The CardBoard
Future - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Future (/thread-1109.html)

Pages: 1 2

Future - tmswope - 01-13-2011

I\'ll admit that my first choice was Roman, hoping that we could keep as much of the coaching staff intact as possible as we make a run at the national championship next year.  But I like Shaw\'s prospects of staying for a while.

It got me thinking.  Let\'s assume that if we had hired Roman as HC, Shaw and Fangio stay for one more year then split and Roman is terrible...and with Shaw\'s hiring, Roman and Fangio both leave, but Shaw is pretty good.  Just curious, no right or wrong answer, what\'s the preferred outcome of the two below?

Next 5 years:
Scenario One: 0 losses (NC!), 5 losses, 5 losses, 5 losses, 5 losses.
Scenario Two: 2 losses, 2 losses, 2 losses, 2 losses, 2 losses.

Obviously, many assumptions are being made here.  And the years and losses numbers may need to be tweaked to have a really good debate.  I\'m just wondering how much people around here value this one more year with Luck...as compared to the future (the next 5 years at least).


Re: Future - GoodGrief - 01-13-2011

Are you kidding? CHAMPIONSHIP UBERALLES.

A National Championship is forever, and if we get a National Championship, I don\'t care if we bring Buddy Teevens back for the following 5 years. It\'s worth it. I\'ll even throw in my non-existent firstborn son in the bargain.

Interestingly, I\'m not sure if I would agree to the deal if it meant bringing Walt Harris back for another 5 years. A nice person who\'s over his head is one thing--a mean person who plays to lose is another.

My soul remains non-negotiable as it has already been forfeited to the devil for our victory of Notre Dame in South Bend way back when.

"He\'s just a Cinderella boy.  First time out..." - Redrum - 01-13-2011

"Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac... It\'s in the hole! It\'s in the hole! It\'s in the hole!

Re: Future - tjhsiang - 01-13-2011

Quote:Are you kidding? CHAMPIONSHIP UBERALLES.

+1, although it has to be clean.  I\'d rather have 5 clean years than 1 national championship that we have to give back later.

Re: Future - bulldogbigred - 01-13-2011

Quote:
Quote:Are you kidding? CHAMPIONSHIP UBERALLES.

+1, although it has to be clean.  I\'d rather have 5 clean years than 1 national championship that we have to give back later.

Yes of course but I don\'t think the previous post said a championship year with blood on our hands. I think they meant a championship year with clean hands.

Re: Future - fullmetal - 01-13-2011

I feel pretty confident we\'re never going to sink to Auburn\'s level.

To echo GoodGrief, championship uber alles indeed!

Re: Future - JeffInCorvallis - 01-13-2011

We\'re not going to win the national championship next year.  With all due respect to Mr. Shaw, it\'s not going to happen with a first year head coach, Andrew Luck or no.  I hope that Shaw turns out to be a great HC and has a long and glorious career at Stanford, but there\'s absolutely no room for error with the way college football works.  

With our level of talent and a favorable schedule we should contend for a Pac 12 North championship.  Most important thing for Shaw is to keep the recruits on board and build a winning staff.

Re: Future - yvonne - 01-14-2011

Actually, he said that we didn\'t meet our goal because we did not win the conference. Oregon did. Then, he went on to say that he hopes to win the first ever Pac-12 championship.

Re: Future - jayasena - 01-14-2011

Winning the North is the hard part, at least for 2011. If we manage that, I\'d feel pretty good about our chances of winning the Pac-12.

National championship is a different story. As Jeff said, that\'s not happening with a first year HC.

Re: Future - Pastor - 01-14-2011

I believe that because of this appointment, we win long term but will take a step or two back in the very short term.  With a new staff maybe a recruit defection or two and the loss of Andrew next year, it will take a while for Shaw to find his rhythm but I think he will stay and be the latest incarnation of TvD and build the program into a true contender that does well generally but also has a few peaks.

More importanly, he is a Stanford Man which JH never was as his presser clearly showed (it was pretty clear that he always lusted after an NFL job).  It is a privilege to be "The Head Coach of Stanford University".

We have had great success with inexperienced, high potential coaches and much less success for well experienced HCs.  The problem as Yvonne always points out, is keeping them.  I think for Shaw this is the mountain top.

