The CardBoard
No one seems to have asked, "What about better basketball?" - 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: No one seems to have asked, "What about better basketball?" (/thread-11452.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: No one seems to have asked, "What about better basketball?" - washingtonismoney - 01-25-2016

(01-25-2016, 02:54 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=ahuang06 link=topic=14463.msg154218#msg154218 date=1453744528]

It appears that the standard fan complaint of about 80% of college teams is that their administration simply doesn't want to win. If they really wanted to win, all they would have to do is build the fanciest facilities and go hire a new coach.

Well, surely it's a necessary if not sufficient prerequisite. And if it's neither, it's surely helpful. If you happen to believe we've seen the best of Dawkins, and the best of Dawkins doesn't meet your standards, then not firing Dawkins is tolerance of mediocrity (i.e. not caring about winning) or delusion. Which is why wanting to win is...at least helpful, when compared to the alternative.

I obviously can't guarantee we'd hire a superstar coach to replace Dawkins, or even that such a coach would be successful. But I feel pretty confident that we won't get superstar, or star, or duller constellations, with Dawkins. So it's best to fire him.

Re: No one seems to have asked, "What about better basketball?" - Treebound - 01-25-2016

Thanks Teejers,
Stanford didn't become one of the top universities in the country by settling/tolerating mediocrity.    Surrender monkey is a term that has been oft used on other boards.  JD has been given ample time to show what he can do.  I'm a long time season ticket holder and the "He's a nice guy, let's just give him one more year" rationale no longer holds water. 

At one point in the not so distant past, there was a waiting list to buy tickets to Maples and the students camped outside before the bigger games.  Stanford, it's faculty, students and alums don't settle and nor should we.  We look for ways to make things better and to excel.  It's a high standard, and that is as it should be. 

Re: No one seems to have asked, "What about better basketball?" - winflop - 01-25-2016

(01-24-2016, 01:51 PM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:For the first time since the Monty era, we're playing greater than the sum of our individual parts. Far and away Dawkins' best coaching job thus far. If fans or students choose not to show up it's their own damn fault.

Maybe true last night, and against OSU, and perhaps Low APR U.  But what about against Oregon, AZ.  This team has yet to beat two quality opponents in a row all season.

Re: No one seems to have asked, "What about better basketball?" - 76lsjumb - 01-26-2016

(01-26-2016, 08:52 AM)garvin link Wrote:Just want to alert everybody that I'm going to Kickstarter later today to seek funding for 76lsjumb's hospitalization. His repeated claim that Johnny Dawkins is a better coach than Tara VanDerveer clearly crosses the line from amusing eccentricity into "danger to himself and others" territory.

garvin, thanks very much for your concern, but no need to worry.  I've seen the light.  Those games against Santa Clara, Arizona State, Oregon State, and UCLA were coaching gems.  Exquisite.  I've never seen a team so well-prepared.  Like watching chess played by a grand master.  As for the men, they've only managed to beat teams coached by Cuonzo Martin [with two likely one-and-doners], Wayne Tinkle [a Board favorite as a potential replacement, as I recall], and Larry Krystowiak [or however his name is spelled].  All pikers.

I apologize for not making my earlier post clear -- that is, the one where I said THIS SEASON, at least so far, the better coached team sure looks like the men's team.  As for my "repeated claim that Johnny Dawkins is a better coach than Tara VanDerVeer,"  I'm having a hard time finding a single post in which I made that claim.  I did find your post LAST January, though, where you said that Tara deserves to be cut some slack given her past success.  I didn't [and don't] disagree with that.  But, man, I hope the slack-cutting doesn't have to last too much longer...

Re: No one seems to have asked, "What about better basketball?" - winflop - 01-27-2016

I wouldn't even say that about this season, sorry 76.  MBB is the model of inconsistency this year.  They haven't even been able to beat two quality teams in a row.  Despite a clearly down year, at least WBB has been able to beat 3 Pac-12 teams in a row, including Utah & Oregon who are right behind Stanford in the Pac-12 standings.

I'll give WBB a much better chance to finish above .500 than MBB.  I'll also give WBB a much better chance to make NCAAs.

If nothing else, this thread is showing just how low the bar is getting for MBB.

Re: No one seems to have asked, "What about better basketball?" - StanfordMatt - 01-27-2016

Using the argument that since the women's team is likely to make the tourney this year while the men's team's status is still in doubt as evidence that Tara is doing a better job than Johnny is the biggest bunch of crock I've seen on this board in a long time. The fact is that a blind monkey could lead our women's team to the postseason this year or just about any year for that matter. And I say that without any disrespect to Tara. To the contrary, she has done an otherworldly job of building her program to the point where it can be set to cruise control for a couple years and the results won't be disastrous. But a bigger factor than the job she's done is the power structure of the women's game in general. Every year, there are only about 6 teams with realistic hopes of making the Final Four and 1-2 with realistic hopes of winning it all. Quibble with those numbers all you want but it is a truism that parity in the men's game is far greater than what it is in the women's game which has the effect of making Johnny's job much, much more difficult.

Re: No one seems to have asked, "What about better basketball?" - CTcard - 01-27-2016

(01-27-2016, 08:26 AM)garvin link Wrote:If there's so much parity in the men's game, why aren't we sharing it? Why is it we've managed to finish among the top 68 teams in the country only once in seven seasons? If the men's game is defined by parity, we're sub-par.

Well, there's 351 division 1 basketball programs, so being in the top 68 is certainly above average.

On the other hand, there are far fewer Power 5 teams (65 I think?). These teams have definite competitive advantages and make the tournament at a far higher rate. I am not exactly sure what that rate is, but probably close to 50%.

Perhaps the easiest measure of Dawkins overall versus a Power 5 median is his in conference record is 62-71 or a 47% winning percentage - just ender 50/50.
In his favour would be that his in-conference records having been inching upwards: 42-37, 53%. Either way fairly close to average.