What level of success do we need to see in 2025?

What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - 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: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? (/thread-25420.html)

What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - msqueri - 01-25-2025

That seems like the crucial question. What should save Taylor's job?

I think for many people it is a basic sense of whether we are on the right track. Casual observers will look to wins and losses or basic program vibes and each of those will say something important about where we are. As folks know, I see value in trying to objectively measure progress. If you use Sagarin, here is our dark ages trajectory with Taylor years bolded:

2019: #73
2020: #75 (pandemic-shortened year in which I find Sagarin basically useless)
2021: #89
2022: #87
2023: #101
2024: #102

Even the most pitiful, beaten down, low ambition, surrender monkey apologist would have to acknowledge there needs to be improvement. We need to be top 100 in 2025. But I think almost everybody (at least I hope) would demand that by year three we would be able to get to the level Shaw finished at, top 90. Considering Shaw got shown the door for top 90 results and three years in Taylor will have had ample time to establish a culture (not to mention 85 percent of the roster his own), I think people with any self-respect for Stanford football should demand that we get at least to where we were in the 2019-2020 period, top 80. Frankly that is still a bad team and I think those with real ambition could argue even that isn't good enough. One could argue we need to ascend to mediocrity to justify retaining this staff, say top 70.

But that is subjective. I'm interested in other ways to see what level of standard we should apply. One way to think about this is what level of play has been unacceptable for Stanford in modern history. I already mentioned that successive teams in the low 80s ended Shaw's reign. The Harris tenure was aborted after he followed an encouraging #42 with a catastrophic #104. Teevens' trajectory was #74, #69, and #46 - continual improvement but we lost patience with mediocrity (and did not recognize mediocrity as such because our conference was so stellar that mediocrity felt like failure). Those periods don't fell very analogous to where we are now, but I do think they should serve as a reminder that historically we have not tolerated prolonged failure. What seems like the salient fact: it has been over 60 years since we retained a coach after three consecutive losing seasons (Curtice, literally the only coach since we started playing in 1891 to be given a fourth year after three losing seasons). Wiggin and Teevens got three years of consecutive losing before getting walking papers and Elway, Walsh, Harris, and Shaw were gone after only two.

This post could probably stop there. It has always been unacceptable to lose more than you win three years in a row. We can very reasonably make this season a simple litmus test of bowl and you stay, home for the holidays and you're relieved. Period. I have other musings/data I want to look at so will keep plowing ahead, but that really could be the bottom line for those who want to cut to the chase.

The other thing I wanted to look at is the level of third year success for coaches who became successful despite abysmal first two years. Some examples:
* Dave Clawson did it before his string of seven straight bowls at Wake Forest.

* Mike Stoops started 3-8 both of his first two years at Arizona and eventually went to three bowls, twice with eight win seasons.

* Greg Schiano started even rougher at Rutgers, 2-9 and 1-11 before 5-7 and 4-7 before the studly stretch.

* Rich Brooks started 4-8, 2-9, and 3-8 at Kentucky before patience paid off and he went to four straight bowls.

* Art Briles had two 4-8 seasons at Baylor before his spectacular ascension to six straight bowls, four of which were awesome teams (two of those New Year's Six).

* Tom O'Brien had two 4-7 seasons at Boston College before his string of eight consecutive bowls.

* A bit different kind of thing but even more of a need for patience was David Cutcliffe at Duke going 4-8, 5-7, 3-9, and 3-9 before rattling off bowls.

* Mike Leach went 3-9 in two of his first three seasons at Washington State, albeit with a bowl in between, and went to five consecutive bowls, with two nine win seasons and an eleven win season.

* Chip Kelly started 3-9 and 4-8 at UCLA before a 3-4 pandemic season and then three 8+ win season.

* Ron Zook was also a super rough start at Illinois, 2-9 and 2-10 before a Rose Bowl season and also eventually had a few other bowls but I've always had trouble considering his tenure at Illinois successful (unlike the others in this post).

So let's look at the third years of these guys I am hoping against hope Taylor can match:

30) Ron Zook/Illinois
44) Mike Stoops/Arizona
46) Chip Kelly/UCLA (technically, but as I said I don't consider the 2020 pandemic year a good data point so there's an asterisk here)
48) Dave Clawson/Wake Forest
55) Tom O'Brien/Boston College
61) Art Briles/Baylor
74) Greg Schiano/Rutgers
81) Mike Leach/Washington State
95) David Cutcliffe/Duke
97) Rich Brooks/Kentucky

This reinforces my take above, I think. We of course absolutely need to see 2025 be Taylor's best team, no question we have to be top 100. If we kept him despite a miserable three or four win season there would be a few historical examples of times when that patience has paid off, but it's a long shot. By far the norm is that if we aren't seeing at least a mediocre team (again, say top 70) we shouldn't have much expectation of the current staff ever succeeding.

