[yvonne]

Best comment on the Daily article is from jadedfan

"there are some around the Farm that think Dawkins deserves one more year"

I don't know these people, and I don't like these people.

[yvonne]

Best comment on the Daily article is from jadedfan

"there are some around the Farm that think Dawkins deserves one more year"

I don't know these people, and I don't like these people.

[Kathy]

1) Yes
2) Probably not
3) He has three more years on his contract -- a buyout would be expensive at this point, although maybe not as expensive as the long-term damage to the program if we keep him

The drop in fan support is a REACTION to the listless, uninspired play & coaching of the Cardinal; fans are NOT THE CAUSE of the team's misfortunes.

[Kathy]

1) Yes
2) Probably not
3) He has three more years on his contract -- a buyout would be expensive at this point, although maybe not as expensive as the long-term damage to the program if we keep him

The drop in fan support is a REACTION to the listless, uninspired play & coaching of the Cardinal; fans are NOT THE CAUSE of the team's misfortunes.

[Ratmandoo]

Hopefully they keep "real" attendance records so Bernard can see that once upon a time, Maples was rocking during men's basketball games.

They do. The scanners that they use for your tickets when you come into the game accurately show the AD exactly how many of the paying customers are showing up each night. And back in the day, before the scanners, event managers counted the turn styles (this isn't quite as accurate as the scanners today but it was a lot easier in the late 90's and early 2000's because the people actually showed up and filled up Maples). Muir should have all the information he needs to make the right decision.

[Ratmandoo]

Hopefully they keep "real" attendance records so Bernard can see that once upon a time, Maples was rocking during men's basketball games.

They do. The scanners that they use for your tickets when you come into the game accurately show the AD exactly how many of the paying customers are showing up each night. And back in the day, before the scanners, event managers counted the turn styles (this isn't quite as accurate as the scanners today but it was a lot easier in the late 90's and early 2000's because the people actually showed up and filled up Maples). Muir should have all the information he needs to make the right decision.

[yvonne]

The key is not so much whether the AD has accurate measures of attendance, but whether it has an accurate and appropriate basis for comparison. If the athletic department compares the last five years, it may not show sufficient decline. The attendance may have remained stable. However, if the last five years are compared to the prior five. The calculus is whether the loss of attendance revenue over the next year plus any attendant program damage from perceptions about the program are greater than the cost of buying out Dawkins' contract plus the new coach's contract.

[yvonne]

The key is not so much whether the AD has accurate measures of attendance, but whether it has an accurate and appropriate basis for comparison. If the athletic department compares the last five years, it may not show sufficient decline. The attendance may have remained stable. However, if the last five years are compared to the prior five. The calculus is whether the loss of attendance revenue over the next year plus any attendant program damage from perceptions about the program are greater than the cost of buying out Dawkins' contract plus the new coach's contract.

[OutsiderFan]

It doesn't seem possible that there has ever been a team a fan base would have hated more than this year's Stanford men's hoops team.  I didn't follow things that closely, but here are just a few highlights I am aware about:

1. Powell missing two dunks against in 1pt loss to not usc in hoops
2. Oregon blowout win
3. Shooting 33% from the FT line in 2 pt loss to IIRC, not USC in hoops
4. Cal blowout win to end its 7-game win streak
5. The OT tournament loss by 1 pt even sinking what, 15 3 pt shots

The team has some of the worst fundamentals and lowest IQ for its sport you'll ever see on a major conference team, which seems totally unacceptable for a Stanford team in any sport.  You take an NIT tournament champion team returning most of its key players, and actually don't get better the following year.  I just can't imagine even the biggest Stanford fan liking, let alone loving this team.  The attendance figures pretty much bear this out.

But hey, maybe they can repeat as NIT champs?

