Dawkins gets contract extension

Dawkins gets contract extension - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Dawkins gets contract extension (/thread-7847.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - washingtonismoney - 09-26-2014

(09-26-2014, 12:17 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:With a contract extension signed I'm belatedly drafted into the Dawkins camp - but drafted I am.Â I will cheer for him to take Stanford to the next level.

Others have discussed program talent.Â I don't believe Stanford's success depends upon lightning striking in the form of NBA lottery twins - even though we've proven lightning can indeed strike twice (Collins twins, Lopi).Â Asking for a THIRD blue moon event risks pressingÂ the Basketball god's patience.Â They may send us the skill equivalent of Greg Oden at Portland rather than Greg Oden at Ohio State.Â

My complaint is that in his first years Dawkins tried to win using the run and gun, McDonald's AA route that isn't a match for Stanford.Â If Stanford basketball success waits until we have a stable of long, lean McDonalds all-american clones then we will dance once a decade at most.Â Stanford needs to develop the Pete Sauer's, the Rob Little's, the Matt Lottich's into top level NCAA players that fit seamlessly into a blue collar TEAM basketball concept that is capable of winning at the NCAA level.Â I see flexibility in Dawkins' most recent approach but now I'm worried that while the second model may fit Stanford it may not be a fit for DAWKINS.Â

Regardless, we now have another 3-4 years to cheer for Dawkins and wish that the fit - both ways - is a successful one for Stanford.Â

Dawkins represents us off the court perfectly - it is time to make the on the court performance match.

Not to pick on you specifically, but I've always thought it's a bit weird the amount of time people talk about coaches representing the school off the field. People tend to say this about Shaw as well ("I may think his offense is the worst thing ever and Shaw can't game-manage his way into a paper bag," some critic will say, "but he represents us so well!" I'd always figured that was just a to-be-fair appendage added on for funsies.) I guess it's a bit weirder that this is mentioned for Dawkins, because I'd always believed that people wouldn't really care if the team in question were doing poorly. (I'm pretty much certain it won't matter for Shaw, assuming his inevitable nadir is anything worse than, say, 7-5 or so.) But, you know, Dawkins's results have not been good and you can only argue context if you'd like it to be average or acceptable.

I guess I have different values, because as long as the coach isn't embarrassing the school, I'm pretty indifferent to how the coach represents the school. Stanford's reputation, at this point, is pretty much set barring a major scandal, so I don't regard Dawkins or Shaw or Marquess or Vanderveer as ambassadors to the school. They're around to win and make sure their kids have good, rewarding college experiences to the best of their ability. Whether they have Harbaugh-esque antics or speak eloquently is not something I really care about.

(I would be more entertained by Harbaugh-esque antics though.)

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - TrumpCard - 09-26-2014

(09-26-2014, 12:13 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:Three draft picks in six years is not compelling.Â Powell & Heustis developed most when Madsen was around.Â Didn't see much more improvement after he left.

Verhoeven is a bust let's just accept that & move on - if he were top 100 talent he wouldn't have been playing only in garbage time and when the three big men were all in foul trouble.Â Rosco is still trying to realize his potential.Â Randle will end up playing in Europe - he's not fast enough to be an NBA PG and he's not big enough to be an NBA SG.

Among the players who Dawkins had the opportunity to coach, who should have made the NBA, bud did not due to poor development?Â (I think no one.Â I certainly don't think that the coaching staff is to blame for Randle's lack of speed or size.Â I think the coaching staff has done a great job helping him become an excellent college player.)Â

I agree that Madsen was important to player development.Â The solution is to get another assistant like Madsen because that is easier than trying to find a new head coach to rebuild the program.

If we accepted that players were busts after 2 years of not contributing, then we would have written off Landry Fields.Â That's why I said that we should wait and see how Rosco and Verhoeven play this year.Â

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - Leftcoast - 09-26-2014

WIM, you have never seen an opposing coach at a news conference and winced, "Man, I'd rather have a boiled lobster in pot of pepper chili represent Stanford than that stiff!".Â

I certainly have.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - 76lsjumb - 09-26-2014

(09-26-2014, 03:08 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:WIM, you have never seen an opposing coach at a news conference and winced, "Man, I'd rather have a boiled lobster in pot of pepper chili represent Stanford than that stiff!".Â

I certainly have.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - jayasena - 09-26-2014

(09-26-2014, 03:37 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=10701.msg99296#msg99296 date=1411769336]
WIM, you have never seen an opposing coach at a news conference and winced, "Man, I'd rather have a boiled lobster in pot of pepper chili represent Stanford than that stiff!".Â

I certainly have.

Indeed.Â Other than the boiled lobster part, that is pretty much what I was thinking earlier this week when I saw a clip of a Nick Saban press conference [discussing Lane Kiffin].Â Come to think of it, Saban reminded me a lot of a boiled lobster in that press conference...

