nevertheless, I think I could make at least a not-wholly-ridiculous case that, from fairly early on and up until the time he decided to phone it in for the Seattle Bowl [having already packed his mental bags and shipped them off to South Bend], Ty.Will. was as good a coach, for the Stanford football team, as Walsh II was in the season following the Blockbuster Bowl.  As I recall, there were a number of issues that year as Walsh found it increasingly difficult to follow his bliss.  Ty.Will. did a pretty good job of eliminating those issues and getting things turned around.  My beef with Ty.Will. has never really been based on what he did when he was here, but the manner in which left [and, to a certain extent, what he did thereafter].  But, looking just at the respective performances 1993 - 1995 seasons [if I've got my dates right], I think my theory holds.

As for Dawkins, I think it's only fair to say that he hasn't posted enough yet to have attained "hero/role model" status -- probably more like Stanford Man or Woman  :) -- but I did say [or meant to] that my theory only obtained where the coaches are involuntarily terminated AND the personnel are basically the same.  I don't mean to start a debate on which category Trent fit into -- he technically left on his own, but I'm not insensitive to the claim that the location of the door was made very clear by Bowlsby. I DO believe, however, that the loss of the Lopi was sufficiently h.ug.e to make the Johnson/Dawkins transition ineligible for my theory.  Having said that, I would still argue that Dawkins probably got more out of the remaining players in his first year than Trent would have. 

[And, after all, Trent was really only 1.5-3 in NCAA tourney games at Stanford; Doug Oliver should get .5 for the end of that Marquette game, since Trent was actually in the locker room when Stanford won...  ;) ].

[76lsjumb]

Okay, garvin, I'll bite...

First, of course, I did include a disclaimer about my "what did the next coach do..." standard.  Nevertheless, I think I could make at least a not-wholly-ridiculous case that, from fairly early on and up until the time he decided to phone it in for the Seattle Bowl [having already packed his mental bags and shipped them off to South Bend], Ty.Will. was as good a coach, for the Stanford football team, as Walsh II was in the season following the Blockbuster Bowl.  As I recall, there were a number of issues that year as Walsh found it increasingly difficult to follow his bliss.  Ty.Will. did a pretty good job of eliminating those issues and getting things turned around.  My beef with Ty.Will. has never really been based on what he did when he was here, but the manner in which left [and, to a certain extent, what he did thereafter].  But, looking just at the respective performances 1993 - 1995 seasons [if I've got my dates right], I think my theory holds.

As for Dawkins, I think it's only fair to say that he hasn't posted enough yet to have attained "hero/role model" status -- probably more like Stanford Man or Woman  :) -- but I did say [or meant to] that my theory only obtained where the coaches are involuntarily terminated AND the personnel are basically the same.  I don't mean to start a debate on which category Trent fit into -- he technically left on his own, but I'm not insensitive to the claim that the location of the door was made very clear by Bowlsby. I DO believe, however, that the loss of the Lopi was sufficiently h.ug.e to make the Johnson/Dawkins transition ineligible for my theory.  Having said that, I would still argue that Dawkins probably got more out of the remaining players in his first year than Trent would have. 

[And, after all, Trent was really only 1.5-3 in NCAA tourney games at Stanford; Doug Oliver should get .5 for the end of that Marquette game, since Trent was actually in the locker room when Stanford won...  ;) ].

[76lsjumb]

Garvin, I don't buy the forced-out theory, either, for all of the reasons you mentioned. 

I do recall, however, that there were a number of folks at the time who felt that Bowlsby could have been more forthcoming with a better and earlier contract extension proposal to Trent and, because he wasn't, he knew or should have known [and may have consciously or sub-concsiously intended] that the result would very likely be Trent leaving to go elsewhere.  I'm not saying I buy that, but I'm not saying it's utterly preposterous, either [even if the timing/manner in which Trent left did result in what appeared to be a less-than-carefully-planned replacement search].

[76lsjumb]

Garvin, I don't buy the forced-out theory, either, for all of the reasons you mentioned. 

I do recall, however, that there were a number of folks at the time who felt that Bowlsby could have been more forthcoming with a better and earlier contract extension proposal to Trent and, because he wasn't, he knew or should have known [and may have consciously or sub-concsiously intended] that the result would very likely be Trent leaving to go elsewhere.  I'm not saying I buy that, but I'm not saying it's utterly preposterous, either [even if the timing/manner in which Trent left did result in what appeared to be a less-than-carefully-planned replacement search].

[JohnR34231]

is that terms like "mediocre", and "better than mediocre" are subjective ones, and like beauty are in the eye of the beholder.
So perhaps we are going to all just have to agree to disagree as to just what type of coach Jack Christiansen really was.

[JohnR34231]

is that terms like "mediocre", and "better than mediocre" are subjective ones, and like beauty are in the eye of the beholder.
So perhaps we are going to all just have to agree to disagree as to just what type of coach Jack Christiansen really was.

[LuckE2Bhere]

Forced out or not, this beholder is highly confident that we ended up with a much better coach in Dawkins than the one who ditched us (apparently because Bowlsby didn't demonstrate enough urgency in re-signing him to satisfy his Lopi-inflated ego).  Only time will tell, of course, but I even if Dawkins doesn't get us back to the Final Four (or leaves to replace Coach K some day), I doubt we'll be saying "and I really wish we still had Trent" in 5 years.

[LuckE2Bhere]

Forced out or not, this beholder is highly confident that we ended up with a much better coach in Dawkins than the one who ditched us (apparently because Bowlsby didn't demonstrate enough urgency in re-signing him to satisfy his Lopi-inflated ego).  Only time will tell, of course, but I even if Dawkins doesn't get us back to the Final Four (or leaves to replace Coach K some day), I doubt we'll be saying "and I really wish we still had Trent" in 5 years.

[teejers1]

"When Rick Neuheisel and Dennis Erickson were hired, I thought it was a major upgrade in coaching for both schools. But they never did much. . . ."

Hell, I was convinced the Neuheisal hire would be extremely bad for Stanford (and the rest of the conference), thus revealing my complete lack of vision on coaching hires.  Therefore, I will refrain from making any comments on UCLA's hiring of Mora . . . except to say "hard to know for sure at this time."

P.S.  Nice threadjack here.

[teejers1]

"When Rick Neuheisel and Dennis Erickson were hired, I thought it was a major upgrade in coaching for both schools. But they never did much. . . ."

Hell, I was convinced the Neuheisal hire would be extremely bad for Stanford (and the rest of the conference), thus revealing my complete lack of vision on coaching hires.  Therefore, I will refrain from making any comments on UCLA's hiring of Mora . . . except to say "hard to know for sure at this time."

P.S.  Nice threadjack here.