[gailtate]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

[gailtate]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

[Phogge]

Actually more than close. In the cellar of the PAC North.

[Phogge]

Actually more than close. In the cellar of the PAC North.

[Austroturf]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

Unfortunately, I have the same misgivings.  It will take another 4-8/3-9 campaign for Shaw to feel any urgency.  Of course, if he changes nothing and comes back next season to win the Pac-12, I would be pleased to eat a smorgasbord of crow.  Just don't think that's going to happen.  He needs to do what Kelly did after his 4-8 campaign in 2016 (yes, we nicked them in South Bend without McCaffrey that year): an entire overhaul of the coaching staff, including a new OC and a new DC.  Shake the place up, make it uncomfortable, instill a sense of urgency and create a positive upward potentiation of energy in the program.  Could Shaw do that?  Not sure.

[Austroturf]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

Unfortunately, I have the same misgivings.  It will take another 4-8/3-9 campaign for Shaw to feel any urgency.  Of course, if he changes nothing and comes back next season to win the Pac-12, I would be pleased to eat a smorgasbord of crow.  Just don't think that's going to happen.  He needs to do what Kelly did after his 4-8 campaign in 2016 (yes, we nicked them in South Bend without McCaffrey that year): an entire overhaul of the coaching staff, including a new OC and a new DC.  Shake the place up, make it uncomfortable, instill a sense of urgency and create a positive upward potentiation of energy in the program.  Could Shaw do that?  Not sure.

[Brickcity]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

Unfortunately, I have the same misgivings.  It will take another 4-8/3-9 campaign for Shaw to feel any urgency.  Of course, if he changes nothing and comes back next season to win the Pac-12, I would be pleased to eat a smorgasbord of crow.  Just don't think that's going to happen.  He needs to do what Kelly did after his 4-8 campaign in 2016 (yes, we nicked them in South Bend without McCaffrey that year): an entire overhaul of the coaching staff, including a new OC and a new DC.  Shake the place up, make it uncomfortable, instill a sense of urgency and create a positive upward potentiation of energy in the program.  Could Shaw do that?  Not sure.

Shaw, with a "sense of urgency"? Oh, would that be welcome.

[Brickcity]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

Unfortunately, I have the same misgivings.  It will take another 4-8/3-9 campaign for Shaw to feel any urgency.  Of course, if he changes nothing and comes back next season to win the Pac-12, I would be pleased to eat a smorgasbord of crow.  Just don't think that's going to happen.  He needs to do what Kelly did after his 4-8 campaign in 2016 (yes, we nicked them in South Bend without McCaffrey that year): an entire overhaul of the coaching staff, including a new OC and a new DC.  Shake the place up, make it uncomfortable, instill a sense of urgency and create a positive upward potentiation of energy in the program.  Could Shaw do that?  Not sure.

Shaw, with a "sense of urgency"? Oh, would that be welcome.

[slide]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

agreed, I don't expect any change of staff unless they leave on their own.

and, on a positive note, at least Shaw's wish for a really well rested coaching staff came true, perhaps a little early though.  

may be now staff can make some '21 offers?

[slide]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

agreed, I don't expect any change of staff unless they leave on their own.

and, on a positive note, at least Shaw's wish for a really well rested coaching staff came true, perhaps a little early though.  

may be now staff can make some '21 offers?

[yvonne]

Yeah, that's your typical Stanford alum: lazy, no sense of urgency, no desire to improve. If you were a generation older, I wouldn't be surprised to hear you use the word "shiftless."

[yvonne]

Yeah, that's your typical Stanford alum: lazy, no sense of urgency, no desire to improve. If you were a generation older, I wouldn't be surprised to hear you use the word "shiftless."

[Leftcoast]

In the tech industry there's a mantra to "Never waste a good crisis".  

It's hard to make sweeping changes when your strategies succeed and your goals get met.  Organizations always resists change and it takes an investment of energy to change dramatically when all evidence says the status quo is "working".  When an organization perceives a crisis the investment needed to make wholesale changes and correct bad practice is much, much lower.  

I believe Shaw sees the opportunity and predict at least one coordinator change in the offseason plus several position coaching moves.

