Gentlemen, start your speculation engines!

Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - 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: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! (/thread-5367.html)

Pages: 1 2

Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - washingtonismoney - 07-19-2013

"Stanford Head Coach David Shaw: "I've received opportunities from the NFL this past year and I let them go by the wayside."
--from KNBR's twitter feed

https://twitter.com/KNBR/status/358291138005843968

Remember, here are the official rules of the speculation game:
If a Stanford football coach says he isn't interested and hasn't received offers, he is very interested, has received offers, and is going to leave.

If a Stanford football coach says he has received offers but isn't interested, he is very interested, and is going to leave.

If a Stanford football coach says he will stay forever, he is very interested, and is going to leave.

If a Stanford football coach says he won't stay forever, he is very interested, and is going to leave.

If a Stanford football coach says nothing at all, he is very interested, and is going to leave.

If a Stanford football coach only communicates in unintelligible grunts, signs, and pictograms, he is very interested, and is going to leave.

All clear? Thanks.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - Hank 91 - 07-19-2013

I choose to believe that he isn't going anywhere.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - Nan3cy - 07-19-2013

I'm with Hank. Not everyone is His Royal Ungratefulness.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - CowboyIndian - 07-19-2013

Remember...you can't start twitter without 'twit'.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - yvonne - 07-19-2013

I don't think the issue with TW was that he left, but that

1. He claimed publicly to have no interest in the job while lobbying for it aggressively. (As opposed to saying nothing)
2. He sleepwalked through the bowl game while negotiating with his future employer.
3. He spoke disparagingly or dismissively of Stanford in interviews. Following his hire at his new employer
4. He disrupted the team by greeting his previous players before the game
5. That he showed disdain for our team by allowing his players to run through the Senior Day introductions.
6. He went for a fake punt while up by some ridiculous score.

but that's all

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - Spiny_Norman - 07-19-2013

(07-19-2013, 04:55 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I don't think the issue with TW was that he left, but that

1. He claimed publicly to have no interest in the job while lobbying for it aggressively. (As opposed to saying nothing)
2. He sleepwalked through the bowl game while negotiating with his future employer.
3. He spoke disparagingly or dismissively of Stanford in interviews. Following his hire at his new employer
4. He disrupted the team by greeting his previous players before the game
5. That he showed disdain for our team by allowing his players to run through the Senior Day introductions.
6. He went for a fake punt while up by some ridiculous score.

but that's all

That's not quite all.Â During his time at Notre Dame, Willingham rarely if ever said the name "Stanford."Â He referred to "the school where I previously coached" or something like that.Â Why would you show such disdain for the school that first gave you the chance to be a head football coach?Â

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - CowboyIndian - 07-19-2013

I saw him at the big Rose Bowl tailgate and I felt like asking him what the hell he was doing there. I've got no use for the way he acted...nor for him.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - george - 07-19-2013

(07-19-2013, 07:03 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:I saw him at the big Rose Bowl tailgate and I felt like asking him what the hell he was doing there. I've got no use for the way he acted...nor for him.

We saw him at the RB tailgate as well and I was surprised at how visceral my reaction to seeing him was.Â I almost had to restrain Ratmandoo from going after him.Â I suppose he was there in some sort of official capacity as the asst women's golf coach?Â

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - fullmetal - 07-20-2013

I wonder if the AD and the program as a whole has forgiven TW.Â If they have, I can do no less.Â But I'm sure even forgiveness can only cover so much.Â Things forgiven may not be completely forgotten.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - JohnR34231 - 07-20-2013

The problem of course is that every Stanford football coach in the last 50 years who has had some success has left. In most cases, it has been very soon after he has had that success. So when the latest coach starts winning, it is difficult to avoid having those thoughts come to mind.

I'm thinking (or at least hoping) that Shaw, as a Stanford alum, just might be the exception to that rule and stay around for a few more years.Â Time will certainly tell. I really don't see much point in sitting around wringing our hands about it, though. He's going to do what he is going to do.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - oman - 07-20-2013

(07-19-2013, 04:55 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:...
6. He went for a fake punt while up by some ridiculous score.

What was his deal?

