Wheeeee - 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: Wheeeee (/thread-11693.html)
+- 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: Wheeeee (/thread-11693.html)
Re: Wheeeee - yvonne - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 10:57 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=Nan3cy link=topic=14713.msg158363#msg158363 date=1457717280]
At this point I'd say we're aspiring to mediocrity... :-[
Nancy, Stanford's last five conference records are 9-9, 10-8, 9-9, 10-8, 8-10. Looks like the very definition of mediocrity.
[/quote]
That's why I don't think Muir gets Stanford. I think many ADs would be satisfied with winning seasons and just mediocre conference seasons. They might be satisfied with not being at the bottom of the heap, and either getting into the NCAAs or winning the NIT (heck, there are teams that go wild for just making the NIT), but Stanford is not one of those teams.
I can't find the quote, but I remember Tara saying something like "Stanford's not an ordinary place, I'm not an ordinary coach, and this is not going to be an ordinary team." That's the essence of Stanford.
Re: Wheeeee - yvonne - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 10:57 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=Nan3cy link=topic=14713.msg158363#msg158363 date=1457717280]
At this point I'd say we're aspiring to mediocrity... :-[
Nancy, Stanford's last five conference records are 9-9, 10-8, 9-9, 10-8, 8-10. Looks like the very definition of mediocrity.
[/quote]
That's why I don't think Muir gets Stanford. I think many ADs would be satisfied with winning seasons and just mediocre conference seasons. They might be satisfied with not being at the bottom of the heap, and either getting into the NCAAs or winning the NIT (heck, there are teams that go wild for just making the NIT), but Stanford is not one of those teams.
I can't find the quote, but I remember Tara saying something like "Stanford's not an ordinary place, I'm not an ordinary coach, and this is not going to be an ordinary team." That's the essence of Stanford.
Re: Wheeeee - CTcard - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 11:41 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:That's why I don't think Muir gets Stanford. I think many ADs would be satisfied with winning seasons and just mediocre conference seasons.
...
"Stanford's not an ordinary place, I'm not an ordinary coach, and this is not going to be an ordinary team." That's the essence of Stanford.
I don't think there is an AD in America who is not obsessed about winning at football and men's basketball - though to be sure winning in non-Power 5 leagues might mean something slightly different.
The essence of Stanford isn't wanting to win at sports. That essence is closer to not letting the desire to win at sports corrupt values more central to being a university. However, it's really the insistence that there is nothing antithetical about the two and thus not sacrificing one for the other.
Re: Wheeeee - CTcard - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 11:41 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:That's why I don't think Muir gets Stanford. I think many ADs would be satisfied with winning seasons and just mediocre conference seasons.
...
"Stanford's not an ordinary place, I'm not an ordinary coach, and this is not going to be an ordinary team." That's the essence of Stanford.
I don't think there is an AD in America who is not obsessed about winning at football and men's basketball - though to be sure winning in non-Power 5 leagues might mean something slightly different.
The essence of Stanford isn't wanting to win at sports. That essence is closer to not letting the desire to win at sports corrupt values more central to being a university. However, it's really the insistence that there is nothing antithetical about the two and thus not sacrificing one for the other.
Re: Wheeeee - washingtonismoney - 03-11-2016
Right, though in this case... that still doesn't explain Muir's (apparent) hesitancy to pull the trigger. He must really believe in Dawkins; in the cynical interpretation, because he believes Dawkins's performance is the best Stanford can aspire to, or, more delusionally, because he believes Dawkins is actually a good coach. Either possibility doesn't speak well of Muir.
Re: Wheeeee - washingtonismoney - 03-11-2016
Right, though in this case... that still doesn't explain Muir's (apparent) hesitancy to pull the trigger. He must really believe in Dawkins; in the cynical interpretation, because he believes Dawkins's performance is the best Stanford can aspire to, or, more delusionally, because he believes Dawkins is actually a good coach. Either possibility doesn't speak well of Muir.
