[82lsju]

Stanford’s Anne and Tony Joseph Director of Men's Basketball Johnny Dawkins has had his contract extended by the school, Jaquish and Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Muir announced today. Terms of the contract were not disclosed per University policy.

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=209674512

[82lsju]

Stanford’s Anne and Tony Joseph Director of Men's Basketball Johnny Dawkins has had his contract extended by the school, Jaquish and Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Muir announced today. Terms of the contract were not disclosed per University policy.

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=209674512

[washingtonismoney]

I thought it was weird it took this long, really. (Not that I approve of Dawkins. But if you do approve of him, as Muir evidently does, you really should've gotten the deal done sooner.)

[washingtonismoney]

I thought it was weird it took this long, really. (Not that I approve of Dawkins. But if you do approve of him, as Muir evidently does, you really should've gotten the deal done sooner.)

[Bruce Wang]

I can't think of any coach in D-1 basketball who has gotten more money out of fewer results. Assuming the renewal is for at least two years, Dawkins has ensured that he will be paid 10 years, at a salary higher than any other Stanford basketball coach in history, on the basis of a single NCAA appearance.

To Dawkins's credit, that sole NCAA appearance makes him better than any Northwestern coach.

[Bruce Wang]

I can't think of any coach in D-1 basketball who has gotten more money out of fewer results. Assuming the renewal is for at least two years, Dawkins has ensured that he will be paid 10 years, at a salary higher than any other Stanford basketball coach in history, on the basis of a single NCAA appearance.

To Dawkins's credit, that sole NCAA appearance makes him better than any Northwestern coach.

[FarmBoy]

So. Sad.

Five more years of mediocrity. Or I guess that would be an improvement, so hopefully mediocre.

[FarmBoy]

So. Sad.

Five more years of mediocrity. Or I guess that would be an improvement, so hopefully mediocre.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10701.msg99116#msg99116 date=1411576735]
I can't think of any coach in D-1 basketball who has gotten more money out of fewer results. Assuming the renewal is for at least two years, Dawkins has ensured that he will be paid 10 years, at a salary higher than any other Stanford basketball coach in history, on the basis of a single NCAA appearance.

To Dawkins's credit, that sole NCAA appearance makes him better than any Northwestern coach.
[/quote]

And, for that matter, that guy at Duke (with the name that's impossible to spell) at the same stage of his head coaching career...

[Now, pardon me as I duck under my desk to avoid the barrage of negative votes from garvin's automatic-thumbs-down generator...  ;) ]

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10701.msg99116#msg99116 date=1411576735]
I can't think of any coach in D-1 basketball who has gotten more money out of fewer results. Assuming the renewal is for at least two years, Dawkins has ensured that he will be paid 10 years, at a salary higher than any other Stanford basketball coach in history, on the basis of a single NCAA appearance.

To Dawkins's credit, that sole NCAA appearance makes him better than any Northwestern coach.
[/quote]

And, for that matter, that guy at Duke (with the name that's impossible to spell) at the same stage of his head coaching career...

[Now, pardon me as I duck under my desk to avoid the barrage of negative votes from garvin's automatic-thumbs-down generator...  ;) ]

[TrumpCard]

I know this has been discussed before, but I think it b.ears repeating when Dawkins critics get going:

Would we even be having this discussion if Anthony Brown had not suffered the hip injury in 12-13?  I think Stanford would have made the tournament that year and that Dawkins' job would have been safe. 

Yes, you could still argue that Dawkins isn't a good coach based on a lot of other factors, but I think that the failure to get to the tournament that year was the main fuel for the anti-Dawkins fire.  The first three years were bad, but Dawkins had no head coaching experience and came into a rotten situation.  The team's performance in Dawkins' fourth and sixth years was fine.  It was really that 5th year that caused so much anger, and you could argue that Anthony Brown's injury played a big part.

[TrumpCard]

I know this has been discussed before, but I think it b.ears repeating when Dawkins critics get going:

Would we even be having this discussion if Anthony Brown had not suffered the hip injury in 12-13?  I think Stanford would have made the tournament that year and that Dawkins' job would have been safe. 

Yes, you could still argue that Dawkins isn't a good coach based on a lot of other factors, but I think that the failure to get to the tournament that year was the main fuel for the anti-Dawkins fire.  The first three years were bad, but Dawkins had no head coaching experience and came into a rotten situation.  The team's performance in Dawkins' fourth and sixth years was fine.  It was really that 5th year that caused so much anger, and you could argue that Anthony Brown's injury played a big part.

