[BobK]

I'm not convinced that we all know the terms of the contract.  So I would guess you all are correct but I would not say that we know what can and can't be done. 

[BobK]

I'm not convinced that we all know the terms of the contract.  So I would guess you all are correct but I would not say that we know what can and can't be done. 

[donkey687]

Dawkins may be a decent fit for the program's current reality as a team solidly in the middle third of the Pac.

I certainly hope Muir isn't thinking this way. Stanford strives to be the best in everything that they do. Stanford is not a place for someone who settles for mediocrity.

[donkey687]

Dawkins may be a decent fit for the program's current reality as a team solidly in the middle third of the Pac.

I certainly hope Muir isn't thinking this way. Stanford strives to be the best in everything that they do. Stanford is not a place for someone who settles for mediocrity.

[Fan in Phoenix]

My first year to follow Stanford basketball, and I have watched all the games this year.  Here are my observations:
Randle:
• He is above average in getting to the foul line and making free throws
• Rarely if ever in foul trouble
• Walks around on the court a lot and stands without bending his knees (yes, during live action on both ends of the floor)
• Picks his spots to play defense, rarely puts strong on ball pressure which allows easy entry passes for the other team
• Does not make his teammates better ~ 3 assists per game as the point guard playing 36 minutes a game
• Numerous subpar shooting nights
• Not in Chad Ford’s top 100 college players (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/resu.../year/2015)
• Ranked # 43 in college seniors  (Brown is #4)  http://www.draftexpress.com/rankings/NCAA-Seniors/2/

Team Rankings
Out of 350 college teams #43 Points, #46 Rebounds,  # 173 Assists and # 149 FG %
Triangle Offense
The big three are scoring options and the other two players are just trying to stay out of the way, not mess up and perhaps pick up some garbage.
Substitutions
Randle and Brown rarely come out.  Nastic comes out when fouls accumulate or he is about to pass out (he plays hard).  Bench never knows when, how long or who will play (amazed at the times they come into the game for 2-3 minutes or less) ~ killer on bench development.  I believe this impacts closing out games as players are not as fresh as the other team ~ defensive stops, crisp execution, FG %, and FT% down the stretch all take a hit.
Wish I could see:
More off ball screens for Randle and Brown ~ run them off a series of screens and their %s would improve.  Roscoe Allen (currently injured I know) and Michael Humphrey are 6’ 9”+ , run the floor and have great hops  ~ where are the alley oops?

[Fan in Phoenix]

My first year to follow Stanford basketball, and I have watched all the games this year.  Here are my observations:
Randle:
• He is above average in getting to the foul line and making free throws
• Rarely if ever in foul trouble
• Walks around on the court a lot and stands without bending his knees (yes, during live action on both ends of the floor)
• Picks his spots to play defense, rarely puts strong on ball pressure which allows easy entry passes for the other team
• Does not make his teammates better ~ 3 assists per game as the point guard playing 36 minutes a game
• Numerous subpar shooting nights
• Not in Chad Ford’s top 100 college players (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/resu.../year/2015)
• Ranked # 43 in college seniors  (Brown is #4)  http://www.draftexpress.com/rankings/NCAA-Seniors/2/

Team Rankings
Out of 350 college teams #43 Points, #46 Rebounds,  # 173 Assists and # 149 FG %
Triangle Offense
The big three are scoring options and the other two players are just trying to stay out of the way, not mess up and perhaps pick up some garbage.
Substitutions
Randle and Brown rarely come out.  Nastic comes out when fouls accumulate or he is about to pass out (he plays hard).  Bench never knows when, how long or who will play (amazed at the times they come into the game for 2-3 minutes or less) ~ killer on bench development.  I believe this impacts closing out games as players are not as fresh as the other team ~ defensive stops, crisp execution, FG %, and FT% down the stretch all take a hit.
Wish I could see:
More off ball screens for Randle and Brown ~ run them off a series of screens and their %s would improve.  Roscoe Allen (currently injured I know) and Michael Humphrey are 6’ 9”+ , run the floor and have great hops  ~ where are the alley oops?

[winflop]

Was it ever made public how many years his contract was extended?

The length of the contract was stated, but we don't know the terms.  There could be a clause that says if he's fired he gets one year's pay and no more.  We just don't know.

I voted with my feet, my wallet, and my keyboard.  I won't be buying any tickets until there's a new head coach, and I will continue to lobby for a new one because I think it's what's best for the program.

