[troyc]

New TreeCast is up...and we do a deep dive on the QB situation. What are David Shaw's complete thoughts on the matter? Why did Keller Chryst take all the snaps? And does Shaw deserve the slings and arrows he gets? Listen now (for free!) via VSporto. Subscribe, rate, and review the show (also for free!) via iTunes. And enjoy!

Troy C

Listen: http://www.cardinalsportsradio.com/episo...is-season/

Subscribe: https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-tre...1292428795

[troyc]

New TreeCast is up...and we do a deep dive on the QB situation. What are David Shaw's complete thoughts on the matter? Why did Keller Chryst take all the snaps? And does Shaw deserve the slings and arrows he gets? Listen now (for free!) via VSporto. Subscribe, rate, and review the show (also for free!) via iTunes. And enjoy!

Troy C

Listen: http://www.cardinalsportsradio.com/episo...is-season/

Subscribe: https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-tre...1292428795

[winflop]

We may disagree with Shaw's decisions, but my big takeaway from this podcast is that Shaw owns his decisions and doesn't deflect responsibility to others. And he's right that sometimes he has made controversial decisions that worked out well (he cited starting Hogan, but there are others).

However, what continues to bother me is that Shaw doesn't seem willing to admit that sometimes he isn't right. I'd love for him to admit that he does & has made mistakes, but that he stands by his overall record on those decisions and also that there are decisions he makes that outsiders don't have visibility to.

[winflop]

We may disagree with Shaw's decisions, but my big takeaway from this podcast is that Shaw owns his decisions and doesn't deflect responsibility to others. And he's right that sometimes he has made controversial decisions that worked out well (he cited starting Hogan, but there are others).

However, what continues to bother me is that Shaw doesn't seem willing to admit that sometimes he isn't right. I'd love for him to admit that he does & has made mistakes, but that he stands by his overall record on those decisions and also that there are decisions he makes that outsiders don't have visibility to.

[Mick]

We may disagree with Shaw's decisions, but my big takeaway from this podcast is that Shaw owns his decisions and doesn't deflect responsibility to others. And he's right that sometimes he has made controversial decisions that worked out well (he cited starting Hogan, but there are others).

However, what continues to bother me is that Shaw doesn't seem willing to admit that sometimes he isn't right. I'd love for him to admit that he does & has made mistakes, but that he stands by his overall record on those decisions and also that there are decisions he makes that outsiders don't have visibility to.

If I'm 70-19 with an overall .787 win percentage, recruiting from the shallow end of the pool, and the vast majority of my decisions are right, and I know between 10x and 100x what the average fan knows, I don't admit jacksxxt.

[Mick]

We may disagree with Shaw's decisions, but my big takeaway from this podcast is that Shaw owns his decisions and doesn't deflect responsibility to others. And he's right that sometimes he has made controversial decisions that worked out well (he cited starting Hogan, but there are others).

However, what continues to bother me is that Shaw doesn't seem willing to admit that sometimes he isn't right. I'd love for him to admit that he does & has made mistakes, but that he stands by his overall record on those decisions and also that there are decisions he makes that outsiders don't have visibility to.

If I'm 70-19 with an overall .787 win percentage, recruiting from the shallow end of the pool, and the vast majority of my decisions are right, and I know between 10x and 100x what the average fan knows, I don't admit jacksxxt.

[Goose]

We may disagree with Shaw's decisions, but my big takeaway from this podcast is that Shaw owns his decisions and doesn't deflect responsibility to others. And he's right that sometimes he has made controversial decisions that worked out well (he cited starting Hogan, but there are others).

However, what continues to bother me is that Shaw doesn't seem willing to admit that sometimes he isn't right. I'd love for him to admit that he does & has made mistakes, but that he stands by his overall record on those decisions and also that there are decisions he makes that outsiders don't have visibility to.

Winflop, perhaps Shaw figures he doesn't need to state the obvious. Anyone who makes difficult decisions is going to be wrong some of the time. The problem is that, in football and in governance, it is sometimes hard to know, even in retrospect, if a decision was wrong. The "good decision, bad outcome" problem exists, as well as "bad decision, the players bailed me out" cases. Coaches get judged only by results, not whether they were "right". The two are correlated, but not identical. So, if you don't get fired, you are "right enough". Another way to look at it is "If the play works, the coach is right. If it doesn't, he's is wrong". Probably we would all agree that isn't necessarily true. But if the play working isn't an adequate metric, what is? A vote? What Winflop says? What BC says?

[Goose]

We may disagree with Shaw's decisions, but my big takeaway from this podcast is that Shaw owns his decisions and doesn't deflect responsibility to others. And he's right that sometimes he has made controversial decisions that worked out well (he cited starting Hogan, but there are others).

However, what continues to bother me is that Shaw doesn't seem willing to admit that sometimes he isn't right. I'd love for him to admit that he does & has made mistakes, but that he stands by his overall record on those decisions and also that there are decisions he makes that outsiders don't have visibility to.

