[washingtonismoney]

Speaking of Dawkins, what I find curious about his employment situation is that he was brought back...but not given an extension. The last extension took him to '15-'16 (http://www.ruleoftree.com/2011/7/7/22642...tension),  meaning he has two years left after the upcoming year. Typically coaches like to push for an extension in this range, using the rationale that recruits won't come without the belief that their coach will be present.

But no extension here, which is a bit strange. Muir-initiated, Dawkins-initiated...or something from nothing? (Probably that, but still weird.)

[washingtonismoney]

Speaking of Dawkins, what I find curious about his employment situation is that he was brought back...but not given an extension. The last extension took him to '15-'16 (http://www.ruleoftree.com/2011/7/7/22642...tension),  meaning he has two years left after the upcoming year. Typically coaches like to push for an extension in this range, using the rationale that recruits won't come without the belief that their coach will be present.

But no extension here, which is a bit strange. Muir-initiated, Dawkins-initiated...or something from nothing? (Probably that, but still weird.)