Just when you least expect it, Stanford basketball comes through. As expected. With his back to the wall, Johnny Dawkins and the once-listless Cardinal have suddenly rattled off wins in four of their last five games, toppling eleventh-ranked Oregon, throttling USC, and taking down UCLA on Saturday. You could say they have the heart of a (NIT) champion.
They looked pretty good against the Bruins -- Michael Humphrey put on quite a show, with some help from Rosco Allen and others. But with no chance to win the Pac-12 regular season title, or match expectations it begs the question: what is Stanford playing for in its last two regular season games?
There are a couple fairly obvious things that the Cardinal can move toward accomplishing with wins against either of the Arizona schools.
First, it would help their seeding -- they could conceivably vault as high as fifth in the conference by winning at least one of their two next games (with major help). That's an very unlikely (but not completely inconceivable) task to accomplish given that they close out in Tuscon against a ranked Arizona and they only beat Arizona State by two at home. In case you haven't noticed, Stanford struggles on the road.
But let's be honest -- would a higher seed even matter? The reality is that this Stanford team is streaky, inconsistent, and sometimes downright awful when it leaves the frequently empty chasm of Maples Pavilion. This first home sweep of the season could very well be a mirage -- they're 3-7 on the road this season, only taking down juggernauts like Arkansas, Washington State, and Oregon State. It's very hard to see a team with road demons and an identity of not having an identity making waves in the Pac-12 tournament, regardless of their seed.
Another reason to discount this surge is the quality of opponents has been highly misleading. Both USC and UCLA were incredibly cold coming into this weekend -- the Trojans had dropped three of their last four, while the Bruins had dropped six of their last nine. This recent stretch has been so rough for UCLA that our friends at Bruins Nation proclaimed that after Thursday's loss to Cal, "the UCLA basketball program has started to resemble a dumpster fire." Yikes.
Bruin guard Bryce Alford echoed those sentiments after the Stanford game: "Same old stuff. As a team, we're kind of a lost cause right now. We're trying to stay together ‐‐ that's the hardest part. You can really tank a season and see teams go separate ways and really go individual.We have to know where we're at; we're at UCLA for a reason. We just have to have confidence, not only in ourselves but in our teammates." Double yikes.
The Oregon win was the only one that could inspire any real confidence. But then again, road teams are 37-74 in the Pac-12 this season. This one win isn't going to change the entire direction of the program.
Barring winning out and then winning the Pac-12 tournament (which is probably the only way Stanford will reach the NCAA Tournament), it's hard to see, or perhaps hard to justify, Dawkins coming back for another year. These four wins and any more going forward shouldn't change that. He's had eight years to prove himself as a head coach, but only has one tournament appearance to show for it. Unless NIT titles are your thing.
But it seems like we say that every year. But if there's anything we've learned about this team and athletic department, it's to expect the unexpected. When it seems like they're peaking and taking the next step, they pull their best Death Star impression and implode. When all hope seems lost, Dawkins pulls a miracle out of his hat.
This confusing team has left us in another confusing situation -- is boosting NIT seeding with wins over teams like ASU and UCLA and gaining momentum and experience going forward really best for the program, or will it give Muir a chance to excuse Dawkins for mediocrity and keep the program from taking the next step? Only time will tell, but the contingent of fans that want Dawkins out could have mixed feelings about giving Muir any sort of excuse to let Dawkins have another year on the Farm.
Personally, I don't think these next two games will have much bearing on Dawkins' future as Stanford's head coach -- Muir has seen countless late season surges that end with nothing meaningful. Whether Stanford wins and going forward or not shouldn't affect the program's future much -- so enjoy it all while it lasts.
Comments
I'm a bit on the fence
From my gut, I don’t think Dawkins is a great coach and I don’t think he’ll take the team to much higher levels. But he’s kept the team in the postseason at least, even if it’s mostly been the NIT, and non-RPI rankings seem to like his teams. He’s recruited at a decent level, but has had a lot of injury issues. Based on the team’s trajectory, I was expecting him to be out at the end of the season, but I’m willing to give him another year now. Next year’s team, assuming everyone is healthy and no one transfers, might be as good as the Sweet 16 team. He should probably get a chance to coach that group. If he still can’t get it done, then that’s it.
By JYTLM on 03.01.16 11:44am
And risk another contract extension?
I think no is denying that this is a young team that battled some injury issues at the start. Their jekyll and hyde offense and defense has been frustrating to watch but they will surely mature by next year. The problem is judging dawkins purely by statistics his most senior laden team in 2014-15 crashed and burned to a NIT championship and in the middle a single sweet 16 appearance. But that sole appearance got him extension by the AD which is something we don’t wish to see if we want to continue this mediocrity.
By layman on 03.01.16 1:35pm
True
I neglected the potential contract issues. I would hope that if the time comes, Stanford wouldn’t let money get in the way of moving the program forward. Even assuming next year goes well, his recruiting class after is going to be extremely important since he’ll have some major pieces to replace.
I wouldn’t call the ’14-15 year his most senior laden team though. Outside of the big three, Rosco and Marcus Allen played the most, and both were relatively inexperienced. All four freshman got significant playing time. The ’13-14 team was much more upperclassmen heavy and ultimately more successful.
By JYTLM on 03.01.16 1:53pm
the guy has had one tournament appearance in 8 years (yes, I'm counting this year's team out)
Can you name another perennial NCAA participant that would tolerate Dawkins’ results for 5 years, let alone 8? I can’t.
By paparosen on 03.01.16 2:19pm
I know, right?
Stanford has a bad history of this. Remember that one guy who they kept letting come back even though it took him 9 years to get his first NCAA tournament win! Should have tossed Montgomery out when they had the chance.
