(Credit: USA Today Sports)

Here we are with our latest post-season evaluation of Stanford coach Johnny Dawkins.

It has become an annual event on the Hotline because Dawkins status seems forever shaky. He has not won nearly enough to move onto solid ground, but the administration – in particular, athletic director Bernard Muir – has not deemed Dawkins performance worthy of termination.

(And why should he? Stanford s a football school, after all. If basketball putters along in the bottom half of the conference, playing in a half-empty arena, with most fans indifferent to the situation … what s the harm in that existence as long as football s rolling?)

What are we to make of Dawkins in the spring of 2016, following his eighth season in charge? Has anything changed? Is it worse? Better?

Certainly, those so inclined could make the case to bring Dawkins back for Year 9.

Stanford was picked ninth in the Pac-12 preseason media poll and finished ninth despite several key injuries.

It should have the entire roster back next season and could be picked to finish in the top third of the conference.

He has recruited consistently well.

He s a good guy.

Did we mention football?

But if you prefer the longer view, then it s difficult to make the case for bringing Dawkins back.

*** The injuries cannot be used as an excuse for a coach who has struggled for eight seasons.

(I d argue that there is more at play than bad luck. Teams usually revert to the mean when it comes to injuries, if they are random. If they re an annual problem, as they have been under Dawkins, then there s usually a systemic source. It sure seems that the issue is systemic with the Cardinal. Whether the players are overworked or under-trained, I don t know. But there are too many, year after year, for it to be nothing more than bad luck.)

*** Dawkins recruiting successes actually highlight the on-court shortcomings, because the Cardinal is finishing behind teams with lesser talent.

*** The poor attendance at Maples Pavilion is also an issue, not only because the atmosphere stinks and the student turnout is paltry but because the Cardinal is bleeding cash.

(One super-sharp source with detailed knowledge of Stanford s basketball business model estimated that the athletic department is down approximately $2 million per year in home-game revenue, compared to the situation before Dawkins arrived.

(The number makes sense. The years before Dawkins, Stanford often played before a packed crowd and averaged 7,300 fans. This season, it averaged 4,300. That figure, by the way, represents the number of tickets that have been distributed to the public at full price, half price and no price; it s not the number of butts in the seats each night.)

*** What s more, the end of the season was an abject embarrassment: The double-digit loss to lowly ASU, the humiliation at Arizona, and the blowout loss in the opening round of the Pac-12 tourney. The players haven t said much, but their play spoke volumes.

*** The end result of the 2015-16 was nothing more than a continuation of mediocrity:

In eight years under Dawkins, the Cardinal has never once competed for the Pac-12 regular season title.

It has never finished closer than four games off the pace.

It has never won more than 10 league games.

It has never reached the finals of the Pac-12 tournament.

The only significant accomplish of the Dawkins era is one weekend in March of 14, when the Cardinal beat New Mexico and Kansas and reached the Sweet 16.

Eight years … and one memorable weekend.

This, from a program that made the NCAA Tournament 13 of the previous 14 seasons.

That s right: NCAA bids in 13 of the 14 years before Dawkins … and in one in eight years under Dawkins.

The tolerance for mediocrity would seem to contradict Stanford s commitment to excellence in every other facet of its existence, both within the athletic department and the university as a whole.

So … is this the end of the Dawkins era?

Here s an important question: Who s going to fire him?

President John Hennessy is on his way out.

Provost John Etchemendy is on his way out.

President-in-waiting Marc Tessier-Lavigne doesn t arrive until September.

Which leaves two men with the clout and authority to initiate a change:

Billionaire donor John Arrillaga, who (to his credit) typically stays away from the hiring-and-firing process … and Muir.

What Muir thinks, we do not know: He was not in Las Vegas because of commitments related to his work with the selection committee and did not respond to a textfrom the Bay Area News Group s Jeff Faraudo, who covered the loss to Washington.

Muir has been Dawkins most ardent supporter.Will he be tempted by the roster makeup to bring Dawkins back, figuring that coaching continuity is the best way to maximize the returning talent?

If history is any guide, that s a reasonable conclusion.

One question Muir should consider:

How many instances are there in modern college basketball of a head coach plodding through eight mediocre years and then, in Year 9 (or 10) turning his program into a consistent contender?

Not many, if any.

If you ve got it, you ve got it, and it shows early – especially when the coach in question is taking over an established program.

What s next for Stanford and Dawkins?

We wait for a comment from the man in charge of Stanford athletics.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

* Follow me on Twitter:

* My e-book, is available for $2.99 on Amazon for Kindles and for other devices (PCs, iPads and iPhones) with the free Kindle app.

* Download the for more college sports and other news, or check out

The post Stanford basketball: Assessing the fate of coach Johnny Dawkins (again) appeared first on College Hotline.