[CTcard]

No, Bill Walsh was not fired.

I believe that Garvin was noting that the firing of Jack Christiansen before the end of the 1976 season led to the hiring of Bill Walsh to begin his first stint in time for the 1977 season.

[CTcard]

No, Bill Walsh was not fired.

I believe that Garvin was noting that the firing of Jack Christiansen before the end of the 1976 season led to the hiring of Bill Walsh to begin his first stint in time for the 1977 season.

[Treebound]

Montgomery was building from virtually no base of talent.  Tom Davis had left the program and was bitter because Chris Monk (his prize recruit) could not get through Old Union.  He said something along the lines of "Stanford would never be successful in basketball due to its academic requirements."    Monty proved that it could be done on the hoops court.    Then the naysayers started saying that it could never be done in football.... 

Dawkins did not need to deal with breaking through.  We had been to the NCAA 14 out of 15 years!  He has not kept us even close to that record.  He's a good NIT coach...that's not what we want.    Dance or Out, from where I sit amongst too many empty seats in Maples.

[Treebound]

Montgomery was building from virtually no base of talent.  Tom Davis had left the program and was bitter because Chris Monk (his prize recruit) could not get through Old Union.  He said something along the lines of "Stanford would never be successful in basketball due to its academic requirements."    Monty proved that it could be done on the hoops court.    Then the naysayers started saying that it could never be done in football.... 

Dawkins did not need to deal with breaking through.  We had been to the NCAA 14 out of 15 years!  He has not kept us even close to that record.  He's a good NIT coach...that's not what we want.    Dance or Out, from where I sit amongst too many empty seats in Maples.

[SeattleTree]

Montgomery was building from virtually no base of talent.  Tom Davis had left the program and was bitter because Chris Monk (his prize recruit) could not get through Old Union.  He said something along the lines of "Stanford would never be successful in basketball due to its academic requirements."    Monty proved that it could be done on the hoops court.    Then the naysayers started saying that it could never be done in football.... 

Dawkins did not need to deal with breaking through.  We had been to the NCAA 14 out of 15 years!  He has not kept us even close to that record.  He's a good NIT coach...that's not what we want.    Dance or Out, from where I sit amongst too many empty seats in Maples.

Well said. 

[SeattleTree]

Montgomery was building from virtually no base of talent.  Tom Davis had left the program and was bitter because Chris Monk (his prize recruit) could not get through Old Union.  He said something along the lines of "Stanford would never be successful in basketball due to its academic requirements."    Monty proved that it could be done on the hoops court.    Then the naysayers started saying that it could never be done in football.... 

Dawkins did not need to deal with breaking through.  We had been to the NCAA 14 out of 15 years!  He has not kept us even close to that record.  He's a good NIT coach...that's not what we want.    Dance or Out, from where I sit amongst too many empty seats in Maples.

Well said. 

[76lsjumb]

Well...maybe it's a good thing that wasn't the thinking back in 1986-87 when Monty started.  His 7-year mean conference finish in the [then] Pac-10 was... 5.3 [with one 2d place and one last place] -- all in all pretty similar to Dawkins'.

I think it's cute that you continue to see a nascent excellence in Johnny Dawkins that eludes everybody else, 76lsjumb. But your cherry-picking of statistics to prove he's done just as well as Mike Montgomery is absurdly dishonest. By any statistical measure, Montgomery was infinitely more successfull that Dawkins in their first six seasons and in their first eight seasons. There's a one-year dip in Montgomery's average numbers after seven years, brought on by the catastrophically injury-riddled 1992-1993 season, in which Stanford went 7-23.

Montgomery's winning percentage aside from that 92-93 season is .728. Dawkins has never done anything to place himself in the same universe as Montgomery as a coach. All the doctored numbers in the world are not going to convince anybody otherwise.

I was responding to a specific argument that cited a seven year record.  I used Monty's first seven years [at Stanford, by the way, not even his first seven years as a head coach].  I didn't "cherry-pick" anything.  In fact, I have no problem with you explaining away one season or another of Monty's, but it seems to me that doing so makes your numbers the "cherry-picked" ones, not mine.  And, it isn't as if Dawkins hasn't had to deal with any injury issues that have caused some obvious problems.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Humphreys' abrupt absence at the end of the season coincided with our slide [which we've now managed to overcome by adjusting again].  Roscoe Allen's  various absences probably go a long way to explain his very freshman-like play at the end of last night's game.  Reid Travis is clearly nowhere near as good as he might have been without his lengthy absence.  And that's just this year...