[OutsiderFan]

It doesn't seem possible that there has ever been a team a fan base would have hated more than this year's Stanford men's hoops team.  I didn't follow things that closely, but here are just a few highlights I am aware about:

1. Powell missing two dunks against in 1pt loss to not usc in hoops
2. Oregon blowout win
3. Shooting 33% from the FT line in 2 pt loss to IIRC, not USC in hoops
4. Cal blowout win to end its 7-game win streak
5. The OT tournament loss by 1 pt even sinking what, 15 3 pt shots

The team has some of the worst fundamentals and lowest IQ for its sport you'll ever see on a major conference team, which seems totally unacceptable for a Stanford team in any sport.  You take an NIT tournament champion team returning most of its key players, and actually don't get better the following year.  I just can't imagine even the biggest Stanford fan liking, let alone loving this team.  The attendance figures pretty much bear this out.

But hey, maybe they can repeat as NIT champs?

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=7662.msg60075#msg60075 date=1363280119]
Hopefully they keep "real" attendance records so Bernard can see that once upon a time, Maples was rocking during men's basketball games.

They do. The scanners that they use for your tickets when you come into the game accurately show the AD exactly how many of the paying customers are showing up each night. And back in the day, before the scanners, event managers counted the turn styles (this isn't quite as accurate as the scanners today but it was a lot easier in the late 90's and early 2000's because the people actually showed up and filled up Maples). Muir should have all the information he needs to make the right decision.
[/quote]

Yeaaah in this case the contrast is so stark that the eye ball test will suffice.

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=7662.msg60075#msg60075 date=1363280119]
Hopefully they keep "real" attendance records so Bernard can see that once upon a time, Maples was rocking during men's basketball games.

They do. The scanners that they use for your tickets when you come into the game accurately show the AD exactly how many of the paying customers are showing up each night. And back in the day, before the scanners, event managers counted the turn styles (this isn't quite as accurate as the scanners today but it was a lot easier in the late 90's and early 2000's because the people actually showed up and filled up Maples). Muir should have all the information he needs to make the right decision.
[/quote]

Yeaaah in this case the contrast is so stark that the eye ball test will suffice.

[FarmBoy]

Yeaaah in this case the contrast is so stark that the eye ball test will suffice.

For a Stanford insider, absolutely. But I'm not sure Muir was attending a lot of Stanford games in the early 2000's to have first hand experience with the true fan interest potential of the program. If he wasn't there, he might look at attendance figures, and based on the juiced public numbers from the the AD, it may not look so bad (although even those numbers probably show a significant drop.)

Someone should put together a compilation of Stanford games from the early 2000's that show the sixth man camping out for seats, fans on their feet, packed Maples, etc. In fact, just this clip should be instructive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP-NlPIVBsw

[FarmBoy]

Yeaaah in this case the contrast is so stark that the eye ball test will suffice.

For a Stanford insider, absolutely. But I'm not sure Muir was attending a lot of Stanford games in the early 2000's to have first hand experience with the true fan interest potential of the program. If he wasn't there, he might look at attendance figures, and based on the juiced public numbers from the the AD, it may not look so bad (although even those numbers probably show a significant drop.)

Someone should put together a compilation of Stanford games from the early 2000's that show the sixth man camping out for seats, fans on their feet, packed Maples, etc. In fact, just this clip should be instructive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP-NlPIVBsw

[81alum]

Yeaaah in this case the contrast is so stark that the eye ball test will suffice.

For a Stanford insider, absolutely. But I'm not sure Muir was attending a lot of Stanford games in the early 2000's to have first hand experience with the true fan interest potential of the program. If he wasn't there, he might look at attendance figures, and based on the juiced public numbers from the the AD, it may not look so bad (although even those numbers probably show a significant drop.)

Someone should put together a compilation of Stanford games from the early 2000's that show the sixth man camping out for seats, fans on their feet, packed Maples, etc. In fact, just this clip should be instructive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP-NlPIVBsw

Maybe I'm getting too sentimental in my old age, but rewatchng that actually made me misty-eyed.  I had almost forgotten how much I used to care about MBB at Stanford.