[FarmBoy]

TrumpCard - I can't speak for others in the anti-Dawkins camp, but '12-'13 had little to do with my position on him. I was "selling" Dawkins well before that. One player going down should not be your margin of error between making the tournament or not, given the historical success of Stanford's program.

76lsjumb - wrong. In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, he had a streak of 3 NCAA tournament appearances (and wasn't that harder back then before 64 teams?) and one of those teams made the Finals.

[FarmBoy]

TrumpCard - I can't speak for others in the anti-Dawkins camp, but '12-'13 had little to do with my position on him. I was "selling" Dawkins well before that. One player going down should not be your margin of error between making the tournament or not, given the historical success of Stanford's program.

76lsjumb - wrong. In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, he had a streak of 3 NCAA tournament appearances (and wasn't that harder back then before 64 teams?) and one of those teams made the Finals.

[StanfordMatt]

As insufferable as the anti-Dawkins camp has been over the years, at least we no longer have to hear that Bowlsby let the next John Wooden get away when Trent bolted for LSU.

[StanfordMatt]

As insufferable as the anti-Dawkins camp has been over the years, at least we no longer have to hear that Bowlsby let the next John Wooden get away when Trent bolted for LSU.

[76lsjumb]

76lsjumb - wrong. In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, he had a streak of 3 NCAA tournament appearances (and wasn't that harder back then before 64 teams?) and one of those teams made the Finals.

Not so fast, my friend.  In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, ...

he had been a head coach for eleven years.  Doubling [nearly] the amount of head-coaching time/experience puts one into a different stage, at least in my mind.

[76lsjumb]

76lsjumb - wrong. In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, he had a streak of 3 NCAA tournament appearances (and wasn't that harder back then before 64 teams?) and one of those teams made the Finals.

Not so fast, my friend.  In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, ...

he had been a head coach for eleven years.  Doubling [nearly] the amount of head-coaching time/experience puts one into a different stage, at least in my mind.

[Leftcoast]

As a member of the so-called Anti-Dawkins camp let me put a different spin on this.  We are not anti-Dawkins, we are pro Stanford basketball. 

The messages above suggesting that Dawkins has really done OK over the past three years show an acceptance of mediocrity, a dumbing down of Stanford's standards. 

In the 15 years before Dawkins came to Stanford, Montgomery and Johnson took Stanford to 13 NCAA tournaments and Stanford placed in the top half of the PAC 10 in each of the 15 years.  Under Dawkins we have made one NCAA in six years and finished in the top half of the Pac  twice (once as #6). 

More than that, Stanford went from being a perennial top 10 team under Montgomery and a team that was frequently listed as an emerging member of the basketball elite to one of the vast unwashed second tier teams that occasionally make some noise.  Maples went from a must-have ticket among Cardinal faithful and students to a sleepy gym and so-so ticket.

I think Dawkins recruits well enough to turn this around but don't fool yourself - A turn around is required.  Fans who have been around a while and had Maples tickets under Montgomery had a front row seat from which to watch as the program descended.  I celebrate last year as a small step toward relevance not as a return to the program's previous glory.

Holding the program to its previous standard isn't anti-Dawkins, it is pro-Stanford. 

1993–94 Mike Montgomery 17–11 10–8 NIT First Round
1994–95 Mike Montgomery 20–9 10–8 NCAA Second Round
1995–96 Mike Montgomery 21–8 12–6 NCAA Second Round
1996–97 Mike Montgomery 22–8 12–6 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1997–98 Mike Montgomery 30–5 15–3 NCAA Final Four
1998–99 Mike Montgomery 26–7 15–3 NCAA Second Round
1999–00 Mike Montgomery 27–4 15–3 NCAA Second Round
2000–01 Mike Montgomery 31–3 16–2 NCAA Elite Eight
2001–02 Mike Montgomery 20–10 12–6 NCAA Second Round
2002–03 Mike Montgomery 24–9 14–4 NCAA Second Round
2003–04 Mike Montgomery 30–2 17–1 NCAA Second Round

2004–05 Trent Johnson 18–13 11–7 NCAA First Round
2005–06 Trent Johnson 16–14 11–7 NIT Second Round
2006–07 Trent Johnson 18–13 10–8 NCAA First Round
2007–08 Trent Johnson 28–8        13–5 NCAA Sweet Sixteen 
   

[Leftcoast]

As a member of the so-called Anti-Dawkins camp let me put a different spin on this.  We are not anti-Dawkins, we are pro Stanford basketball. 