Could be wrong. We'll see.

By the way, why is everyone living in a Steve Jobs binary world these days?  A world where our coaches are either "crappy" or "insanely great" - No nuance, no grey areas, no spectrum.  When put in the crappy group you  are incapable of anything positive, not even a single play-call.  Heck, if you see any positives you MUST be related to the coach.  We've all become Steve Jobs Mark 1 staring down his product team, insulting the effort, and one itchy trigger finger away from canning the lead.  

I don't want to live in that binary world and expect I'm not alone.  Real life is messy. Real life is analog.

[Leftcoast]

In the tech industry there's a mantra to "Never waste a good crisis".  

It's hard to make sweeping changes when your strategies succeed and your goals get met.  Organizations always resists change and it takes an investment of energy to change dramatically when all evidence says the status quo is "working".  When an organization perceives a crisis the investment needed to make wholesale changes and correct bad practice is much, much lower.  

I believe Shaw sees the opportunity and predict at least one coordinator change in the offseason plus several position coaching moves.

Could be wrong. We'll see.

By the way, why is everyone living in a Steve Jobs binary world these days?  A world where our coaches are either "crappy" or "insanely great" - No nuance, no grey areas, no spectrum.  When put in the crappy group you  are incapable of anything positive, not even a single play-call.  Heck, if you see any positives you MUST be related to the coach.  We've all become Steve Jobs Mark 1 staring down his product team, insulting the effort, and one itchy trigger finger away from canning the lead.  

I don't want to live in that binary world and expect I'm not alone.  Real life is messy. Real life is analog.

[StanfordMatt]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach. Don't hold your breath if you're counting on a staff shakeup.

[StanfordMatt]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach. Don't hold your breath if you're counting on a staff shakeup.

[CowboyIndian]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach.

What would the rationale have been?

[CowboyIndian]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach.

What would the rationale have been?

[StanfordMatt]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach.

What would the rationale have been?

I’m not going to get into a subjective discussion about which assistants have deserved a pink slip over the past nine years. You can find hundreds if not thousands of posts on this forum dedicated to that topic over the same time period. I actually think Shaw’s loyalty to his assistants is an admirable quality, albeit perhaps a bit too blind at times.

The point of my post was simply to point out an objective fact that I believe is worth keeping in mind when making any predictions regarding Shaw’s future actions as it relates to his staff.

[StanfordMatt]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach.

What would the rationale have been?

I’m not going to get into a subjective discussion about which assistants have deserved a pink slip over the past nine years. You can find hundreds if not thousands of posts on this forum dedicated to that topic over the same time period. I actually think Shaw’s loyalty to his assistants is an admirable quality, albeit perhaps a bit too blind at times.

The point of my post was simply to point out an objective fact that I believe is worth keeping in mind when making any predictions regarding Shaw’s future actions as it relates to his staff.

[JohnR34231]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach.

What would the rationale have been?

I’m not going to get into a subjective discussion about which assistants have deserved a pink slip over the past nine years. You can find hundreds if not thousands of posts on this forum dedicated to that topic over the same time period. I actually think Shaw’s loyalty to his assistants is an admirable quality, albeit perhaps a bit too blind at times.

The point of my post was simply to point out an objective fact that I believe is worth keeping in mind when making any predictions regarding Shaw’s future actions as it relates to his staff.

I've thought this all along. It is going to take a lot more than one bad season to get Shaw to make the kind of sweeping changes in his staff and coaching philosophy that some Stanford fans seem to want.
So, save all your sardonic comments. You'll no doubt be able to use them again next year.

[JohnR34231]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach.

What would the rationale have been?

I’m not going to get into a subjective discussion about which assistants have deserved a pink slip over the past nine years. You can find hundreds if not thousands of posts on this forum dedicated to that topic over the same time period. I actually think Shaw’s loyalty to his assistants is an admirable quality, albeit perhaps a bit too blind at times.

The point of my post was simply to point out an objective fact that I believe is worth keeping in mind when making any predictions regarding Shaw’s future actions as it relates to his staff.