By OCTaxMan on 03.01.16 3:15pm
Nice try...again
NCAA Tournament appearances in the 20 years before 1986-87 (Mongomery’s 1st season @ Stanford): 0
In the 20 years before 2008-09 (Dawkin’s 1st season @ Stanford): 15
Stanford was a nothing program pre-Montgomery. Yes, it took him 9 years to get his first NCAA win, but that was his 3rd appearance, and there was an NIT Championship in there as well.
Dawkins should be canned or retained on his own merits and accomplishments (or lack thereof). But his tenure is not analogous to Monty’s, so stop trying to convince us it is. One took over a program with no history of accomplishment, while the other inherited one that was already well-established.
Maybe if Dawkins stays another 10 years he’ll equal or surpass what Montgomery did. But to date there’s nothing to suggest he will.
By Cardinal&Orange on 03.01.16 11:11pm
Counting past NCAA appearances doesn’t reflect the state of the program (and recruiting) when Dawkins was hired. Montgomery actually had an easier path. What players did Dawkins inherit that you would compare to Lichte?
By OCTaxMan on 03.02.16 10:15am
That's fair
I’m just a bit wary about getting rid of coaches who are okay but underachieving, and generally favor giving them time to work things out. I don’t think Dawkins has done poorly enough yet, but that’s my personal opinion. There are plenty of programs that cycle through coaches without much to show for it. Virginia Tech firing Greenberg and Wake Forest firing Gaudio come to mind.
By JYTLM on 03.02.16 9:30am
"streaky, inconsistent, and sometimes downright awful"?
I don’t think you are being fair to this team. We had one of the most difficult schedules of any team in the country, maybe even the most difficult schedule in Stanford basketball history. Even ignoring the injuries/inexperience issues we have done well this season.
One of the ways to judge the quality of a team is to look at its best wins and worst losses. If you add up the RPI of the opponents in Stanford’s 5 best wins it is currently 95. The RPI of Stanford’s opponents in its 5 worst losses is only 215. Compare that to Duke and Kentucky (both consensus 4 seeds right now). RPI of 5 best wins: Duke (101), Kentucky (158). RPI of 5 worst losses: Duke (249), Kentucky (524). Or to summarize:
Team..5 Wins..5 Losses
Stanford..95..215
D..101..249
K..158..524
At some point you have to wonder whether Stanford winning NIT tournaments is not reflective of Stanford underperforming so much as the Pac-12 being underrated. The team Stanford beat in the NIT championship (Miami) was one of only 3 teams to beat Duke last year (and they did it at Cameron). Both Stanford and Miami should have been invited to the NCAA tournament last year.
There is good evidence the Pac-12 was underrated. The top 5 teams in the conference all matched or exceeded their seedings in the post-season:
1. Arizona..2 Seed..lost in Elite 8 (to runner-up Wisconsin)
2. Oregon..8 seed..lost round of 32 (to Wisc.)
3. Utah..5 seed..lost in Sweet 16 (to champion Duke)
4. UCLA..11 seed (play-in)..lost in Sweet 16
5. Stanford..NIT 2nd seed..won NIT championship
Consider that 6 of Stanford’s 9 Conference losses last year were to those 4 tournament teams. Consider as well that there were 9 different teams that made the NCAA tournament that couldn’t beat them either. Of the 3 that could, 2 made the National Championship game.
This year the conference is even tougher and yet we still have a shot. Pardon me if I’m not joining the call for Dawkins’ head.
By OCTaxMan on 03.01.16 6:55pm
Ehhh
Their resume last year wasn’t really great:
RPI 59, SOS 46, 19-13 (9-9) record; not bad, but not great either, thoroughly bubble
0-4 vs RPI top-25
2-9 vs RPI top-50
5-9 vs RPI top-100; pretty strong schedule, but not enough good wins
4 sub-100 losses; pretty bad
4-8 in road games; also not very good
You could make the argument they should be in, but it’s not a very strong resume.
And their resume in other years was way worse. Dawkins/Muir don’t know how to game the RPI very well. And that’s actually why Stanford does so well in the NIT. Their KenPom rankings are generally way better than their RPI rankings. Ability wise they’ve been pretty good, but they haven’t built good resumes, which is why I’m a bit confused as to how to feel about Dawkins.
By JYTLM on 03.01.16 10:24pm
I believe the team actually had 3 losses to sub 100 teams last year. I would put them in the "bad" but not "pretty bad" category:
@Washington State (always tough at home; WSU beat Oregon that year at home too)
@Colorado (RPI 118 but 12-5 record at home)
@DePaul (not much good you can say about this loss, but it was preseason and the team’s second cross-country trip in in a week)
In any event, there are no bad losses like that this season. In their rematch this year against a slightly better DePaul team; they crushed them. They also crushed Washington State on the road. Their only loss out of the RPI top 50 is a road loss to Washington (which is RPI 76 and is probably better than that number).
This year’s team also has wins over 2 RPI top-10 teams and 5 RPI top-50 wins. That’s a record I suspect fewer than 20 teams in the country can match.
And look at the most recent season we made the NCAA tournament prior to Dawkins’ arrival (outside of the Lopez twins era). http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/stanford/2005-schedule.html That season was similar in terms of quality wins but worse in terms of bad losses. If this has been a "mediocre" season than that surely was one too.
By OCTaxMan on 03.02.16 11:31am
@ASU was RPI 102
Borderline, maybe above 100 depending on the ranking.
And I’ve come around on Dawkins this year. The team winning 4/5 after that 4-game losing streak was unexpected. If they had only won one or two games during that stretch, things would be a lot different.
By JYTLM on 03.02.16 11:59am