Bottom line: if I am Jonathan Levin, Jenny Martinez, or Andrew Luck, I have a simple ultimatum for Taylor (not that it needs to be presented as such, just that it's what I think the unyielding standard should be): get Stanford to a bowl or be the kind of solid hard-luck team that finishes Sagarin top 70 with only five wins. Either of those and I consider the season a success and Taylor on the right track. Fall short and it's time to move on.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - Mick - 01-25-2025

At Stanford, Coach Harbaugh won four games his first season, five his second season. Then eight, then twelve.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - msqueri - 01-25-2025

(01-25-2025, 09:40 AM)Mick Wrote: At Stanford, Coach Harbaugh won four games his first season, five his second season. Then eight, then twelve.

Wins and losses is IMHO a blunt way to think about it. Harbaugh's trajectory was inheriting the #104 team and taking them to #70 then #50 then #29 then #2. Unambiguous rocket ship trajectory with zero comparison or relevance to where we are right now unfortunately. Maybe that's your point now that I'm thinking about it, that the trajectory that time was clear and this time it isn't.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - Mick - 01-25-2025

(01-25-2025, 09:57 AM)msqueri Wrote:
(01-25-2025, 09:40 AM)Mick Wrote: At Stanford, Coach Harbaugh won four games his first season, five his second season. Then eight, then twelve.

Wins and losses is IMHO a blunt way to think about it. Harbaugh's trajectory was inheriting the #104 team and taking them to #70 then #50 then #29 then #2. Unambiguous rocket ship trajectory with zero comparison or relevance to where we are right now unfortunately. Maybe that's your point now that I'm thinking about it, that the trajectory that time was clear and this time it isn't.

Right, that was my point. Hopefully coach T can accomplish the same liftoff...

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - msqueri - 01-25-2025

But he's already failed spectacularly at achieving the same liftoff. Harbaugh a truly irrelevant comparison for Taylor. We're now hoping that Taylor is more David Cutcliffe.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - gailtate - 01-25-2025

A simpler, albeit demanding, requisite: TT must pass muster set by Director Luck. If it were up to Bernie, uh, we'd be ******.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - StanUSwagU - 01-25-2025

(01-25-2025, 09:57 AM)msqueri Wrote:
(01-25-2025, 09:40 AM)Mick Wrote: At Stanford, Coach Harbaugh won four games his first season, five his second season. Then eight, then twelve.

Wins and losses is IMHO a blunt way to think about it. Harbaugh's trajectory was inheriting the #104 team and taking them to #70 then #50 then #29 then #2. Unambiguous rocket ship trajectory with zero comparison or relevance to where we are right now unfortunately. Maybe that's your point now that I'm thinking about it, that the trajectory that time was clear and this time it isn't.

*****************************

Hi msqueri,

1. I always love your thorough, methodical, PostGame Sunday analyses (I wish there had been better game results ie 'wins' for you to analyze these last 2 years)

2. As to your current question, I post a related question:

3. One could assess whether we are on the right trajectory, by analyzing 'results:'

But although 'result statistics' are more robust & reliable, .... given that 'results' as in W-L records, or 'Game Statistics like Offensive Production Statistics' 'Sagarin Ratings' etc are 'lags' of 'early indicators', .....can you think of any 'early indicator metrics' (like high-school signee metrics, or portal transfer success metrics, or coaching staff rankings, or NIL investment infrastructure metrics) ... that we could use as 'early indicators' before a season happens ...to assess if Stanford Football is on the 'Right Trajectory ? As stated earlier, these metrics are far less robust & reliable than 'result metrics', ...but I just wonder:

4. I dont think I am wording this correctly, hopefully my question makes some sense.

Thanks,
StanUSwagU

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - Goose - 01-25-2025

I also believe that if we do not see significant improvement it the results next year TT must be replaced. I am willing to consider the exact circumstances at the end of next year. Having 5 wins and/or making the top 70 would IMO almost certainly indicate enough of a change in trajectory to justify retaining TT, all other things being "equal". I do however think the perception of how we got our 5 wins could matter a lot. Our strength of schedule may play a role, and how we competed in the games we didn't win might count. Another 3-7 or worse IMO definitely says we need to go another way. 4-7 would be similar unless there were very definite reasons to believe we were on our way to better things. Hard to imagine that being possible.