Yeah, I am hoping that his links to Stanford along with the actual, honest to goodness chance of us being in striking distance of a national championship, mean that there is more staying power here.Â I think the bigger issue is that if we have even the slightest slip up this year then the story line will quickly turn to the story of our three or four year fluke and the proper return to the natural order of things.Â

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - JohnR34231 - 07-20-2013

(07-20-2013, 04:36 AM)oman link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=8116.msg64505#msg64505 date=1374278119]
...
6. He went for a fake punt while up by some ridiculous score.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - DC - 07-20-2013

I have never forgiven TW for what he did and never will.

That said, it was years ago, and we have moved on.Â Thank you Jim Harbaugh for turning the program around.

Regarding Shaw, it is a good sign that he hasn't left (so far) despite the BCS bowls.Â He has already coached in the pros before so he knows the downsides, and would have lifetime job security as a the Stanford head coach - something that wouldn't be the case in the pros.

Of course, he'll do what he wants to do.Â If he does leave at some point, I'd like to give Greg Roman a shot (49ers and former Stanford offensive coordinator - he is very creative and imaginative and uses the strengths of his personnel well).Â

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - washingtonismoney - 07-20-2013

(07-20-2013, 06:02 AM)JPRI link Wrote:The slightest slip up? You can't be serious. Are you telling me if we go 12-1 and win another BCS game we'll get called a fluke because we lost to the Ducks or whoever?

Not to put words in oman's mouth, but I wonder what the reaction would be if we get ranked preseason #3 or something and go 9-3 or worse (w/o some ridiculous force majeure as an excuse). I think a lot of people would be tempted to conclude "the Harbaugh effect" is wearing off etc. etc.

Big programs get the benefit of the doubt; Stanford probably won't.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - JohnR34231 - 07-20-2013

If we go 9-3 or worse, maybe, but I would call that a little more than "the slightest slip up".

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - oman - 07-21-2013

(07-20-2013, 06:02 AM)JPRI link Wrote:The slightest slip up? You can't be serious. Are you telling me if we go 12-1 and win another BCS game we'll get called a fluke because we lost to the Ducks or whoever?

Slip up as in not living up to expectations.Â So a one loss season and not making the P12 Championship not an issue.Â Less than that could be a problem with the number of folks on D who we are losing next year?

(I do tend to be a doom and gloomer but writers need something to write about....)Â

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - JohnR34231 - 07-21-2013

Are there consensus expectations? If there are I suppose they would be for us to lose one or two games next year. So I think doing worse than that would cause people to wonder if we were starting to regress.
I think there are some Stanford fans who expect us to win the NC. So for them any loss would be not living up to expectations.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - stupac2 - 07-21-2013

(07-21-2013, 11:22 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Are there consensus expectations?

I recall seeing an analysis that said the median outcome for a preseason top-10 team is like 10-2 or 9-3 (I don't remember exactly). I'd say that worse than 10-2 preseason would be a disappointment, given what we know now.

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - washingtonismoney - 07-21-2013

(07-21-2013, 11:22 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Are there consensus expectations?

A website called Stassen compiles consensus expectations from preseason polls, magazines, etc. Here it is: http://preseason.stassen.com/consensus/2013.html

So far (there are still a number of predictors who haven't, uh, predicted):
1. Alabama
2. tOSU
3. Oregon
4 Georgia
5 TA&M
6 South Carolina
7 Stanford
8 Clemson
9 OK State
10 FSU
11 ND
12 Texas
13 Louisville
14 Florida
15 Michigan

Re: Gentlemen, start your speculation engines! - washingtonismoney - 07-21-2013

(07-21-2013, 11:27 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I recall seeing an analysis that said the median outcome for a preseason top-10 team is like 10-2 or 9-3 (I don't remember exactly). I'd say that worse than 10-2 preseason would be a disappointment, given what we know now.

Well, let's look at last year's consensus preseason ranking:
1. Literature's Greatest Losers
2 Alabama
3 LSU
4 Oklahoma
5 Oregon
6 FSU
7 Georgia
8 Michigan
9 Texas
10 Arkansas

Just looking at 12 regular season games, the average number of wins for 2012 preseason were 9.
2011 = 10.2
2010 9.7

So your guess is about right. It seems like there's at least one (or more) teams with an embarrassing implosion per year from the consensus preseason top ten. Hoping it's not us.