Posts: 2,515
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 1969
Boy, it's tough, because he really does seem like a nice guy who's trying hard, runs a clean program, cares about all of his players, etc., but, if he sticks around one more year with the same results, it could take us a whole lot longer to get out of the hole into which we're descending.Â
Assuming this sophomore class really is as talented as their press clippings suggest, and the right coach could turn that talent into a consistently winning team [that gets better, not worse, as the season progresses], the prospects of having that group for TWO years should make Stanford an inviting opportunity for a new coach [and, presumably, MORE of an inviting opportunity than just having them for one year, if pulling the plug is delayed for yet one more season].
While letting Dawkins go now will mean that we had one coach [Trent Johnson] for only four years, followed by another for only three -- which doesn't exactly scream "long-term stability and chance for success" -- there is recent precedent that, even with such quick turnover, you can still find the right guy and have success: T.Bud.dy was here for only three years, followed by W.lat for just two, before we had a modicum of success with the guy that came in next... Of course, as painful as it was at the time, W.lat probably did us all a big favor by going 1-11, rather than, say, 5-7 or 4-8 in his second year -- no one really questions letting a 1-11 coach go, no matter how quickly it's done. This year in basketball, we're likely to have at least a .500 season, not a .083 one, so the case against Dawkins isn't quite so clear on its face. And, of course, Dawkins is Bowlsby's guy, while W.lat wasn't.
Really tough decision, but, for the program's sake, I think it's time.Â
And one thing is for sure, if there isn't a change, they will have to start selling lower bowl seats by the six-pack to get anyone to show up next year...