Unless there is something in the works that won't come to fruition until spring or summer quarter, Stanford is going to have Brown or Bachmeier at QB. That may be fine, possibly even great. However, going into the off-season it was generally assumed TT was going to bring in an "experienced" QB upgrade. That didn't happen. Again, that may be fine, but it does mean we start the year with an inexperienced QB and an OL that is a question mark at best. That isn't encouraging IMO.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - msqueri - 01-25-2025

Thanks for the question, StanUSwagU. Yes, I do think it's important and possible to look at other things that may be leading indicators, as you say. Some stabs:

High school recruiting (using 247 composite because it's a relatively venerable aggregation of service views): #20 in 2019, #21 in 2020, #43 in 2021, #19 in 2022, #44 in 2023 (first class Taylor signed though built by Shaw), #31 in 2024, #46 in 2025. Not a good trajectory or encouraging as a leading indicator, all the more the case because high school recruiting rankings overstate our talent acquisition the last few years as the sport shifts to transfers (i.e., the #31 class in 2024 was a lot worse when accounting for transfers, as you'll see below).

Transfer recruiting (using On3 because they attempt to account for both incoming and outgoing transfers, but keep in mind this is only a ranking of Power Five teams): #60 in 2022, #69 in 2023, #62 in 2024, #59 so far in 2025. We are on a positive trajectory in competing in the transfer portal but it's modest and we are still taking on strong headwinds in this area. For instance, our current 12 person transfer class with some quality DBs, OL, and WRs is 59th of 70 Power Five programs (though in the ACC more competitive, 12th of 17).

Overall recruiting (247 tries to account for both high school and transfer recruiting in one ranking so sharing that for what it's worth): #27 in 2022, #59 in 2023, #49 in 2024, and #48 in 2025 (in the years before that transfers weren't a significant enough factor to change the picture of what I shared in the high school recruiting snapshot). It's clear our incoming talent has plateaued at a level significantly below where it was in the Shaw era.

NIL: This is a very opaque area and I don't think there is yet a good way to measure it, if there ever will be. My guess is we are kind of middling and maybe trending in the right direction but, again, this is opaque.

All in all, I don't think leading indicators provide any optimism for the program that would counteract any impressions provided by the on-field results. If we're going to turn this around IMHO it will have to be on the backs of significantly improved QB play or a coaching staff change.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - Hurlburt88 - 01-25-2025

My vote is top 75 AND 5 wins. I will hope for the best but truly don't have much of a prediction. ONe thing I do like is that even if TT leaves, Luck should give continuity of recruiting, player retention, and possibly retention of a few key assistants.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - gailtate - 01-25-2025

Games 11 and 12 last year (kal and SJSU) were puke-worthy and will live in in infamy. Back-to-back crap performance(s) against eminently beatable teams to wrap up the season--after the inspiration of upsetting Louisville. Pitiful.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - Goose - 01-25-2025

(01-25-2025, 02:32 PM)gailtate Wrote: Games 11 and 12 last year (kal and SJSU) were puke-worthy and will live in in infamy. Back-to-back crap performance(s) against eminently beatable teams to wrap up the season--after the inspiration of upsetting Louisville. Pitiful.

IMO we have to be willing to admit that both the Syracuse game and the Louisville game were won with a lot of good fortune for Stanford and significant help from our opponent. Yes, we took advantage of the situation, and that is not a given. We could easily have lost anyway. BUT without our opponent making several atypical errors we could not have won. The Kal and SJSU games were more who we really were. Yes, neither team was a juggernaut, but they were, on average, better than we were. They played their "normal" game and that was enough. Our performance was not atypical of last year's team. If that is crap, well, that is what we were. What does that mean about TT, if anything? It means we must be significantly better next year or he will be gone.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - Toroso - 01-25-2025

I've always thought a good way to look at a coach is by looking at their win rate over a four-year period (trailing four years). I like this because it matches the (traditional) four-year player cycle. I know it's simple and there a million factors, but I think it normalizes for one-off over/under performance enough so that I could spot an obvious trend in either direction, but especially a decline. Once a threshold is crossed, it should be clear what has to be done.