The messages above suggesting that Dawkins has really done OK over the past three years show an acceptance of mediocrity, a dumbing down of Stanford's standards. 

In the 15 years before Dawkins came to Stanford, Montgomery and Johnson took Stanford to 13 NCAA tournaments and Stanford placed in the top half of the PAC 10 in each of the 15 years.  Under Dawkins we have made one NCAA in six years and finished in the top half of the Pac  twice (once as #6). 

More than that, Stanford went from being a perennial top 10 team under Montgomery and a team that was frequently listed as an emerging member of the basketball elite to one of the vast unwashed second tier teams that occasionally make some noise.  Maples went from a must-have ticket among Cardinal faithful and students to a sleepy gym and so-so ticket.

I think Dawkins recruits well enough to turn this around but don't fool yourself - A turn around is required.  Fans who have been around a while and had Maples tickets under Montgomery had a front row seat from which to watch as the program descended.  I celebrate last year as a small step toward relevance not as a return to the program's previous glory.

Holding the program to its previous standard isn't anti-Dawkins, it is pro-Stanford. 

1993–94 Mike Montgomery 17–11 10–8 NIT First Round
1994–95 Mike Montgomery 20–9 10–8 NCAA Second Round
1995–96 Mike Montgomery 21–8 12–6 NCAA Second Round
1996–97 Mike Montgomery 22–8 12–6 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1997–98 Mike Montgomery 30–5 15–3 NCAA Final Four
1998–99 Mike Montgomery 26–7 15–3 NCAA Second Round
1999–00 Mike Montgomery 27–4 15–3 NCAA Second Round
2000–01 Mike Montgomery 31–3 16–2 NCAA Elite Eight
2001–02 Mike Montgomery 20–10 12–6 NCAA Second Round
2002–03 Mike Montgomery 24–9 14–4 NCAA Second Round
2003–04 Mike Montgomery 30–2 17–1 NCAA Second Round

2004–05 Trent Johnson 18–13 11–7 NCAA First Round
2005–06 Trent Johnson 16–14 11–7 NIT Second Round
2006–07 Trent Johnson 18–13 10–8 NCAA First Round
2007–08 Trent Johnson 28–8        13–5 NCAA Sweet Sixteen 
   

[jacketree]

I can't think of any coach in D-1 basketball who has gotten more money out of fewer results.

Man, I can. Paul Hewitt.

[jacketree]

I can't think of any coach in D-1 basketball who has gotten more money out of fewer results.

Man, I can. Paul Hewitt.

[TrumpCard]

FarmBoy:  For those "selling" Dawkins before 12-13, my argument does not apply.  However, for those who decided Dawkins had to go only when Stanford missed the tournament in 12-13, then I think my argument has merit because Stanford's historical standards (which, in reality, refers to the standards for the Mike Montgomery years) had no application for the program in 12-13. 

The goal in 12-13 was to make steady progress from the prior year when Stanford won the NIT, and I think that players who were able to play that year did make such progress.  Powell won the Pac-12 most improved player award and Huestis probably should have won because he won the MIP award for the team.  It's tough to criticize player development when you get that kind of improvement from two key players and when you get significant contributions from guys like Aaron Bright and Andy Brown, who simply are not elite level athletes.  Add Dawkins' indisputably good recruiting to that level of player development and you get a pretty good argument that Dawkins was carrying his weight as the head coach. 

LeftCoast:  I'm not making any argument that Dawkins is the same caliber coach as Mike Montgomery.  I'm simply arguing that he's been a good coach for the last three years.  And, if you compare the results Dawkins achieved relative to the talent/experience he had available to the results that Johnson achieved relative to the talent/experience he had available, it really isn't a close call to say that Dawkins has done better.  I would love to get another Mike Montgomery, but coaches like that don't grow on trees.

[TrumpCard]

FarmBoy:  For those "selling" Dawkins before 12-13, my argument does not apply.  However, for those who decided Dawkins had to go only when Stanford missed the tournament in 12-13, then I think my argument has merit because Stanford's historical standards (which, in reality, refers to the standards for the Mike Montgomery years) had no application for the program in 12-13. 