Re: Wheeeee - yvonne - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 12:23 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=14713.msg158371#msg158371 date=1457721694]
That's why I don't think Muir gets Stanford. I think many ADs would be satisfied with winning seasons and just mediocre conference seasons.
...
"Stanford's not an ordinary place, I'm not an ordinary coach, and this is not going to be an ordinary team." That's the essence of Stanford.
I don't think there is an AD in America who is not obsessed about winning at football and men's basketball - though to be sure winning in non-Power 5 leagues might mean something slightly different.
The essence of Stanford isn't wanting to win at sports. That essence is closer to not letting the desire to win at sports corrupt values more central to being a university. However, it's really the insistence that there is nothing antithetical about the two and thus not sacrificing one for the other.
[/quote]
I guess I didn't express my point fully enough. I didn't mean that it meant winning at all costs, but rather excelling in everything, not settling for "ordinary," and yes, that includes playing by the rules and excelling in the classroom.
Re: Wheeeee - yvonne - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 12:23 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=14713.msg158371#msg158371 date=1457721694]
That's why I don't think Muir gets Stanford. I think many ADs would be satisfied with winning seasons and just mediocre conference seasons.
...
"Stanford's not an ordinary place, I'm not an ordinary coach, and this is not going to be an ordinary team." That's the essence of Stanford.
I don't think there is an AD in America who is not obsessed about winning at football and men's basketball - though to be sure winning in non-Power 5 leagues might mean something slightly different.
The essence of Stanford isn't wanting to win at sports. That essence is closer to not letting the desire to win at sports corrupt values more central to being a university. However, it's really the insistence that there is nothing antithetical about the two and thus not sacrificing one for the other.
[/quote]
I guess I didn't express my point fully enough. I didn't mean that it meant winning at all costs, but rather excelling in everything, not settling for "ordinary," and yes, that includes playing by the rules and excelling in the classroom.
Re: Wheeeee - needle - 03-11-2016
How many coaches has Muir fired for performance reasons while at Stanford?
Re: Wheeeee - needle - 03-11-2016
How many coaches has Muir fired for performance reasons while at Stanford?
Re: Wheeeee - terry - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 12:50 PM)needle link Wrote:How many coaches has Muir fired for performance reasons while at Stanford?
Men's tennis.
Maybe women's swimming -- Bobbk would know.
Re: Wheeeee - terry - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 12:50 PM)needle link Wrote:How many coaches has Muir fired for performance reasons while at Stanford?
Men's tennis.
Maybe women's swimming -- Bobbk would know.
Re: Wheeeee - Leftcoast - 03-11-2016
Controversially, Women's Softball?
Re: Wheeeee - Leftcoast - 03-11-2016
Controversially, Women's Softball?
Re: Wheeeee - BostonCard - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 03:39 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:Controversially, Women's Softball?
Yes fired, and yes, controversially, but not for performance.
BC
Re: Wheeeee - BostonCard - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 03:39 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:Controversially, Women's Softball?
Yes fired, and yes, controversially, but not for performance.
BC
Re: Wheeeee - JJJ - 03-11-2016
Just noticed on gostanford.com that the schedule lists Men's Basketball (NCAA First Four) for Tuesday, March 15th. I understand why it was there in the beginning, but perhaps it ought to be removed? :'(
Re: Wheeeee - JJJ - 03-11-2016
Just noticed on gostanford.com that the schedule lists Men's Basketball (NCAA First Four) for Tuesday, March 15th. I understand why it was there in the beginning, but perhaps it ought to be removed? :'(
Re: Wheeeee - winflop - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 12:23 PM)CTcard link Wrote:winning in non-Power 5 leagues might mean something slightly different
Except that Muir was at Georgetown before he was at Delaware so he knows about winning in MBB at the power 5 level. Which is why his obstinance to date is all the more puzzling.
Re: Wheeeee - winflop - 03-11-2016
(03-11-2016, 12:23 PM)CTcard link Wrote:winning in non-Power 5 leagues might mean something slightly different
Except that Muir was at Georgetown before he was at Delaware so he knows about winning in MBB at the power 5 level. Which is why his obstinance to date is all the more puzzling.