[winflop]

Was it ever made public how many years his contract was extended?

The length of the contract was stated, but we don't know the terms.  There could be a clause that says if he's fired he gets one year's pay and no more.  We just don't know.

I voted with my feet, my wallet, and my keyboard.  I won't be buying any tickets until there's a new head coach, and I will continue to lobby for a new one because I think it's what's best for the program.

[winflop]

Step 1 was a smashing success.  The second half defense was among the best they've played since Kansas last year.

Really hope they can sustain on Sunday.  Ducks are a must-win game.  I think the winner gets in and the loser doesn't.

[winflop]

Step 1 was a smashing success.  The second half defense was among the best they've played since Kansas last year.

Really hope they can sustain on Sunday.  Ducks are a must-win game.  I think the winner gets in and the loser doesn't.

[BobK]

Being behind at the half and winning by 27 impressed the hell out of me

[BobK]

Being behind at the half and winning by 27 impressed the hell out of me

[Treebound]

I agree with Winflop - "Win" the Oregon game and we should make the dance.  "Flop" against the Ducks and it's the Not Important Tourney...again.    Dawkins is our Ben Braun, but I think Muir is soft on him given Dawkins history as a player.  Muir was not here when Montgomery had us in the Top 20 almost every year and Maples was rockin'!  I miss those days and Muir should want that kind of excitement and revenue to return. 

Dawkins was a great player and is a very nice man.  That doesn't equate to being a great or even very good coach.  The pedigree is there, but the record is not.  He won't pull the cord this year given last year's Sweet 16, but I sure as hell hope that if we do an NIT return for this year and next that Muir makes a move to get us out of mediocrity.  Maples has become a giant echo chamber and the students rarely show.  I think it's quieter now than it was in the Tom Davis years....painful.

I hope our seniors show their leadership over the next month and make another run.

[Treebound]

I agree with Winflop - "Win" the Oregon game and we should make the dance.  "Flop" against the Ducks and it's the Not Important Tourney...again.    Dawkins is our Ben Braun, but I think Muir is soft on him given Dawkins history as a player.  Muir was not here when Montgomery had us in the Top 20 almost every year and Maples was rockin'!  I miss those days and Muir should want that kind of excitement and revenue to return. 

Dawkins was a great player and is a very nice man.  That doesn't equate to being a great or even very good coach.  The pedigree is there, but the record is not.  He won't pull the cord this year given last year's Sweet 16, but I sure as hell hope that if we do an NIT return for this year and next that Muir makes a move to get us out of mediocrity.  Maples has become a giant echo chamber and the students rarely show.  I think it's quieter now than it was in the Tom Davis years....painful.

I hope our seniors show their leadership over the next month and make another run.

[jacketree]

In the Pantheon of Stanford basketball coaches, Dawkins is sort of an above-average guy.  Probably just good enough not to get fired.  Mike Montgomery is the outlier in terms of performance and tenure. He was here for 18 years and while he won 70% of his games, even he really only had a 7 year run of anything approaching excellence. That run came 11 years into his tenure and frankly was fairly clouded with repeated late season underachievement.  (I am heavily biased toward conference titles and deep tournament runs. First round flame outs against Sienna don't do it for me. Nor does going undefeated most of the season only to choke in the second round against an 8 seed.) That's the best it's ever been.

Dallmar    .492
DiBiaso    .372
Davis        .496
Monty      .702
Johnson  .625
Dawkins  .581

2004 is when college basketball died for me.  Stanford threw up on its shoes; Monty left.  Tech played into April and rewarded Hewitt with a lifetime contract.  11 years later Stanford flails away while Tech is paying two coaches to suck at two different schools, both of whom will probably be fired at the end of this season.  It's gotten to the point where I can watch GT blow lead after lead after lead against the likes of Duke and Louisville, losing games by doing things like dribbling the ball of a foot and no longer care.  I didn't even realize Stanford played last night.  But it is really nice to have March back.  Once upon a time I would invent meetings in San Luis Obispo County during the tournament so I could listen to mid-day/mid-week games uninterrupted on the radio.