Winflop, perhaps Shaw figures he doesn't need to state the obvious. Anyone who makes difficult decisions is going to be wrong some of the time. The problem is that, in football and in governance, it is sometimes hard to know, even in retrospect, if a decision was wrong. The "good decision, bad outcome" problem exists, as well as "bad decision, the players bailed me out" cases. Coaches get judged only by results, not whether they were "right". The two are correlated, but not identical. So, if you don't get fired, you are "right enough". Another way to look at it is "If the play works, the coach is right. If it doesn't, he's is wrong". Probably we would all agree that isn't necessarily true. But if the play working isn't an adequate metric, what is? A vote? What Winflop says? What BC says?

[winflop]

Coaches get judged only by results, not whether they were "right".

If that were true then there would be no criticism of Shaw's decision to keep Chryst on the field since Stanford won the game.

[winflop]

Coaches get judged only by results, not whether they were "right".

If that were true then there would be no criticism of Shaw's decision to keep Chryst on the field since Stanford won the game.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17869.msg209712#msg209712 date=1509585733]
Coaches get judged only by results, not whether they were "right".

If that were true then there would be no criticism of Shaw's decision to keep Chryst on the field since Stanford won the game.
[/quote]
True, we here on the board express all kinds of opinions. However, the only judgement that matters is the one by the people who pay Shaw the 5+ million. If he wins enough to keep them happy, the opinions on this board just don't matter. So, in some sense you are correct. Individuals can and do say all kinds of things. The press does the same. Shaw made it real clear in his press conference how much he cares and pays attention to those "judgements"  :). He can do that because the only objective reality is wins and losses. The rest of it is opinion. As long as he wins "enough", criticism doesn't much matter, and if he doesn't win enough, praise doesn't help.
The problem for everybody (including Shaw) is this. Would it have been wise to play Costello, at least for a few series? I think so. So do others. But there is no agreed upon way to know if that outcome would have been "better". As you correctly point out, winning as a metric isn't sufficient on this board.  I am sure Shaw had his reasons. It may have just been "gut feel". If we had lost, Shaw's reasons might still be valid. If that happens too often, you get fired. As Shaw explained, that is just how it is. 

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17869.msg209712#msg209712 date=1509585733]
Coaches get judged only by results, not whether they were "right".

If that were true then there would be no criticism of Shaw's decision to keep Chryst on the field since Stanford won the game.
[/quote]
True, we here on the board express all kinds of opinions. However, the only judgement that matters is the one by the people who pay Shaw the 5+ million. If he wins enough to keep them happy, the opinions on this board just don't matter. So, in some sense you are correct. Individuals can and do say all kinds of things. The press does the same. Shaw made it real clear in his press conference how much he cares and pays attention to those "judgements"  :). He can do that because the only objective reality is wins and losses. The rest of it is opinion. As long as he wins "enough", criticism doesn't much matter, and if he doesn't win enough, praise doesn't help.
The problem for everybody (including Shaw) is this. Would it have been wise to play Costello, at least for a few series? I think so. So do others. But there is no agreed upon way to know if that outcome would have been "better". As you correctly point out, winning as a metric isn't sufficient on this board.  I am sure Shaw had his reasons. It may have just been "gut feel". If we had lost, Shaw's reasons might still be valid. If that happens too often, you get fired. As Shaw explained, that is just how it is. 

[81alum]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=17869.msg209736#msg209736 date=1509602006]
[quote author=Goose link=topic=17869.msg209712#msg209712 date=1509585733]
Coaches get judged only by results, not whether they were "right".

If that were true then there would be no criticism of Shaw's decision to keep Chryst on the field since Stanford won the game.
[/quote]
True, we here on the board express all kinds of opinions. However, the only judgement that matters is the one by the people who pay Shaw the 5+ million. If he wins enough to keep them happy, the opinions on this board just don't matter. So, in some sense you are correct. Individuals can and do say all kinds of things. The press does the same. Shaw made it real clear in his press conference how much he cares and pays attention to those "judgements"  :). He can do that because the only objective reality is wins and losses. The rest of it is opinion. As long as he wins "enough", criticism doesn't much matter, and if he doesn't win enough, praise doesn't help.
[/quote]
I don't quite agree with this.  There is truth in what you say--I think Shaw does have a certain cordial disdain for the press and for ignorant and ill informed comments and speculation.  But he does care about more than winning and dollars.  He does care about his reputation and the reputation of the Stanford program.  In fact, that is what makes him such a good fit for us--he is driven by the desire to prove that he can create and maintain a winning football program in the "right" way--one that values academics and ethics, and thus prove all the cynics and corrupt powerhouses wrong.  To do that he must care as much about intangibles as he does about winning and losing.  So if people started accusing his program of being sleazy or playing loose with academic standards I think you would find he cared a great deal about what people thought and said.  The football opinions though--not so much.

[81alum]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=17869.msg209736#msg209736 date=1509602006]
[quote author=Goose link=topic=17869.msg209712#msg209712 date=1509585733]
Coaches get judged only by results, not whether they were "right".