Look, I think Monty was a great coach and, from what I've seen, much better [infinitely seems a little hyperbolic] than Dawkins.  But I'm not sure that assessment was so clear after their respective first seven years at Stanford.  That's all I'm saying...

[76lsjumb]

Well...maybe it's a good thing that wasn't the thinking back in 1986-87 when Monty started.  His 7-year mean conference finish in the [then] Pac-10 was... 5.3 [with one 2d place and one last place] -- all in all pretty similar to Dawkins'.

I think it's cute that you continue to see a nascent excellence in Johnny Dawkins that eludes everybody else, 76lsjumb. But your cherry-picking of statistics to prove he's done just as well as Mike Montgomery is absurdly dishonest. By any statistical measure, Montgomery was infinitely more successfull that Dawkins in their first six seasons and in their first eight seasons. There's a one-year dip in Montgomery's average numbers after seven years, brought on by the catastrophically injury-riddled 1992-1993 season, in which Stanford went 7-23.

Montgomery's winning percentage aside from that 92-93 season is .728. Dawkins has never done anything to place himself in the same universe as Montgomery as a coach. All the doctored numbers in the world are not going to convince anybody otherwise.

I was responding to a specific argument that cited a seven year record.  I used Monty's first seven years [at Stanford, by the way, not even his first seven years as a head coach].  I didn't "cherry-pick" anything.  In fact, I have no problem with you explaining away one season or another of Monty's, but it seems to me that doing so makes your numbers the "cherry-picked" ones, not mine.  And, it isn't as if Dawkins hasn't had to deal with any injury issues that have caused some obvious problems.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Humphreys' abrupt absence at the end of the season coincided with our slide [which we've now managed to overcome by adjusting again].  Roscoe Allen's  various absences probably go a long way to explain his very freshman-like play at the end of last night's game.  Reid Travis is clearly nowhere near as good as he might have been without his lengthy absence.  And that's just this year...

Look, I think Monty was a great coach and, from what I've seen, much better [infinitely seems a little hyperbolic] than Dawkins.  But I'm not sure that assessment was so clear after their respective first seven years at Stanford.  That's all I'm saying...

[Papa John]

I heartily agree that we should strive to be at the top of the conference on a regular basis, and Dawkins may not be the guy who can get us there.  But he at least deserves to have the arguments against him, and the comparisons with other coaches, be fair and consistently applied.

I kind-of think we've beaten the Montgomery vs. Dawkins horse to death, so I decided to compare Dawkins against Mike Krzyzewski.

In his first seven years, Krzyzewski coached Army for five years and Duke for two. His overall record at Army (no conference affiliation) was 73-59 with a one-and-done trip to the NIT. Krzyzewski's first two years at Duke went 17-13 (6-8 in the ACC, T-5th, NIT Third Round) and 10-17 (4-10, T-6th). So we have an overall record of 100-89, good for 52.9% and a 10-18 mark in conference. Krzyzewski's third year at Duke--8th overall--was no better, as his team went 11-17 (3-11, 7th) in spite of the play of a freshman by the name of Johnny Dawkins. It was in Krzyzewski's 9th year as a head coach that Duke started its amazing run in conference and in the NCAA tournament.

In the final analysis, I am surprised to learn that Dawkins compares very favorably with Krzyzewski at this point in his career. Therefore, because Dawkins is not going to be fired anytime soon by Muir--and to preserve my sanity--I have decided to give Dawkins until the 2016-17 season to start his Pac-12/NCAA tournament run. But if Stanford doesn't finish in the top third of the conference and make the Big Dance that year and JD is still the coach in 2017-18, I am going to be royally pissed off. And, of course, I will blame 76lsjumb.

[Papa John]

I heartily agree that we should strive to be at the top of the conference on a regular basis, and Dawkins may not be the guy who can get us there.  But he at least deserves to have the arguments against him, and the comparisons with other coaches, be fair and consistently applied.

