[76lsjumb]

I don't know whether the measuring stick that Muir is using is NCAA tourney v. no NCAA tourney, but, if it is, it seems to me clearly to be focusing on the wrong metric.  The metric that should be used to judge the quality of a coach and staff, especially at a place like Stanford, is whether players individually -- and, to the extent the same players are still around, those players collectively as a team -- are getting better over time, that is, fulfilling their potential.  Individually, are "freshman mistake" moments consistently, even if gradually, morphing into "senior leadership" moments?  As a team, are "unforced errors" over time turning into smoothly run plays?  If so, the odds are fairly high that you've got good coaches who are effective teachers and motivators. 

So, the question that Muir should be asking [other than, of course, how many more games at Maples can I stand where opposing fans not only greatly outnumber the 6th Man Club but also make substantially more noise than the ever-decreasing cadre of Stanford fans?] is whether this year's group of seniors has improved as much over four years as a good coach [i.e., "professor of basketball"] should and would have enabled and inspired them to improve over that time period.  Regretfully -- for the sake of those seniors and because Dawkins seems like a genuinely good guy -- I think the answer to that question is negative.  [And, just to be clear, I'm not discounting the value of being a good guy.  There are a number of coaches with successful teams that certainly come across as jerks, but I'm not promoting that style, either.]

Whether or not we make the tourney this year will likely be determined as much by wholly extraneous factors -- e.g., Colorado losing Spencer Dinwiddie, whether or not Nebraska makes a deep run in the B1G tourney, and the like -- as by our own play, but whether those other things break our way or not is obviously not a proper measure of whether Dawkins is a good coach or should be retained.

[76lsjumb]

I don't know whether the measuring stick that Muir is using is NCAA tourney v. no NCAA tourney, but, if it is, it seems to me clearly to be focusing on the wrong metric.  The metric that should be used to judge the quality of a coach and staff, especially at a place like Stanford, is whether players individually -- and, to the extent the same players are still around, those players collectively as a team -- are getting better over time, that is, fulfilling their potential.  Individually, are "freshman mistake" moments consistently, even if gradually, morphing into "senior leadership" moments?  As a team, are "unforced errors" over time turning into smoothly run plays?  If so, the odds are fairly high that you've got good coaches who are effective teachers and motivators. 

So, the question that Muir should be asking [other than, of course, how many more games at Maples can I stand where opposing fans not only greatly outnumber the 6th Man Club but also make substantially more noise than the ever-decreasing cadre of Stanford fans?] is whether this year's group of seniors has improved as much over four years as a good coach [i.e., "professor of basketball"] should and would have enabled and inspired them to improve over that time period.  Regretfully -- for the sake of those seniors and because Dawkins seems like a genuinely good guy -- I think the answer to that question is negative.  [And, just to be clear, I'm not discounting the value of being a good guy.  There are a number of coaches with successful teams that certainly come across as jerks, but I'm not promoting that style, either.]

Whether or not we make the tourney this year will likely be determined as much by wholly extraneous factors -- e.g., Colorado losing Spencer Dinwiddie, whether or not Nebraska makes a deep run in the B1G tourney, and the like -- as by our own play, but whether those other things break our way or not is obviously not a proper measure of whether Dawkins is a good coach or should be retained.