[81alum]

Yeaaah in this case the contrast is so stark that the eye ball test will suffice.

For a Stanford insider, absolutely. But I'm not sure Muir was attending a lot of Stanford games in the early 2000's to have first hand experience with the true fan interest potential of the program. If he wasn't there, he might look at attendance figures, and based on the juiced public numbers from the the AD, it may not look so bad (although even those numbers probably show a significant drop.)

Someone should put together a compilation of Stanford games from the early 2000's that show the sixth man camping out for seats, fans on their feet, packed Maples, etc. In fact, just this clip should be instructive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP-NlPIVBsw

Maybe I'm getting too sentimental in my old age, but rewatchng that actually made me misty-eyed.  I had almost forgotten how much I used to care about MBB at Stanford.

[81alum]

Here is the average home game attendance as reported on the Athletics Department own archives--how these numbers are computed I do not know, but they are damning enough. 

2012-13  4747  Dawkins Year 5  18-14 ?
2011-12  4891  Dawkins Year 4  26-11 NIT Champions
2010-11  5634  Dawkins Year 3  15-16
2009-10  6598  Dawkins Year 2  14-18
2008-09  6722  Dawkins Year 1  20-14 CBI Semifinals
2007-08  7331  Trent Johnson Year 4 28-8 Sweet 16

[81alum]

Here is the average home game attendance as reported on the Athletics Department own archives--how these numbers are computed I do not know, but they are damning enough. 

2012-13  4747  Dawkins Year 5  18-14 ?
2011-12  4891  Dawkins Year 4  26-11 NIT Champions
2010-11  5634  Dawkins Year 3  15-16
2009-10  6598  Dawkins Year 2  14-18
2008-09  6722  Dawkins Year 1  20-14 CBI Semifinals
2007-08  7331  Trent Johnson Year 4 28-8 Sweet 16

[washingtonismoney]

There may have only been a slight dropoff between 07-08 and 08-09, but Maples was a lot less fun and boisterous that year.

[washingtonismoney]

There may have only been a slight dropoff between 07-08 and 08-09, but Maples was a lot less fun and boisterous that year.

[81alum]

What those attendance figures show is that the fans stuck with Dawkins pretty well for two years.  There was some fall off which was to be expected after the Lopez twins left.

But in years 3 and 4 there were brobdingnagian drop offs.  That is where the terrible damage to the fan base was done.

This year was slightly lower than last year, but it looks as if we have gotten down to the hard core fans who are trying to stick it out.  But one wonders if even that hard core could be eroded.  There is still space between 4747 and 0.

[81alum]

What those attendance figures show is that the fans stuck with Dawkins pretty well for two years.  There was some fall off which was to be expected after the Lopez twins left.

But in years 3 and 4 there were brobdingnagian drop offs.  That is where the terrible damage to the fan base was done.

This year was slightly lower than last year, but it looks as if we have gotten down to the hard core fans who are trying to stick it out.  But one wonders if even that hard core could be eroded.  There is still space between 4747 and 0.

[BobK]

You are siting paid attendance which PAC 12 teams report.  My guess from
Attending all but one game 3200 average in attendance at best.  The ucla game was 5006.  But a number of games were 2500 or so.  Muir has all these #s of course.  Plus Muir is at most if not all games as is JA.  He can certainly hear the silence.

[BobK]

You are siting paid attendance which PAC 12 teams report.  My guess from
Attending all but one game 3200 average in attendance at best.  The ucla game was 5006.  But a number of games were 2500 or so.  Muir has all these #s of course.  Plus Muir is at most if not all games as is JA.  He can certainly hear the silence.

[yvonne]

There are only two ways Dawkins finishes out his contract:

1. Dawkins begins an upward path beginning with a tournament appearance next year to an elite eight two years from now.
2. Dawkins has secret videos of Muir fooling around with Hennessy's wife.