I think how the person represents the school is important, for both coaches and athletes.Â Maybe not more important than talent/results, but very close.

Andrew Luck.
Jameis Winston.
Rest my case.
[/quote]

I'm with WIM on this. The "off-field representative" aspect is easy to prioritize when both people in question are all-world talents but one is a near-saint and the other is a certifiable sleazeball. But i don't think anyone is advocating hiring/recruiting total embarrassments.

The more challenging case is when the "ideal representative" may not be the best player or coach. At that point, how much are you willing to give up on "idealness" as a representative for better on-field results? I honestly think Teevens was a better off-field representative of the university than Harbaugh was. But I know who I'd want if I had to pick between those two to return as the head football coach*.

* Hmm... typing that makes me appreciate Shaw even more.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - washingtonismoney - 09-26-2014

I wouldn't want Winston at Stanford because he's an embarrassment, as I said previously. But if a guy's off-field mien is a bit gruff, like a Nick Saban? Don't really care.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - 76lsjumb - 09-26-2014

(09-26-2014, 04:07 PM)somnambule link Wrote:I'm with WIM on this. The "off-field representative" aspect is easy to prioritize when both people in question are all-world talents but one is a near-saint and the other is a certifiable sleazeball. But i don't think anyone is advocating hiring/recruiting total embarrassments.

The more challenging case is when the "ideal representative" may not be the best player or coach. At that point, how much are you willing to give up on "idealness" as a representative for better on-field results? I honestly think Teevens was a better off-field representative of the university than Harbaugh was. But I know who I'd want if I had to pick between those two to return as the head football coach*.

* Hmm... typing that makes me appreciate Shaw even more.

Okay, I confess to stacking the deck in my first example.Â

How about this one, then:Â Geno Auriemma vs. Tara VanDerveer ?

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - StanFan88 - 09-26-2014

(09-26-2014, 02:59 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Among the players who Dawkins had the opportunity to coach, who should have made the NBA, bud did not due to poor development?Â (I think no one.Â I certainly don't think that the coaching staff is to blame for Randle's lack of speed or size.Â I think the coaching staff has done a great job helping him become an excellent college player.)Â

Whether it's bad recruiting or bad development, they both fall to the head coach.Â Net net is that Stanford basketball has consistently underperformed over the last six seasons.

(09-26-2014, 02:59 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:If we accepted that players were busts after 2 years of not contributing, then we would have written off Landry Fields.Â That's why I said that we should wait and see how Rosco and Verhoeven play this year.

iirc, Fields was playing quality minutes even as a sophomore, and the bench was WAY deeper.Â My point is that last year's team had a rotation of three big men, and the ONLY time Verhoeven saw the floor was when all three of them were in foul trouble.Â That wasn't the case with Fields.Â And Verhoeven's numbers from last year make Fields' sophomore numbers look all-conference.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - washingtonismoney - 09-26-2014

The thin bench last year was probably mostly due to injury. But Dawkins struggled over the first five years of his career with rotations -- played far too many guys, didn't figure out how to trot out coherent lineups that worked. Not so last year! The injuries were perfect in that they reduced the number of options Dawkins had, meaning that it was hard for him to screw up.Â

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - jayasena - 09-27-2014

(09-26-2014, 05:12 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10701.msg99303#msg99303 date=1411772871]

I'm with WIM on this. The "off-field representative" aspect is easy to prioritize when both people in question are all-world talents but one is a near-saint and the other is a certifiable sleazeball. But i don't think anyone is advocating hiring/recruiting total embarrassments.

The more challenging case is when the "ideal representative" may not be the best player or coach. At that point, how much are you willing to give up on "idealness" as a representative for better on-field results? I honestly think Teevens was a better off-field representative of the university than Harbaugh was. But I know who I'd want if I had to pick between those two to return as the head football coach*.

* Hmm... typing that makes me appreciate Shaw even more.

Okay, I confess to stacking the deck in my first example.Â

How about this one, then:Â Geno Auriemma vs. Tara VanDerveer ?
[/quote]

I wouldn't trade Tara for anyone. On the other hand, in an alternate universe where we never had Tara and Auriemma was our long-time coach, I wouldn't imagine myself wanting to get rid of him either. But I'll readily admit that I don't follow much non-Stanford WBB news and there may be things about Auriemma's off-field conduct that I don't know about that may could change my thinking.

I hate excuses as much as the next guy, but.... - Mick - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 09:25 AM)garvin link Wrote:We've had coaches who didn't represent Stanford well. [i]Doctor[/i] Tom Davis, with his constant whining about admissions is one.