If that were true then there would be no criticism of Shaw's decision to keep Chryst on the field since Stanford won the game.
[/quote]
True, we here on the board express all kinds of opinions. However, the only judgement that matters is the one by the people who pay Shaw the 5+ million. If he wins enough to keep them happy, the opinions on this board just don't matter. So, in some sense you are correct. Individuals can and do say all kinds of things. The press does the same. Shaw made it real clear in his press conference how much he cares and pays attention to those "judgements"  :). He can do that because the only objective reality is wins and losses. The rest of it is opinion. As long as he wins "enough", criticism doesn't much matter, and if he doesn't win enough, praise doesn't help.
[/quote]
I don't quite agree with this.  There is truth in what you say--I think Shaw does have a certain cordial disdain for the press and for ignorant and ill informed comments and speculation.  But he does care about more than winning and dollars.  He does care about his reputation and the reputation of the Stanford program.  In fact, that is what makes him such a good fit for us--he is driven by the desire to prove that he can create and maintain a winning football program in the "right" way--one that values academics and ethics, and thus prove all the cynics and corrupt powerhouses wrong.  To do that he must care as much about intangibles as he does about winning and losing.  So if people started accusing his program of being sleazy or playing loose with academic standards I think you would find he cared a great deal about what people thought and said.  The football opinions though--not so much.

[martyup]

I'm sure that at the start of every series against OSU, coach Shaw thought Chryst would lead us to a score.  Even though by the end of the 3rd Q Chryst had nearly thrown 4 or 5 picks, but for the defenders not catching the balls.  At that point I had no confidence that Chryst could lead a scoring drive, but somehow Shaw still believed, presumably. 

When Nall coughed up the ball with around 2 min remaining in the game, I said to myself "So what?  We cannot move the ball. "  But, in trotted Chryst who led the team to a 4th down desperation pass to a well covered reciever.  The ball somehow snuck through the defender's arms and Smith made a great catch.  We went on to score and win the game.

What do they call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result?  Yeah, but if you finally get that different result are you a genius?  Lucky?  They say that there is a fine line between insanity and genius.  I say that coach Shaw tip toed down that line last Thursday.

But, I'd rather have an insanely genius coach that delivers 10+ win seasons consistently than a predictable level headed Tyrone Willingham type coach that is good for 6.2 wins per season on average.

[martyup]

I'm sure that at the start of every series against OSU, coach Shaw thought Chryst would lead us to a score.  Even though by the end of the 3rd Q Chryst had nearly thrown 4 or 5 picks, but for the defenders not catching the balls.  At that point I had no confidence that Chryst could lead a scoring drive, but somehow Shaw still believed, presumably. 

When Nall coughed up the ball with around 2 min remaining in the game, I said to myself "So what?  We cannot move the ball. "  But, in trotted Chryst who led the team to a 4th down desperation pass to a well covered reciever.  The ball somehow snuck through the defender's arms and Smith made a great catch.  We went on to score and win the game.

What do they call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result?  Yeah, but if you finally get that different result are you a genius?  Lucky?  They say that there is a fine line between insanity and genius.  I say that coach Shaw tip toed down that line last Thursday.

But, I'd rather have an insanely genius coach that delivers 10+ win seasons consistently than a predictable level headed Tyrone Willingham type coach that is good for 6.2 wins per season on average.

[Goose]

To do that he must care as much about intangibles as he does about winning and losing.  So if people started accusing his program of being sleazy or playing loose with academic standards I think you would find he cared a great deal about what people thought and said.  The football opinions though--not so much.

Basically agree, although if the accusations were baseless, I think he would treat them with much disdain. What he certainly DOES care about is doing things the right way. Public opinion does matter, but being "right" in this case, unlike football strategy, is deterministic.

[Goose]

To do that he must care as much about intangibles as he does about winning and losing.  So if people started accusing his program of being sleazy or playing loose with academic standards I think you would find he cared a great deal about what people thought and said.  The football opinions though--not so much.

Basically agree, although if the accusations were baseless, I think he would treat them with much disdain. What he certainly DOES care about is doing things the right way. Public opinion does matter, but being "right" in this case, unlike football strategy, is deterministic.

[martyup]

Deterministic?

[martyup]

Deterministic?

[Goose]

Deterministic?

Yes,  you either broke a rule or you didn't. Oops!  My bad. With the NCAA involved, breaking a rule is OK if everybody on campus can do it. I guess getting an NCAA penalty of some kind would certainly qualify as "deterministic". You either do, or you don't. Unfortunately, I guess that doesn't actually mean you are not a scumbag.

[Goose]

Deterministic?

Yes,  you either broke a rule or you didn't. Oops!  My bad. With the NCAA involved, breaking a rule is OK if everybody on campus can do it. I guess getting an NCAA penalty of some kind would certainly qualify as "deterministic". You either do, or you don't. Unfortunately, I guess that doesn't actually mean you are not a scumbag.