I kind-of think we've beaten the Montgomery vs. Dawkins horse to death, so I decided to compare Dawkins against Mike Krzyzewski.

In his first seven years, Krzyzewski coached Army for five years and Duke for two. His overall record at Army (no conference affiliation) was 73-59 with a one-and-done trip to the NIT. Krzyzewski's first two years at Duke went 17-13 (6-8 in the ACC, T-5th, NIT Third Round) and 10-17 (4-10, T-6th). So we have an overall record of 100-89, good for 52.9% and a 10-18 mark in conference. Krzyzewski's third year at Duke--8th overall--was no better, as his team went 11-17 (3-11, 7th) in spite of the play of a freshman by the name of Johnny Dawkins. It was in Krzyzewski's 9th year as a head coach that Duke started its amazing run in conference and in the NCAA tournament.

In the final analysis, I am surprised to learn that Dawkins compares very favorably with Krzyzewski at this point in his career. Therefore, because Dawkins is not going to be fired anytime soon by Muir--and to preserve my sanity--I have decided to give Dawkins until the 2016-17 season to start his Pac-12/NCAA tournament run. But if Stanford doesn't finish in the top third of the conference and make the Big Dance that year and JD is still the coach in 2017-18, I am going to be royally pissed off. And, of course, I will blame 76lsjumb.

[winflop]

Well...maybe it's a good thing that wasn't the thinking back in 1986-87 when Monty started.  His 7-year mean conference finish in the [then] Pac-10 was... 5.3 [with one 2d place and one last place] -- all in all pretty similar to Dawkins'.  Of course, Monty didn't really have the talent in those first seven years that Dawkins has had.  He had to get by with guys like Lichti and Keefe...

Really getting tired of this argument because it completely ignores the context of fan expectations.  When Monty was hired, it had been more than 40 years since Stanford went to the big dance.  There was no expectation that Stanford could become a conference powerhouse and perennial tournament team.  When Dawkins was hired, Stanford had been to the tournament 13 of the previous 14 years including a trip to the Final Four, had won four conference titles, and finished in the top 3 in 10 of those 14 seasons.

Monty met or exceeded expectations, even in his early years.  Dawkins has not with one exception.

[winflop]

Well...maybe it's a good thing that wasn't the thinking back in 1986-87 when Monty started.  His 7-year mean conference finish in the [then] Pac-10 was... 5.3 [with one 2d place and one last place] -- all in all pretty similar to Dawkins'.  Of course, Monty didn't really have the talent in those first seven years that Dawkins has had.  He had to get by with guys like Lichti and Keefe...

Really getting tired of this argument because it completely ignores the context of fan expectations.  When Monty was hired, it had been more than 40 years since Stanford went to the big dance.  There was no expectation that Stanford could become a conference powerhouse and perennial tournament team.  When Dawkins was hired, Stanford had been to the tournament 13 of the previous 14 years including a trip to the Final Four, had won four conference titles, and finished in the top 3 in 10 of those 14 seasons.

Monty met or exceeded expectations, even in his early years.  Dawkins has not with one exception.

[jacketree]

Johnny Dawkins still needs to find his Johnny Dawkins.

[jacketree]

Johnny Dawkins still needs to find his Johnny Dawkins.

[Bruce Wang]

Johnny Dawkins still needs to find his Johnny Dawkins.

I'd settle for Darryl Dawkins.

[Bruce Wang]

Johnny Dawkins still needs to find his Johnny Dawkins.

I'd settle for Darryl Dawkins.

[triangle2]

There's also something to be said for subjective viewpoints that aren't mired in statistical arguments. I continue to be distressed by what often looks like "lack of purpose" or lifelessness on the court with the Dawkins era teams along with vexing problems with execution and questionable game coaching.

But I agree with Garvin that Montgomery's first seven years were pretty darn good.  He gets serious style points for repeatedly beating Arizona during the Sean Elliott era.

[triangle2]

There's also something to be said for subjective viewpoints that aren't mired in statistical arguments. I continue to be distressed by what often looks like "lack of purpose" or lifelessness on the court with the Dawkins era teams along with vexing problems with execution and questionable game coaching.

But I agree with Garvin that Montgomery's first seven years were pretty darn good.  He gets serious style points for repeatedly beating Arizona during the Sean Elliott era.