...I would be interested in the difference between average SAT/GPA scores between the recruits of Davis' years and those of other coaches.Â

I've looked at Davis' career record.Â He was 100-47 at Boston College prior to Stanford and improved the team while he was there, improving their postseason record from 2nd round NIT to Sweet Sixteen to Elite Eight in his last three years at BC.Â Then after he left Stanford, he took Iowa to a 30-5 record, and went to the NCAAs ten out of thirteen years.Â In his total career, he never lost a first round NCAA tournament postseason game.Â Never.Â Not once.Â He lost in the NIT first round twice.

He went to the NCAA Elite Eight the year before he coached Stanford.Â He went to the NCAA Elite Eight the year after he left Stanford with Iowa.Â Steve Alford took over at Iowa the year after Davis left, and Iowa basketball declined markedly.Â It went to the NCAAs three times in eight years, losing twice in the first round.Â Of the three times he went to the NIT, he lost in the first round twice.Â

Davis went 58-59 at Stanford.Â The football record for those years (Wiggin and Elway) was 15-29, tied for the eighth-worst four year stretch in the 100+ year history of Stanford football.Â This suggests to me that there may be a degree of merit to the theory that Davis could not get good recruits into Stanford.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2014

Well, it may be true but I don't think it's terribly seemly to be complaining too loudly and too publicly about it, because it implies something negative about the players you do have. For example, I thought Trent Johnson's parting shot at Mitch Johnson's speed was not terribly classy.*

* (now, I realize that I've previously argued that I don't really care, when assessing a coach, about the representative-of-the-university factor, assuming they're not, say, a Brian Kelly-level embarrassment. True! That doesn't make unethical behavior ethical, it just means it doesn't matter all that much.)

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - Mick - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 06:08 PM)garvin link Wrote:Mick, I don't think SAT scores prevented Paul Wiggin from winning at Kansas City. And in fact, he had an enormous amount of talent on his teams -- look at the number of guys who played in the NFL. As for Davis, the one specific case he made public in his fight with the admissions office -- the one that ultimately triggered his departure -- was a guy named Chris Munk, who had a C+ GPA in high school. That guy wouldn't have gotten in when I was a student, and he wouldn't get in now. If Davis came to Stanford thinking he was going to get C students past admissions, he was an idiot. I do not find the fact that he was successful at Iowa (sort of; they eventually got rid of him for scheduling too many powderpuffs) to be particularly persuasive. Stanford is never going to have the same admissions policy as a large state university.

What do you mean Wiggin had an enormous amount of talent?Â He didn't send appreciably more players to the NFL than Dowhower or Elway.Â They all averaged about 3 NFL draftees annually.

I doubt Davis thought he could get C+ students in as a rule.Â Do you think the "Doctor" -- who coached at Boston College -- had no illusions as to how difficult it would be to get in talent?Â I rather suspect he was misled...it's just too much of a coincidence to me that both football and basketball did poorly during those years.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - HisKneeWasDown - 09-27-2014

Dawkins has 3 former players in the NBA. I don't see how anyone would deny he's underachieving.

Squeaking into the NCAA tournament was a worst-case scenario for Stanford. It guaranteed another 5 years of mediocrity.

I don't think Montgomery/Johnson was a fluke. It was dynasty, and I don't think the game has changed so much that that dynasty couldn't have been sustained.

Re: I hate excuses as much as the next guy, but.... - triangle2 - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 05:55 PM)Mick link Wrote:Davis went 58-59 at Stanford.Â The football record for those years (Wiggin and Elway) was 15-29, tied for the eighth-worst four year stretch in the 100+ year history of Stanford football.Â This suggests to me that there may be a degree of merit to the theory that Davis could not get good recruits into Stanford.

Re: I hate excuses as much as the next guy, but.... - Mick - 09-28-2014

(09-27-2014, 11:33 PM)triangle2 link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=10701.msg99490#msg99490 date=1411865714]
Davis went 58-59 at Stanford.Â The football record for those years (Wiggin and Elway) was 15-29, tied for the eighth-worst four year stretch in the 100+ year history of Stanford football.Â This suggests to me that there may be a degree of merit to the theory that Davis could not get good recruits into Stanford.

Well, Tom Davis recruited Todd Lichti, Terry Taylor, Eric Reveno, and Howard Wright.Â With Lichti, and Wright as starters in 85-86 (along with Koberlein, Ramee and part-time starters Greg Butler, Andy Fischer), Davis got 14 wins.Â Enter Mike Montgomery. In 87-88, Monty gets 21 wins from Lichti, Wright, Taylor, Butler, and McSweeney.Â I don't think recruiting was the problem.Â I think Davis probably felt he didn't get the players he wanted, but the talent was there...
[/quote]

Using your own logic then, Davis was a quantum leap over DiBiaso.Â In the three years prior to Davis' arrival, DiBiaso won 7, 9 and 7 games in the three years prior to Davis' arrival.Â In Davis' first two years after DiBiaso, he won 14 and 19 games, not hugely different from Montgomery's two seasons.Â You conveniently didn't mention Montgomery's first 15-13 year in 1986-1987.Â While his record was slightly stronger than Davis', his team averaged essentially the same as his opponents, whereas Davis' team averaged 74.1 ppg and gave up 70.3 And finally, the years you cited happened when Davis' players were two years older than they were when they played for Davis AND were joined by Andrew Vlahov, Stanford's first international player of substance.Â And while Monty did well with Davis' recruits, he got into the NCAAs exactly twice in his first eight years coaching Stanford.