The goal in 12-13 was to make steady progress from the prior year when Stanford won the NIT, and I think that players who were able to play that year did make such progress.  Powell won the Pac-12 most improved player award and Huestis probably should have won because he won the MIP award for the team.  It's tough to criticize player development when you get that kind of improvement from two key players and when you get significant contributions from guys like Aaron Bright and Andy Brown, who simply are not elite level athletes.  Add Dawkins' indisputably good recruiting to that level of player development and you get a pretty good argument that Dawkins was carrying his weight as the head coach. 

LeftCoast:  I'm not making any argument that Dawkins is the same caliber coach as Mike Montgomery.  I'm simply arguing that he's been a good coach for the last three years.  And, if you compare the results Dawkins achieved relative to the talent/experience he had available to the results that Johnson achieved relative to the talent/experience he had available, it really isn't a close call to say that Dawkins has done better.  I would love to get another Mike Montgomery, but coaches like that don't grow on trees.

[slide]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10701.msg99116#msg99116 date=1411576735]
I can't think of any coach in D-1 basketball who has gotten more money out of fewer results.

Man, I can. Paul Hewitt.
[/quote]

Oliver Purnell at DePaul makes Hewitt look cheap and Wooden-esque in the W/L column (but still better than Trent at TCU).

[slide]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10701.msg99116#msg99116 date=1411576735]
I can't think of any coach in D-1 basketball who has gotten more money out of fewer results.

Man, I can. Paul Hewitt.
[/quote]

Oliver Purnell at DePaul makes Hewitt look cheap and Wooden-esque in the W/L column (but still better than Trent at TCU).

[76lsjumb]

If Johnny Dawkins hasn't had NCAA-tournament-quality talent available -- which I don't believe for a minute, but let's say -- whose fault is that?

Mrs. Lopez's, for not having another pair of NBA-quality twins...

[76lsjumb]

If Johnny Dawkins hasn't had NCAA-tournament-quality talent available -- which I don't believe for a minute, but let's say -- whose fault is that?

Mrs. Lopez's, for not having another pair of NBA-quality twins...

[jayasena]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=10701.msg99128#msg99128 date=1411587508]

76lsjumb - wrong. In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, he had a streak of 3 NCAA tournament appearances (and wasn't that harder back then before 64 teams?) and one of those teams made the Finals.

Not so fast, my friend.  In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, ...

he had been a head coach for eleven years.  Doubling [nearly] the amount of head-coaching time/experience puts one into a different stage, at least in my mind.
[/quote]

It's true that Coach K's first 5 years as head coach at Army didn't include any NCAA tourney appearances. But has Army ever been to the tourney, before or since? Is that an appropriate comparison to the Stanford team JD took over?

We might as well also point out that Mike Montgomery's first 7 seasons at Montana didn't include any NCAA appearances either. But, again, Montana wasn't exactly a powerhouse when he took over.

Even ignoring the differences between Army/Montana and Stanford at the start of the respective coaches' HC careers, the best I can conclude from this comparison is that Stanford is to JD what Army was to MK and Montana was to MM. All Dawkins needs to do is leave Stanford. Then we can try our luck with someone else and he can start consistently getting to the NCAA tourney. Then everyone's happy!

[jayasena]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=10701.msg99128#msg99128 date=1411587508]

76lsjumb - wrong. In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, he had a streak of 3 NCAA tournament appearances (and wasn't that harder back then before 64 teams?) and one of those teams made the Finals.

Not so fast, my friend.  In Coach K's 6th season at Duke, ...

he had been a head coach for eleven years.  Doubling [nearly] the amount of head-coaching time/experience puts one into a different stage, at least in my mind.
[/quote]

It's true that Coach K's first 5 years as head coach at Army didn't include any NCAA tourney appearances. But has Army ever been to the tourney, before or since? Is that an appropriate comparison to the Stanford team JD took over?

We might as well also point out that Mike Montgomery's first 7 seasons at Montana didn't include any NCAA appearances either. But, again, Montana wasn't exactly a powerhouse when he took over.

Even ignoring the differences between Army/Montana and Stanford at the start of the respective coaches' HC careers, the best I can conclude from this comparison is that Stanford is to JD what Army was to MK and Montana was to MM. All Dawkins needs to do is leave Stanford. Then we can try our luck with someone else and he can start consistently getting to the NCAA tourney. Then everyone's happy!

