The Pac 10's looking like an elite conference in which to coach and play. I just read that Johnny Dawkins has been hired as the new coach at Stanford. With Montgomery at Cal, plus the cast of characters already in place (Olson, Howland, Sendek, Floyd, and Bennett), that makes a pretty solid conference coaching resume. I'm on the fence regarding Kent and Romar, with this coming season being the rubber match for me. Then there's newly appointed Robinson at OSU, who probably won't see a winning season for 3 years, if ever. But overall, it's very positive in my book.
I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach to Dawkins. There's no doubt he was a great player, but will he be a great coach? While he's learned from the best, he has yet to coach a college game (as head coach), and cutting your coaching teeth in the Pac 10 is difficult. And, he's going to have to do it with a lot less talent than they've had in recent years. His first job is going to be holding on to recruits. Plumlee is apparently asking out of his LOI, and Jarrett Mann has already been granted permission to speak to other teams. If he can't keep them in the program, it's just going to be that much more difficult.
Dawkins should eventually replace Krzyzewski at Duke, as he's the Steve Kerr of that program. I'm not so hesitant about Dawkins. He's done a great job recruiting for them, which is the one thing Stanford needs considering similarly raised academic standards in comparison to their competition. I've also heard nothing but great things about him as a coach for a long time. I think this is a homerun hire for the Cardinal, and one I didn't even see coming or think would happen. It will take two or three seasons before he's got that program rolling his way, but it will happen eventually. Losing the lesser Plumlee isn't that big of a deal, and I don't think Mann will leave. Next season was going to be really tough no matter who was coaching the team.
He may be turn out to be a great coach - I'm just not ready to bestow that label on him before he's ever coached a game in college. Krzyzewski's assistants have historically been good coaches, and Dawkins may well continue that trend, but let's give it some time.
Recruiting at Stanford will be a little more difficult than recruiting at Duke. I hadn't seen Mann's comments (thanks for including the link), but it certainly does look like he'll be returning. But, I actually think Plumlee could be the more important recruit. They're not as deep at PF as they are at SG (and Plumlee is actually ranked higher than Mann by Rivals - #101 in the class versus #135). Regardless, keeping them at Stanford will be Dawkins' first recruiting effort.
I'm not giving him the label of a great coach, I'm just saying I've only heard great things about him as a coach. How he eventually does is yet to be seen, but I'm not hesitant to endorse him as a good hire.
Recruiting at the two schools is different in the sense of the success and tradition that Krzyzewski has built at Duke, but they both have high academic standards and recruit a certain type of player because of that. Dawkin's experience in a similar situation should prove useful for the school. That was my point.
I know where you're coming from, but if he doesn't succeed as a coach - and while I think he will, we just don't know at this point - he won't have been a good hire. That said, I think it was a good gamble for Stanford.
Yours is a good point that Dawkins has experience recruiting at an institution with high academic standards, and that will benefit him at Stanford.
if he doesn't succeed as a coach - and while I think he will, we just don't know at this point - he won't have been a good hire
So if he'd succeeded as a Jeopardy contestant, that'd be ok? What person hired to coach a basketball team and failing at that is still a good hire?
Frankly, I think Coach K's history of assistants-turned-head coach is far more impressive than Lute Olson's ever will be, so I remain guardedly optimistic that this is a very good hire for Stanford, and Dawkins will prove all doubters wrong.
And I agree with AZCATSFAN on both counts that the Duke academic focus will serve him well at Stanford and that, ultimately, Coach K's retirement will beckon him back to Durham. In the meantime, I hope he can find an answer for losing the Lopez sisters.
What person hired to coach a basketball team and failing at that is still a good hire?
Exactly my point. And, "guardedly optimistic" would be a good way to describe my feelings as well. I think he will ultimately be a good coach (and a good hire) at Stanford, but until he's actually done something, I'll remain "guardedly optimistic".
Funny thing about Krzyzewski's and Olson's coaching trees... I was curious about how their assistants have fared over the years and looked it up, and it actually turns out that neither have produced many top-notch coaches. Here's a link to a story from 2004 in which Coach O's and Coach K's coaching trees are described as "ugly" (in a good, bad, ugly scenario). In fact, they are the only two who fall into that category. Yes, it's four years old, but not much has changed since then. In fact, both have probably become much worse with Jay John being fired at Oregon State and Tommy Amaker being fired at Michigan (and now being investigated for recruiting violations at Harvard, of all places).
Dawkins might still be Coach K's successor at Duke, but he was smart to take the Stanford job because Coach K won't be retiring any time soon.
I also agree that this was a great hire for Stanford. Dawkins understands the pressures of playing and coaching at a private school where academics matter. He's also got a squeaky clean reputation. Besides nobody ever has experience until someone gives you a chance. Dawkins has a great one and I believe he'll do fine, except when the Cardinal plays Arizona. Then, he's toast.