Davis didn't have horrible players, he just didn't have and couldn't get great players.Â He couldn't luck into the Lopez twins, and NBA players from Marin County like Lichti don't come along very often.Â He got exactly what Stanford typically got...lots of decent suburban players, enough to play .500 ball but not much better.Â And he benefited from a 7 foot center from Santa Cruz in Tim Young, Davis didn't have that kind of center.

Look, I'm not saying Monty was a bad coach, he was a great coach.Â And his schemes and style were more appropriate for Stanford than run-and-gun, full court press Davis (which was his preferred style and which he employed at Iowa).Â All I am saying is that Davis wasn't wrong when he complained about not being able to get in great recruits.Â Monty's genius couldn't get Davis' recruits to the NCAAs either, twice in his first eight years, although his regular season record was better.Â In fact, in the 13 years that Davis and Montgomery coached Stanford and Iowa thereafter, Montgomery's season record was better than Davis 7 times.Â But in that time frame, Davis went to the NCAAs ten times and Monty went 7 times.Â Davis didn't have a first round loss, Monty had two first round losses.Â Neither won the NCAAs.Â Monty did get to one final four.

Knowing how these things work, I suspect that admissions loosened restrictions as Montgomery demonstrated a degree of success and his players graduated and didn't get into trouble, and great for Monty and great for us.Â But I think Davis would have done better with better players.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - Mick - 09-29-2014

Right, but we're in a circular reference here.Â My original comment is that I wondered whether or not admissions creep, specifically admissions creep upward was in effect at that time, particularly given that both teams were doing badly and that the football team had a very bad four year stretch.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - CTcard - 09-29-2014

(09-27-2014, 09:25 AM)garvin link Wrote:We've had coaches who didn't represent Stanford well. [i]Doctor[/i] Tom Davis, with his constant whining about admissions is one. Idiotface, with his grunting caveman approach to coaching and his regular pronouncements that his players were crummy, is another. I would have despised those guys even if they won all the time -- which, of course, they didn't. I'm happy to give Dawkins credit on this score; he seems like a genuinely nice guy. That's not enough.

A few thoughts.

1. It's easy to say "doesn't represent Stanford well" is an important criteria when using these two coaches, since they also didn't win nearly as much as the guys who followed them. Much tougher to find a guy who won a lot, and then say he doesn't represent Stanford well.

2. Both Davis and Wlat were good examples that fit matters, at least at Stanford. Neither appeared to really know what they were in for with respect to Stanford admissions and Stanford athletes. Neither were objectively terrible coaches overall, but neither could perform well at Stanford because they bristled so much at what Stanford wasn't that they couldn't take advantage of what it was.

An extreme counter-example is Harbaugh. I am not sure that he places a particularly high value on academics overall versus football concerns, but he managed to buy into the Stanford package while he was here and sold it well.

3. As to the Mick-Garvin "Davis, was he any good" dispute ...

As Mick briefly mentioned, Davis did at least make Stanford a lot better than before he got there. Not only was Stanford terrible the previous three years, it really had been awful in basketball for most of 30 years at that point. Davis' four years were:
1982-3: 14-14 (6-12)Â [win improvement of 7 overall and 4 in conference]
1983-4: 19-12 (8-10)
1984-5: 11-17 (3-15)Â [trouble replacing Revelli and Jones]
1985-86: 14-16 (8-10) [Lichti and Wright appear as frosh]

It is unclear where the program was going with Davis, and his unease with the Stanford-way was not going to help him long term. But at the least, he left Stanford basketball in better shape than he found it.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - Bruce Wang - 09-29-2014

(09-29-2014, 09:29 AM)CTcard link Wrote:2. Both Davis and Wlat were good examples that fit matters... Neither were objectively terrible coaches overall

Idiotface was objectively a terrible coach.

Re: Dawkins gets contract extension - Leftcoast - 09-29-2014

The "Just win baby" approach is a slope that leads downhill toward lower standards for the PROGRAM - not just the head coach.Â

If the only criteria we hold our head coach to is winning percentage and not becoming a public embarrassment then institutional fit and adherence to Stanford's value system doesn't matter.Â If it doesn't matter to the head coach than why on earth would those things matter to the assistants he hires?Â Why would they matter to the players he recruits?

Winning matters to us.Â Winning the right way matters even more.Â