[TrumpCard]

I don't think it's controversial to say that Dawkins has recruited well during most of his tenure.  Further, in my estimation, Dawkins did have tournament-level talent in 12-13 until Brown went down.  The reason Dawkins had no margin for error (or injury) in 12-13 is that he didn't get a good recruiting class in his first season on the farm.  To me, that was understandable because: (1) the turmoil resulting from the botched Johnson contract negotiations probably was disconcerting to many recruits; (2) Dawkins had no head coaching experience at the time; and (3) Stanford was losing a lot of games due to the fact that Johnson left the cupboard bare.  Since 09, Dawkins has done a good job of landing plenty of tournament-level talent.  For example, the team made the Sweet 16 last year despite the loss of two significant contributors (Bright and Allen).  We will soon see whether Dawkins has stockpiled enough talent to compensate for the loss of Huestis and Powell to the NBA.  If so, maybe some members of the "pro Stanford" camp will change their mind.

[TrumpCard]

I don't think it's controversial to say that Dawkins has recruited well during most of his tenure.  Further, in my estimation, Dawkins did have tournament-level talent in 12-13 until Brown went down.  The reason Dawkins had no margin for error (or injury) in 12-13 is that he didn't get a good recruiting class in his first season on the farm.  To me, that was understandable because: (1) the turmoil resulting from the botched Johnson contract negotiations probably was disconcerting to many recruits; (2) Dawkins had no head coaching experience at the time; and (3) Stanford was losing a lot of games due to the fact that Johnson left the cupboard bare.  Since 09, Dawkins has done a good job of landing plenty of tournament-level talent.  For example, the team made the Sweet 16 last year despite the loss of two significant contributors (Bright and Allen).  We will soon see whether Dawkins has stockpiled enough talent to compensate for the loss of Huestis and Powell to the NBA.  If so, maybe some members of the "pro Stanford" camp will change their mind.

[BostonCard]

To me the biggest knock on Dawkins has been his inability to develop the talent he had and get them to play together well.  The whole has always seemed less than the sum of its parts.  To his credit, he has been a solid recruiter, and has the recruited talent (on a generally upward trajectory).  There were maybe some hints that his team was playing better last year, but that should be expected, given that there were a bunch of seniors on it.

I really want Dawkins to succeed.  He is a great representative for Stanford, and an affable person.  However, I just don't think he has what it takes to be the head coach of a D1 major conference team.  So, I was very conflicted about a contract extension for him.  But now that he has it, I really hope he proves me wrong and grows into the job.

BC

[BostonCard]

To me the biggest knock on Dawkins has been his inability to develop the talent he had and get them to play together well.  The whole has always seemed less than the sum of its parts.  To his credit, he has been a solid recruiter, and has the recruited talent (on a generally upward trajectory).  There were maybe some hints that his team was playing better last year, but that should be expected, given that there were a bunch of seniors on it.

I really want Dawkins to succeed.  He is a great representative for Stanford, and an affable person.  However, I just don't think he has what it takes to be the head coach of a D1 major conference team.  So, I was very conflicted about a contract extension for him.  But now that he has it, I really hope he proves me wrong and grows into the job.

BC

[StanFan88]

As a member of the so-called Anti-Dawkins camp let me put a different spin on this.  We are not anti-Dawkins, we are pro Stanford basketball.   

Exactly leftcoast!

I would LOVE for Johnny Dawkins to lead Stanford Men's Basketball back to being a perennial NCAA tournament team that regularly finishes in the top half of the conference and challenges for the conference title more often than not.

But how many years do we need to see that this isn't going to happen under Johnny Dawkins?

Even last year's One.Great.Week can't hide that every team in the Dawkins era has been characterized by inconsistency, mediocrity, and a failure to perform to the talent level on the court.  Dawkins fans will point to last year's Sweet 16.  Dawkins detractors will point to the fact that the team finished 10-8 in conference, never had a win streak longer than 4 (3 in conference), still lost more than half of close games, and squeaked into the tournament - and that's just last year when he had more talent than in any previous year.

This is the second-worst decision Bernard Muir has made as Stanford AD.  The worst one was not firing him 18 months ago.

Looks like I won't be going to Maples for a few more years.  I can only hope that for the sake of the athletic department budget there aren't a lot of guaranteed years on this new contract.