[Mick]

Montgomery was building from virtually no base of talent.  Tom Davis had left the program and was bitter because Chris Monk (his prize recruit) could not get through Old Union.  He said something along the lines of "Stanford would never be successful in basketball due to its academic requirements."    Monty proved that it could be done on the hoops court.    Then the naysayers started saying that it could never be done in football.... 

Were entrance requirements relaxed after Dr. Tom Davis departed?

[Mick]

Montgomery was building from virtually no base of talent.  Tom Davis had left the program and was bitter because Chris Monk (his prize recruit) could not get through Old Union.  He said something along the lines of "Stanford would never be successful in basketball due to its academic requirements."    Monty proved that it could be done on the hoops court.    Then the naysayers started saying that it could never be done in football.... 

Were entrance requirements relaxed after Dr. Tom Davis departed?

[BobK]

NO!!!!  And Chris Monk wasn't closs to getting in. 

[BobK]

NO!!!!  And Chris Monk wasn't closs to getting in. 

[Leftcoast]

Poor Chris Munk - 30 years later and the spelling of his last name is STILL known by many a Stanford Basketball fan.

Let's give Dean Jean the final say on what happened to Chris and Tom Davis back then.  (Taken from a discussion on the challenges of Varsity athletic admission that was part of a 1995 retrospective on her career at Stanford.)

At no time was this more apparent than the highly publicized case of Chris Munk, a young basketball player from Riordan High School in San Francisco who applied to Stanford in 1985.

Tom Davis, then the men's basketball coach, considered Munk "a potentially singular force in varsity basketball, someone who could propel men's basketball at Stanford to the forefront of NCAA competition, a height untouched since 1942, when the team won its only national championship."

"I think it is fair to say that I spent more time on this one file than on almost any other in seven years as dean," Fetter writes. "I read and reread the complete application; discussed it with my colleagues in Undergraduate Admissions, slept on it, discussed it with a specially convened group of faculty who were well-informed on athletics. . . . But consultation and reflection have their limits, and the final decision clearly rested with me. The time had come, and it was not a pleasant moment."

Fetter decided against approving the admission; Munk subsequently was awarded a basketball scholarship at the University of Southern California, and Tom Davis left Stanford a few weeks later, to be basketball coach at the University of Iowa.

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950524Arc5216.html

[Leftcoast]

Poor Chris Munk - 30 years later and the spelling of his last name is STILL known by many a Stanford Basketball fan.

Let's give Dean Jean the final say on what happened to Chris and Tom Davis back then.  (Taken from a discussion on the challenges of Varsity athletic admission that was part of a 1995 retrospective on her career at Stanford.)

At no time was this more apparent than the highly publicized case of Chris Munk, a young basketball player from Riordan High School in San Francisco who applied to Stanford in 1985.

Tom Davis, then the men's basketball coach, considered Munk "a potentially singular force in varsity basketball, someone who could propel men's basketball at Stanford to the forefront of NCAA competition, a height untouched since 1942, when the team won its only national championship."

"I think it is fair to say that I spent more time on this one file than on almost any other in seven years as dean," Fetter writes. "I read and reread the complete application; discussed it with my colleagues in Undergraduate Admissions, slept on it, discussed it with a specially convened group of faculty who were well-informed on athletics. . . . But consultation and reflection have their limits, and the final decision clearly rested with me. The time had come, and it was not a pleasant moment."

Fetter decided against approving the admission; Munk subsequently was awarded a basketball scholarship at the University of Southern California, and Tom Davis left Stanford a few weeks later, to be basketball coach at the University of Iowa.

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950524Arc5216.html

[BobK]

Munk wasn't the great player Davis thought.  The rejection brought Monty and the rest is history.

[BobK]

Munk wasn't the great player Davis thought.  The rejection brought Monty and the rest is history.

[Treebound]

So Dean Jean sunk Munk and put Davis in a funk, while Monty became Geiger's slam dunk...I know, stick to my day job!  :P

[Treebound]

So Dean Jean sunk Munk and put Davis in a funk, while Monty became Geiger's slam dunk...I know, stick to my day job!  :P

[Bruce Wang]

Is there a basketball player Rickshaw can reject that will make Dawkins leave?