Re: Future - JohnR34231 - 01-14-2011

I think on balance it\'s a good hire.

The main negative is that Shaw has not demonstrated the ability to win as a head coach.

Of course, neither had Walsh, Green, or T.W when we hired them. Wlat had.

As others have pointed out, since he is a Stanford man, you don\'t get the feeling he will jump ship as soon as he has some success. Much as I liked our hiring of Harbaugh, I never felt he would be around long after he started winning.

Re: Future - slide - 01-14-2011

we\'d better enjoy \'11.  \'12 is not setting up to be a good year.  we lose lots of talent.

Re: Future - Farm93 - 01-14-2011

At first I thought BCS Championship, no doubt.  But then...

If Stanford had 2 losses for five straight years, then odds are good that some of those losses would be in bowl games.  That would mean that Stanford probably entered the bowl season at 12-1 once or twice during that run.  Pac-12 champs at 12-1 after multiple years at 11-2 would almost certainly mean playing in, but then losing the BCS NCG.  Note: A team with a rich history of two losses could appear in the BCS NCG (see LSU).

In any event after 5 years of that Stanford would be an elite.  If Stanford was not in a single NCG during that run that would probably mean the team was 5-0 in bowl games.  Either way years 6-10 in the Shaw era would be epic.  It would probably be rather similar to VA-Tech\'s situation.  Where they lost in the big show once, but have been a power since that trip.  What was VA-Tech really before the Vick years?

I think for the good of the program, I would take path #2.  Path #1 would be nice, a quickie NCG.  But ticket sales would never ramp up, and the 5 loss seasons would confirm the team was lucky (bad choice, I know).  5 loss seasons would evolve into 4, 5, 6, & 7 loss seasons, and like Tedford people would be screaming for change.

5 straight 2 loss seasons would mean the team is loaded and full of monster recruiting classes.  The staff would be immortals.  ESPN probably would have to show up a few times.  And importantly because ticket sales always lag success, the stadium would be rockin\' towards the end of that run.  It would be a healthier AD, that\'s for sure.

Also, I would feel a lot better about 2016 & beyond in scenario #2.  I would be very confident that Big Game wins would become our right, much like USC over UCLA.  Pac-12 North Titles, Pac-12 Championship Games and BCS Bowl invites would become the norm for a decade or more.

In fact, I would bet that 5 years of 2 loss seasons would almost certainly include 2 or more NCGs over the next 20 years.  (Shaw is only 38).

I invest for future rewards that are not nearly as promising.  I would invest in scenario 2, hypothetically, of course.  

Re: Future - TreeFitty - 12-16-2013

ZOMBIE THREAD!

But really, fun to read our thoughts on the futures past.

Re: Future - stupac2 - 12-16-2013

(01-14-2011, 07:47 AM)slide link Wrote:we\'d better enjoy \'11.  \'12 is not setting up to be a good year.  we lose lots of talent.

I like this one. WE DON'T REBUILD WE RELOAD.

Re: Future - yvonne - 12-16-2013

Hmm, so that's what happens to posters who get killed in an "if they haven't signed on in two years" purge.

Re: Future - FarmBoy - 12-16-2013

Yeah, I thought that was cute too.

But seriously, we better enjoy '14 because '15 is going to have a LOT of turnover!!! (I'm just trying to repeat a previously demonstrated to be successful strategy in motivating our team>)

Re: Future - fullmetal - 12-16-2013

We'd better enjoy this season.  Players like Trent Murphy, Shayne Skov, Ben Gardner, Josh Mauro, David Yankey, Ed Reynolds, et al. don't often end up at Stanford's doorstep at the same time.  It's been quite a ride.

Also, re: OP, that wasn't...Tobin Swope, was it?

Re: Future - cardhorn - 12-17-2013

I don't know who it was...

But his/her prediction of 2 losses per year under Shaw is looking pretty good.

Re: Future - Hank 91 - 12-17-2013

(12-16-2013, 03:39 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:We'd better enjoy this season.  Players like Trent Murphy, Shayne Skov, Ben Gardner, Josh Mauro, David Yankey, Ed Reynolds, et al. don't often end up at Stanford's doorstep at the same time.  It's been quite a ride.

By some accounts, this upcoming signing class could be the best in Stanford history. So perhaps players like that DO end up on the doorstep at the same time.