[StanFan88]

As a member of the so-called Anti-Dawkins camp let me put a different spin on this.  We are not anti-Dawkins, we are pro Stanford basketball.   

Exactly leftcoast!

I would LOVE for Johnny Dawkins to lead Stanford Men's Basketball back to being a perennial NCAA tournament team that regularly finishes in the top half of the conference and challenges for the conference title more often than not.

But how many years do we need to see that this isn't going to happen under Johnny Dawkins?

Even last year's One.Great.Week can't hide that every team in the Dawkins era has been characterized by inconsistency, mediocrity, and a failure to perform to the talent level on the court.  Dawkins fans will point to last year's Sweet 16.  Dawkins detractors will point to the fact that the team finished 10-8 in conference, never had a win streak longer than 4 (3 in conference), still lost more than half of close games, and squeaked into the tournament - and that's just last year when he had more talent than in any previous year.

This is the second-worst decision Bernard Muir has made as Stanford AD.  The worst one was not firing him 18 months ago.

Looks like I won't be going to Maples for a few more years.  I can only hope that for the sake of the athletic department budget there aren't a lot of guaranteed years on this new contract.

[Redrum]

Bernard Muir is tip-toeing through his first years as the AD.  He might spend his entire career tip-toeing.  He seems to share more with Ted Leland than Bob Bowlsby.  When the situation doesn't absolutely demand courage and vision, we're not going to get it.  He has the numbers to defend not making a change,  so why go out on a limb?  And he won't.  Most empires (of all kinds) crumble from mediocrity that proceeds dramatic events or naked malfeasance.

Or, maybe Muir turn out to be great.  Maybe.  Bowlsby arriving and firing Wlat was like a superhero in a cartoon, the ground shaking when he landed with both feet.  Rare occurrence.  It doesn't have to be dramatic like that to be beneficial to Stanford, but it sure gives us a reference point for how leaders can make a difference-- quickly-- that everyone can feel.  With Muir, the needle on the seismograph barely twitches.

[Redrum]

Bernard Muir is tip-toeing through his first years as the AD.  He might spend his entire career tip-toeing.  He seems to share more with Ted Leland than Bob Bowlsby.  When the situation doesn't absolutely demand courage and vision, we're not going to get it.  He has the numbers to defend not making a change,  so why go out on a limb?  And he won't.  Most empires (of all kinds) crumble from mediocrity that proceeds dramatic events or naked malfeasance.

Or, maybe Muir turn out to be great.  Maybe.  Bowlsby arriving and firing Wlat was like a superhero in a cartoon, the ground shaking when he landed with both feet.  Rare occurrence.  It doesn't have to be dramatic like that to be beneficial to Stanford, but it sure gives us a reference point for how leaders can make a difference-- quickly-- that everyone can feel.  With Muir, the needle on the seismograph barely twitches.

[FarmBoy]

To me, that was understandable because: (1) the turmoil resulting from the botched Johnson contract negotiations probably was disconcerting to many recruits; (2) Dawkins had no head coaching experience at the time; and (3) Stanford was losing a lot of games due to the fact that Johnson left the cupboard bare.

For the sake of beating the dead horse, one thing you neglect to mention is that Dawkins spent the summer after he was hired coaching the National team rather than pounding the recruiting trail. I seem to recall him publicly justifying it by claiming that his role on the national team benefits the Stanford program or something, but I suspect his time would have been better spent wooing recruits and parents.

Pointing to Brown's injury is just a lame excuse. Quality programs should be good enough to make the tourney, even if one good player gets injured. And Brown was not that much of a difference maker.

[FarmBoy]

To me, that was understandable because: (1) the turmoil resulting from the botched Johnson contract negotiations probably was disconcerting to many recruits; (2) Dawkins had no head coaching experience at the time; and (3) Stanford was losing a lot of games due to the fact that Johnson left the cupboard bare.

For the sake of beating the dead horse, one thing you neglect to mention is that Dawkins spent the summer after he was hired coaching the National team rather than pounding the recruiting trail. I seem to recall him publicly justifying it by claiming that his role on the national team benefits the Stanford program or something, but I suspect his time would have been better spent wooing recruits and parents.

Pointing to Brown's injury is just a lame excuse. Quality programs should be good enough to make the tourney, even if one good player gets injured. And Brown was not that much of a difference maker.