Flipping the channels last night I was going back and forth between distopian 1984 and distopian Trent Johnson (aka Sam the Eagle) on Pac12 Network. It was the 2008 Pac12 (or maybe still 10 at that point) tournament championship.  #11 Stanford with a furious comeback against #3 UCLA (which missed about half their free throws down the stretch) and 'probably the best coach in the country [who will be unemployed in a few years]' Ben Howland.  They were on a run of Final Fours at the time.  Completely forgot how that game turned out other than Stanford probably lost.  Mitch Johnson, Anthony Goods, Fred Washington, Lawrence Hill and the Lopez Brothers.  Game ended when with the clock ticking down and Stanford trailing by 3, Goods or Johnson (think it was Goods) inexplicably finds Lopez for an uncontested dunk. Trent is pissed, UCLA makes both free throws with 2 seconds left and Goods misses a long-distance runner off the rim at the buzzer.  Good times....good times.....

[jacketree]

In the Pantheon of Stanford basketball coaches, Dawkins is sort of an above-average guy.  Probably just good enough not to get fired.  Mike Montgomery is the outlier in terms of performance and tenure. He was here for 18 years and while he won 70% of his games, even he really only had a 7 year run of anything approaching excellence. That run came 11 years into his tenure and frankly was fairly clouded with repeated late season underachievement.  (I am heavily biased toward conference titles and deep tournament runs. First round flame outs against Sienna don't do it for me. Nor does going undefeated most of the season only to choke in the second round against an 8 seed.) That's the best it's ever been.

Dallmar    .492
DiBiaso    .372
Davis        .496
Monty      .702
Johnson  .625
Dawkins  .581

2004 is when college basketball died for me.  Stanford threw up on its shoes; Monty left.  Tech played into April and rewarded Hewitt with a lifetime contract.  11 years later Stanford flails away while Tech is paying two coaches to suck at two different schools, both of whom will probably be fired at the end of this season.  It's gotten to the point where I can watch GT blow lead after lead after lead against the likes of Duke and Louisville, losing games by doing things like dribbling the ball of a foot and no longer care.  I didn't even realize Stanford played last night.  But it is really nice to have March back.  Once upon a time I would invent meetings in San Luis Obispo County during the tournament so I could listen to mid-day/mid-week games uninterrupted on the radio.

Flipping the channels last night I was going back and forth between distopian 1984 and distopian Trent Johnson (aka Sam the Eagle) on Pac12 Network. It was the 2008 Pac12 (or maybe still 10 at that point) tournament championship.  #11 Stanford with a furious comeback against #3 UCLA (which missed about half their free throws down the stretch) and 'probably the best coach in the country [who will be unemployed in a few years]' Ben Howland.  They were on a run of Final Fours at the time.  Completely forgot how that game turned out other than Stanford probably lost.  Mitch Johnson, Anthony Goods, Fred Washington, Lawrence Hill and the Lopez Brothers.  Game ended when with the clock ticking down and Stanford trailing by 3, Goods or Johnson (think it was Goods) inexplicably finds Lopez for an uncontested dunk. Trent is pissed, UCLA makes both free throws with 2 seconds left and Goods misses a long-distance runner off the rim at the buzzer.  Good times....good times.....

[CTcard]

the Beaver led at the break and continued to trade baskets with us for the first eight minutes of the second half.

Over the first eight minutes of the second half the score was Stanford 14, Beavs 7. There wasn't a whole lot of basket trading going on by either side (2 baskets by the Beavs, 5 by Stanford).

Chasson Randle continued his shooting slump, hitting just three of 10, and Anthony Brown was even worse at three for 11. If not for our huuuuuge 46-22 rebounding advantage over the outsized Beavers, this game might very well have gone the other way.

Generally speaking, if not for the things a team did well a win might very well turn into a loss. Rather the nature of things.


I'd think it is sufficient to say,
- the team played poorly in the first half, well in the second half
- the big three didn't contribute as much as usual but some of the younger guys contributed more, mostly Humphrey.



I hope that the second half team shows up Sunday.

[CTcard]

the Beaver led at the break and continued to trade baskets with us for the first eight minutes of the second half.

Over the first eight minutes of the second half the score was Stanford 14, Beavs 7. There wasn't a whole lot of basket trading going on by either side (2 baskets by the Beavs, 5 by Stanford).

Chasson Randle continued his shooting slump, hitting just three of 10, and Anthony Brown was even worse at three for 11. If not for our huuuuuge 46-22 rebounding advantage over the outsized Beavers, this game might very well have gone the other way.