[yvonne]

There are only two ways Dawkins finishes out his contract:

1. Dawkins begins an upward path beginning with a tournament appearance next year to an elite eight two years from now.
2. Dawkins has secret videos of Muir fooling around with Hennessy's wife.

[CowboyIndian]

Rolex.

He's paid well and Rolex seems like a jock thing.  Maybe Tag Heuer.

Paid like Rolex, produces like Casio.

[CowboyIndian]

Rolex.

He's paid well and Rolex seems like a jock thing.  Maybe Tag Heuer.

Paid like Rolex, produces like Casio.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=7662.msg60058#msg60058 date=1363221854]
Rolex.

He's paid well and Rolex seems like a jock thing.  Maybe Tag Heuer.

Paid like Rolex, produces like Casio.
[/quote]

I don't know about that.  I have a Casio and it actually does a pretty good job in the last 30 seconds of every hour, which is more than can be said for...well, you get the idea...

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=jacketree link=topic=7662.msg60058#msg60058 date=1363221854]
Rolex.

He's paid well and Rolex seems like a jock thing.  Maybe Tag Heuer.

Paid like Rolex, produces like Casio.
[/quote]

I don't know about that.  I have a Casio and it actually does a pretty good job in the last 30 seconds of every hour, which is more than can be said for...well, you get the idea...

[Bruce Wang]

Paid like Rolex, produces like Casio.

Have to concur.  I wear a Casio as well.  It's solar powered so I don't have to worry about changing batteries or losing power from not wearing it.  It also synchronizes with atomic clocks so it keeps better time than a $20,000 Patek Phillipe.  When d-bags wearing expensive watches say I'm late, I look at my watch and say "Sorry dude, you're early."

[Bruce Wang]

Paid like Rolex, produces like Casio.

Have to concur.  I wear a Casio as well.  It's solar powered so I don't have to worry about changing batteries or losing power from not wearing it.  It also synchronizes with atomic clocks so it keeps better time than a $20,000 Patek Phillipe.  When d-bags wearing expensive watches say I'm late, I look at my watch and say "Sorry dude, you're early."

[washingtonismoney]

Dawkins is back; Muir gives him win-or-else ultimatum. Facepalms all around, the AD is out of touch with reality.

[washingtonismoney]

Dawkins is back; Muir gives him win-or-else ultimatum. Facepalms all around, the AD is out of touch with reality.

[81alum]

All I've seen is the teaser about tomorrow's Chronicle in which Tom Fitzgerald reports on an interview with Muir.  As Fitzgerald puts it

That’s a win-or-else ultimatum for Dawkins. But here’s the rub: I fully expect the Cardinal to win big next year, and so does everybody else. The Pac-12 title? Surely they’ll be in the hunt. But what happens when Dwight Powell (who announced Friday he’ll be back for his senior year), Josh Huestis, Aaron Bright, Andy Brown and John Gage leave after next season? Is this the way it’s going to be for Stanford — one title contention every five years?

http://blog.sfgate.com/stanfordsports/20...questions/

[81alum]

All I've seen is the teaser about tomorrow's Chronicle in which Tom Fitzgerald reports on an interview with Muir.  As Fitzgerald puts it

That’s a win-or-else ultimatum for Dawkins. But here’s the rub: I fully expect the Cardinal to win big next year, and so does everybody else. The Pac-12 title? Surely they’ll be in the hunt. But what happens when Dwight Powell (who announced Friday he’ll be back for his senior year), Josh Huestis, Aaron Bright, Andy Brown and John Gage leave after next season? Is this the way it’s going to be for Stanford — one title contention every five years?

http://blog.sfgate.com/stanfordsports/20...questions/

[yvonne]

http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1484095

Etch hired this guy from Georgetown to NOT FIX our basketball program?

[yvonne]

http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1484095

Etch hired this guy from Georgetown to NOT FIX our basketball program?

[Cadet84]

Pathetic. That's a lose-lose decision  >:(

[Cadet84]

Pathetic. That's a lose-lose decision  >:(