Posts: 30,090
Threads: 2,136
Joined: Dec 2013
While you are correct that Shaw has played more games than most of his predecessors and thus has a greater opportunity to rack up wins, his career winning percentage is .790 which is higher than Willingham (.549), Denny Green (.471), Bill Walsh (.585), John Ralston (.601), Chuck Taylor (.577), and even Pop Warner (.781). So it is not that he has played more games than all of them, its that he has a higher winning percentage than each.
Yes, there has been a proliferation of Bowl games recently, but that doesnt change the fact that Shaw has gone to three Rose Bowls in six years, and he has done so in the PAC-12 era, when going to the Rose Bowl is harder because of the greater competition. Moreover, his record in non-Rose bowl years was high enough that he would have been bowl eligible any time since Ive been following Stanford football (since the early 90s), though not as far back as the Years when it was Rose Bowl or nothing.
I have consistently acknoweldged that we played like crap on Thursday. I dont think that is under dispute by anyone. What I have tried to push back against is the argument that one or two bad games a year tells us much about David Shaw, when compared to the totality of his head coaching career.
BC