Generally speaking, if not for the things a team did well a win might very well turn into a loss. Rather the nature of things.


I'd think it is sufficient to say,
- the team played poorly in the first half, well in the second half
- the big three didn't contribute as much as usual but some of the younger guys contributed more, mostly Humphrey.



I hope that the second half team shows up Sunday.

[Papa John]

First round flame outs against Sienna don't do it for me. Nor does going undefeated most of the season only to choke in the second round against an 8 seed.) That's the best it's ever been.

Except for 1942, a very good year indeed (other than that war that was going on at the time):

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Th...009566.php

[Papa John]

First round flame outs against Sienna don't do it for me. Nor does going undefeated most of the season only to choke in the second round against an 8 seed.) That's the best it's ever been.

Except for 1942, a very good year indeed (other than that war that was going on at the time):

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Th...009566.php

[jacketree]

A few downers about 1942: Yeah that whole war thing probably depleted college sports at the time; and ditto for segregation. Also the NIT was a far more prestigious tournament than the upstart NCAA, which only had 8 teams in it.  But it's a banner even if they took it down.  Glad no one calls us the 42ers. :P

[jacketree]

A few downers about 1942: Yeah that whole war thing probably depleted college sports at the time; and ditto for segregation. Also the NIT was a far more prestigious tournament than the upstart NCAA, which only had 8 teams in it.  But it's a banner even if they took it down.  Glad no one calls us the 42ers. :P

[winflop]

Dawkins may be the third-best coach in the last 40+ years, but he's the worst coach in the last 25 and that's what matters.  Montgomery built a program, Johnson sustained it, and Dawkins has ruined it.  Yes Trent left the cupboard bare when he left so maybe it was already going downhill, but that trend should have reversed itself 3-4 years ago under a good coach.

Dawkins is a great former player and a great representative of Stanford.  But he's a mediocre coach and - broken record here i know - Stanford should never tolerate mediocrity in anything.

[winflop]

Dawkins may be the third-best coach in the last 40+ years, but he's the worst coach in the last 25 and that's what matters.  Montgomery built a program, Johnson sustained it, and Dawkins has ruined it.  Yes Trent left the cupboard bare when he left so maybe it was already going downhill, but that trend should have reversed itself 3-4 years ago under a good coach.

Dawkins is a great former player and a great representative of Stanford.  But he's a mediocre coach and - broken record here i know - Stanford should never tolerate mediocrity in anything.

[76lsjumb]

Dawkins may be the third-best coach in the last 40+ years, but he's the worst coach in the last 25 and that's what matters.  Montgomery built a program, Johnson sustained it, and Dawkins has ruined it.  Yes Trent left the cupboard bare when he left so maybe it was already going downhill, but that trend should have reversed itself 3-4 years ago under a good coach.

Dawkins is a great former player and a great representative of Stanford.  But he's a mediocre coach and - broken record here i know - Stanford should never tolerate mediocrity in anything.

So, which of these coaches is "most" mediocre over a period of seven years?

Coach A -- 125-91
Coach B -- 135-96
Coach C -- 103-110

I agree that Stanford should never tolerate mediocrity, but I'm not sure your ranking is quite as obvious as you make it sound.  Indeed, if Coach B [Dawkins] is intolerable, then presumably Coach A [Montgomery's first seven years @ Stanford (which, of course, and unlike Dawkins, were not even his first seven years as a head coach)] should have been deemed intolerable as well.

Coach C?  That would be Trent Johnson over the past seven years...after he left Stanford because, in his own words, he wanted to go someplace that he would be able to recruit players that could compete at the highest level [and he didn't think that would be Stanford]. 

There's no question that Dawkins has not yet shown he can coach at the level Montgomery did in his later years at Stanford, but -- comparing apples to apples time-wise -- he's actually fairly close in results to Montgomery's early years.  Based on your analysis, Montgomery presumably should have been canned after seven years, given his "mediocre" record to that point.  Of course, had he been, he never would have been able to build the program that we all came to love so much. 

As for Trent Johnson... well, I'm not so sure LSU would agree with your relative rankings, either [although, after two losing seasons at TCU, he seems to be turning it around (a little) this year].  He did well at Stanford with the Lopi, but I'm pretty sure most coaches would have done so, too.  After all, the women's team this year has shown how much easier it is to be a good coach with a couple of Ogwumikes on your team than it is without them.