Here are the trailing four-year win rates for Harbaugh and Shaw. I pulled these from the GoStanford results page. I did not make any adjustments for the shortened season.

Harbaugh - 2010 - 58%
Shaw - 2014 - 78%
Shaw - 2015 - 78%
Shaw - 2016 - 76%
Shaw - 2017 - 72%
Shaw - 2018 - 74%
Shaw - 2019 - 62%
Shaw - 2020 - 58%
Shaw - 2021 - 47%
Shaw - 2022 - 33%

I think it is pretty clear.

Now for Taylor. Here is what he would have to do for the next two years to match Shaw's last four years. To make it simple, I assume the next two years have the exact same record and 12 game schedules:

To match Shaw's 33%: 5 wins per season
To match Shaw's 47%: 8 wins per season
To match Shaw's (and Harbaugh's) 58%: 11 wins per season
To match Shaw's 61%: 12 wins per season

If Taylor went 6-6 and 9-3 the next two seasons (which most of us would be excited to see), his win-rate would be 44%. How do you feel about this?

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - Goose - 01-25-2025

(01-25-2025, 06:32 PM)Toroso Wrote: I've always thought a good way to look at a coach is by looking at their win rate over a four-year period (trailing four years). I like this because it matches the (traditional) four-year player cycle. I know it's simple and there a million factors, but I think it normalizes for one-off over/under performance enough so that I could spot an obvious trend in either direction, but especially a decline. Once a threshold is crossed, it should be clear what has to be done.

Here are the trailing four-year win rates for Harbaugh and Shaw. I pulled these from the GoStanford results page. I did not make any adjustments for the shortened season.

Harbaugh - 2010 - 58%
Shaw - 2014 - 78%
Shaw - 2015 - 78%
Shaw - 2016 - 76%
Shaw - 2017 - 72%
Shaw - 2018 - 74%
Shaw - 2019 - 62%
Shaw - 2020 - 58%
Shaw - 2021 - 47%
Shaw - 2022 - 33%

I think it is pretty clear.

Now for Taylor. Here is what he would have to do for the next two years to match Shaw's last four years. To make it simple, I assume the next two years have the exact same record and 12 game schedules:

To match Shaw's 33%: 5 wins per season
To match Shaw's 47%: 8 wins per season
To match Shaw's (and Harbaugh's) 58%: 11 wins per season
To match Shaw's 61%: 12 wins per season

If Taylor went 6-6 and 9-3 the next two seasons (which most of us would be excited to see), his win-rate would be 44%. How do you feel about this?

IMO the slope of the "rectangular low pass filtered" data is the most important factor. If the slope is rising, things are getting better year over year. One can then ask how long it would take to reach an "acceptable" level at the current slope. It is obviously a lagging statistic but that may be what it takes to filter out the noise. OTOH, if the year over year values are static or dropping, in the case of TT a change will be required. I am guessing most on this board aren't even willing to wait for year four to get the first "filtered" value and year 5 to spot a trend.

RE: What level of success do we need to see in 2025? - GK3 - 01-26-2025

(01-25-2025, 07:50 AM)msqueri Wrote: That seems like the crucial question. What should save Taylor's job?

I think for many people it is a basic sense of whether we are on the right track. Casual observers will look to wins and losses or basic program vibes and each of those will say something important about where we are. As folks know, I see value in trying to objectively measure progress. If you use Sagarin, here is our dark ages trajectory with Taylor years bolded:

2019: #73
2020: #75 (pandemic-shortened year in which I find Sagarin basically useless)
2021: #89
2022: #87
2023: #101
2024: #102

Even the most pitiful, beaten down, low ambition, surrender monkey apologist would have to acknowledge there needs to be improvement. We need to be top 100 in 2025. But I think almost everybody (at least I hope) would demand that by year three we would be able to get to the level Shaw finished at, top 90. Considering Shaw got shown the door for top 90 results and three years in Taylor will have had ample time to establish a culture (not to mention 85 percent of the roster his own), I think people with any self-respect for Stanford football should demand that we get at least to where we were in the 2019-2020 period, top 80. Frankly that is still a bad team and I think those with real ambition could argue even that isn't good enough. One could argue we need to ascend to mediocrity to justify retaining this staff, say top 70.