[Bruce Wang]

Is there a basketball player Rickshaw can reject that will make Dawkins leave?

[jacketree]

Chris Munk was a surrogate for a broader issue.  Dr. Tom needed a place where admissions wasn't running interference.  When Monty made the Final Four, Davis was profuse in his praise. 'No one appreciates more than me what he accomplished,' or words to that effect.  Davis never went to the Final Four.  He did make the Elite Eight his first year at Iowa immediately after leaving Stanford.  Two additional Sweet 16s.  So Monty did better at Stanford than Davis did at Iowa.

[jacketree]

Chris Munk was a surrogate for a broader issue.  Dr. Tom needed a place where admissions wasn't running interference.  When Monty made the Final Four, Davis was profuse in his praise. 'No one appreciates more than me what he accomplished,' or words to that effect.  Davis never went to the Final Four.  He did make the Elite Eight his first year at Iowa immediately after leaving Stanford.  Two additional Sweet 16s.  So Monty did better at Stanford than Davis did at Iowa.

[winflop]

Even though he was a doctor (of some kind), Dr. Tom never struck me as understanding how to coach (and recruit) smart kids, but at least he was smart enough to figure that out and bolted PDQ.  Monty seemed to have caught on pretty quickly, and really thrived on it in the second half of his Stanford coaching career.

[winflop]

Even though he was a doctor (of some kind), Dr. Tom never struck me as understanding how to coach (and recruit) smart kids, but at least he was smart enough to figure that out and bolted PDQ.  Monty seemed to have caught on pretty quickly, and really thrived on it in the second half of his Stanford coaching career.

[BobK]

Dr Tom recruited Todd Lichti.  As it turned out for Monty

[BobK]

Dr Tom recruited Todd Lichti.  As it turned out for Monty

[Mick]

Even though he was a doctor (of some kind), Dr. Tom never struck me as understanding how to coach (and recruit) smart kids, but at least he was smart enough to figure that out and bolted PDQ.  Monty seemed to have caught on pretty quickly, and really thrived on it in the second half of his Stanford coaching career.

I don't know the discipline of his actual doctorate.  His thesis involved sports history.

The year before he went to Stanford, he was at Boston College, and they reached the Elite Eight, having knocked off USF, #2 DePaul and a highly ranked Kansas team.  BC was known as the 'cerebral' team, which probably helped pave the way for him at Stanford.

Interesting...when he coached at Lafayette prior to BC, he finished first or second in conference all six years.  The year he reached the Elite Eight at BC, he only finished fourth in the league.  And he never won the conference at Iowa...in fact, in thirteen years, he only finished second once.

[Mick]

Even though he was a doctor (of some kind), Dr. Tom never struck me as understanding how to coach (and recruit) smart kids, but at least he was smart enough to figure that out and bolted PDQ.  Monty seemed to have caught on pretty quickly, and really thrived on it in the second half of his Stanford coaching career.

I don't know the discipline of his actual doctorate.  His thesis involved sports history.

The year before he went to Stanford, he was at Boston College, and they reached the Elite Eight, having knocked off USF, #2 DePaul and a highly ranked Kansas team.  BC was known as the 'cerebral' team, which probably helped pave the way for him at Stanford.

Interesting...when he coached at Lafayette prior to BC, he finished first or second in conference all six years.  The year he reached the Elite Eight at BC, he only finished fourth in the league.  And he never won the conference at Iowa...in fact, in thirteen years, he only finished second once.

[stupac2]

I don't really know where to put this, but I found this little bit on coaches' wins added in the NCAA tournament to be interesting, not because of who's at the top, but who's at the bottom: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/tom-i...inal-four/

I don't usually read these posts too carefully since I don't follow basketball, but Mike Montgomery at 4th worst tournament coach since 1985 caught my eye. Seems like some people here might find it interesting.

[stupac2]

I don't really know where to put this, but I found this little bit on coaches' wins added in the NCAA tournament to be interesting, not because of who's at the top, but who's at the bottom: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/tom-i...inal-four/

I don't usually read these posts too carefully since I don't follow basketball, but Mike Montgomery at 4th worst tournament coach since 1985 caught my eye. Seems like some people here might find it interesting.