[76lsjumb]

Dawkins may be the third-best coach in the last 40+ years, but he's the worst coach in the last 25 and that's what matters.  Montgomery built a program, Johnson sustained it, and Dawkins has ruined it.  Yes Trent left the cupboard bare when he left so maybe it was already going downhill, but that trend should have reversed itself 3-4 years ago under a good coach.

Dawkins is a great former player and a great representative of Stanford.  But he's a mediocre coach and - broken record here i know - Stanford should never tolerate mediocrity in anything.

So, which of these coaches is "most" mediocre over a period of seven years?

Coach A -- 125-91
Coach B -- 135-96
Coach C -- 103-110

I agree that Stanford should never tolerate mediocrity, but I'm not sure your ranking is quite as obvious as you make it sound.  Indeed, if Coach B [Dawkins] is intolerable, then presumably Coach A [Montgomery's first seven years @ Stanford (which, of course, and unlike Dawkins, were not even his first seven years as a head coach)] should have been deemed intolerable as well.

Coach C?  That would be Trent Johnson over the past seven years...after he left Stanford because, in his own words, he wanted to go someplace that he would be able to recruit players that could compete at the highest level [and he didn't think that would be Stanford]. 

There's no question that Dawkins has not yet shown he can coach at the level Montgomery did in his later years at Stanford, but -- comparing apples to apples time-wise -- he's actually fairly close in results to Montgomery's early years.  Based on your analysis, Montgomery presumably should have been canned after seven years, given his "mediocre" record to that point.  Of course, had he been, he never would have been able to build the program that we all came to love so much. 

As for Trent Johnson... well, I'm not so sure LSU would agree with your relative rankings, either [although, after two losing seasons at TCU, he seems to be turning it around (a little) this year].  He did well at Stanford with the Lopi, but I'm pretty sure most coaches would have done so, too.  After all, the women's team this year has shown how much easier it is to be a good coach with a couple of Ogwumikes on your team than it is without them.

[Papa John]

Well 76lsjumb, your numbers highlight what a disaster Year 7 of Montgomery's tenure was: 7-23 overall and 2-16 (and dead last) in the conference, and Montgomery's only losing season as a head coach. So that year brings Dawkins overall stats more in line with Montgomery's.

If Dawkins had followed Dibiaso (70-188) and Davis (58-59), then his numbers would look a lot better to me. It's all about context, which you've removed in your analysis. So I don't think you're comparing apples-to-apples at all.

Also, even with the disaster of 1992-93, Montgomery was 64-62 in conference after seven years. Dawkins is currently at 58-65, and, in my opinion, the talent across the Pac was higher in the late 80s/early 90s than it has been the past seven years.

But I suspect that this discussion is moot. Even with the departures of Randle, Brown and Nastic, Stanford has returning talent and Dawkins is a pretty good recruiter. As long as the team doesn't go completely in the tank and Muir is AD, I could see Dawkins sticking around for another seven years.

[Papa John]

Well 76lsjumb, your numbers highlight what a disaster Year 7 of Montgomery's tenure was: 7-23 overall and 2-16 (and dead last) in the conference, and Montgomery's only losing season as a head coach. So that year brings Dawkins overall stats more in line with Montgomery's.

If Dawkins had followed Dibiaso (70-188) and Davis (58-59), then his numbers would look a lot better to me. It's all about context, which you've removed in your analysis. So I don't think you're comparing apples-to-apples at all.

Also, even with the disaster of 1992-93, Montgomery was 64-62 in conference after seven years. Dawkins is currently at 58-65, and, in my opinion, the talent across the Pac was higher in the late 80s/early 90s than it has been the past seven years.

But I suspect that this discussion is moot. Even with the departures of Randle, Brown and Nastic, Stanford has returning talent and Dawkins is a pretty good recruiter. As long as the team doesn't go completely in the tank and Muir is AD, I could see Dawkins sticking around for another seven years.

[TrumpCard]

Let's see what happens today.  Rosco Allen apparently practiced on Friday and could play against Oregon.  Stanford will have a big size advantage regardless.  I think Stanford will win this one and make the NCAA tournament. 

[TrumpCard]

Let's see what happens today.  Rosco Allen apparently practiced on Friday and could play against Oregon.  Stanford will have a big size advantage regardless.  I think Stanford will win this one and make the NCAA tournament.