But that is subjective. I'm interested in other ways to see what level of standard we should apply. One way to think about this is what level of play has been unacceptable for Stanford in modern history. I already mentioned that successive teams in the low 80s ended Shaw's reign. The Harris tenure was aborted after he followed an encouraging #42 with a catastrophic #104. Teevens' trajectory was #74, #69, and #46 - continual improvement but we lost patience with mediocrity (and did not recognize mediocrity as such because our conference was so stellar that mediocrity felt like failure). Those periods don't fell very analogous to where we are now, but I do think they should serve as a reminder that historically we have not tolerated prolonged failure. What seems like the salient fact: it has been over 60 years since we retained a coach after three consecutive losing seasons (Curtice, literally the only coach since we started playing in 1891 to be given a fourth year after three losing seasons). Wiggin and Teevens got three years of consecutive losing before getting walking papers and Elway, Walsh, Harris, and Shaw were gone after only two.

This post could probably stop there. It has always been unacceptable to lose more than you win three years in a row. We can very reasonably make this season a simple litmus test of bowl and you stay, home for the holidays and you're relieved. Period. I have other musings/data I want to look at so will keep plowing ahead, but that really could be the bottom line for those who want to cut to the chase.

The other thing I wanted to look at is the level of third year success for coaches who became successful despite abysmal first two years. Some examples:
* Dave Clawson did it before his string of seven straight bowls at Wake Forest.

* Mike Stoops started 3-8 both of his first two years at Arizona and eventually went to three bowls, twice with eight win seasons.

* Greg Schiano started even rougher at Rutgers, 2-9 and 1-11 before 5-7 and 4-7 before the studly stretch.

* Rich Brooks started 4-8, 2-9, and 3-8 at Kentucky before patience paid off and he went to four straight bowls.

* Art Briles had two 4-8 seasons at Baylor before his spectacular ascension to six straight bowls, four of which were awesome teams (two of those New Year's Six).

* Tom O'Brien had two 4-7 seasons at Boston College before his string of eight consecutive bowls.

* A bit different kind of thing but even more of a need for patience was David Cutcliffe at Duke going 4-8, 5-7, 3-9, and 3-9 before rattling off bowls.

* Mike Leach went 3-9 in two of his first three seasons at Washington State, albeit with a bowl in between, and went to five consecutive bowls, with two nine win seasons and an eleven win season.

* Chip Kelly started 3-9 and 4-8 at UCLA before a 3-4 pandemic season and then three 8+ win season.

* Ron Zook was also a super rough start at Illinois, 2-9 and 2-10 before a Rose Bowl season and also eventually had a few other bowls but I've always had trouble considering his tenure at Illinois successful (unlike the others in this post).

So let's look at the third years of these guys I am hoping against hope Taylor can match:

30) Ron Zook/Illinois
44) Mike Stoops/Arizona
46) Chip Kelly/UCLA (technically, but as I said I don't consider the 2020 pandemic year a good data point so there's an asterisk here)
48) Dave Clawson/Wake Forest
55) Tom O'Brien/Boston College
61) Art Briles/Baylor
74) Greg Schiano/Rutgers
81) Mike Leach/Washington State
95) David Cutcliffe/Duke
97) Rich Brooks/Kentucky

This reinforces my take above, I think. We of course absolutely need to see 2025 be Taylor's best team, no question we have to be top 100. If we kept him despite a miserable three or four win season there would be a few historical examples of times when that patience has paid off, but it's a long shot. By far the norm is that if we aren't seeing at least a mediocre team (again, say top 70) we shouldn't have much expectation of the current staff ever succeeding.

Bottom line: if I am Jonathan Levin, Jenny Martinez, or Andrew Luck, I have a simple ultimatum for Taylor (not that it needs to be presented as such, just that it's what I think the unyielding standard should be): get Stanford to a bowl or be the kind of solid hard-luck team that finishes Sagarin top 70 with only five wins. Either of those and I consider the season a success and Taylor on the right track. Fall short and it's time to move on.

While I agree that more wins are mandatory, winning 6 may well be a bridge too far. You would think that a coach coming into his third year would have a pretty clear idea of what his talent might be able to achieve, but the ebb and flow of players out of and into the program is such that he is almost starting over each year.
I think if you are a very good coach you can do that in basketball, but it seems much harder to do it in football. We will have a new QB and once again a pretty much reworked offensive line. I think that if the offensive line truly is able to play at this level, then 6 wins might be possible, but if we have another season where the QB has to run for his life frequently and often and a running game simply doesn't exist I see no chance at 6. For the portal to work out for us, we have to start winning, otherwise the portal will become the exit for our good players and not a source of new good players.