I've thought this all along. It is going to take a lot more than one bad season to get Shaw to make the kind of sweeping changes in his staff and coaching philosophy that some Stanford fans seem to want.
So, save all your sardonic comments. You'll no doubt be able to use them again next year.

[OutsiderFan]

Irrespective of David Shaw’s urgency level, it is Stanford as a university and his employer for whom it is most incumbent to demonstrate having it.

The only way anyone ever performs is when they have pressure on them to succeed. If David Shaw doesn’t feel the urgency of now himself, it is up to the university and Muir to create it. If they don’t, they adopt a laissez faire attitude about the importance of winning, which permeates the culture.

I have argued David Shaw is already more concerned with his own comfort than winning because that’s what the evidence shows. If Stanford doesn’t remind him he’s making $4 million per year to win games and if he doesn’t they will find someone who will, he has no reason to make changes.

The way this stuff is suppose to work is the employer or board of directors sets the performance standard and the executive in charge is given what he says he needs to perform. If he performs, the executive stays. If not, someone else is found who can do the job. The issue is what the urgency is. Does it take another 4-8 season for Stanford to replace Shaw? Three losing seasons in a row? Four? Everyone has their threshold. But the more patient you are and the more you tolerate below what you set as the bar for performance, the more you risk enabling failure and falling further behind.

So sure, want Shaw to act with urgency to make changes when things aren’t working, but Stanford as his employer should be the one who’s feet you hold to the fire.

[OutsiderFan]

Irrespective of David Shaw’s urgency level, it is Stanford as a university and his employer for whom it is most incumbent to demonstrate having it.

The only way anyone ever performs is when they have pressure on them to succeed. If David Shaw doesn’t feel the urgency of now himself, it is up to the university and Muir to create it. If they don’t, they adopt a laissez faire attitude about the importance of winning, which permeates the culture.

I have argued David Shaw is already more concerned with his own comfort than winning because that’s what the evidence shows. If Stanford doesn’t remind him he’s making $4 million per year to win games and if he doesn’t they will find someone who will, he has no reason to make changes.

The way this stuff is suppose to work is the employer or board of directors sets the performance standard and the executive in charge is given what he says he needs to perform. If he performs, the executive stays. If not, someone else is found who can do the job. The issue is what the urgency is. Does it take another 4-8 season for Stanford to replace Shaw? Three losing seasons in a row? Four? Everyone has their threshold. But the more patient you are and the more you tolerate below what you set as the bar for performance, the more you risk enabling failure and falling further behind.

So sure, want Shaw to act with urgency to make changes when things aren’t working, but Stanford as his employer should be the one who’s feet you hold to the fire.

[JohnR34231]

Irrespective of David Shaw’s urgency level, it is Stanford as a university and his employer for whom it is most incumbent to demonstrate having it.

The only way anyone ever performs is when they have pressure on them to succeed. If David Shaw doesn’t feel the urgency of now himself, it is up to the university and Muir to create it. If they don’t, they adopt a laissez faire attitude about the importance of winning, which permeates the culture.

I have argued David Shaw is already more concerned with his own comfort than winning because that’s what the evidence shows. If Stanford doesn’t remind him he’s making $4 million per year to win games and if he doesn’t they will find someone who will, he has no reason to make changes.

The way this stuff is suppose to work is the employer or board of directors sets the performance standard and the executive in charge is given what he says he needs to perform. If he performs, the executive stays. If not, someone else is found who can do the job. The issue is what the urgency is. Does it take another 4-8 season for Stanford to replace Shaw? Three losing seasons in a row? Four? Everyone has their threshold. But the more patient you are and the more you tolerate below what you set as the bar for performance, the more you risk enabling failure and falling further behind.

So sure, want Shaw to act with urgency to make changes when things aren’t working, but Stanford as his employer should be the one who’s feet you hold to the fire.

I'll repeat the same thing I said above.
It is going to take a lot more than one bad season for the Stanford administration to start putting a lot of pressure on Shaw to make sweeping changes to the program (even considering the fact that the trend line has been down),
Regardless of whether it should or not,
I remember when my son was at Air Force. The administration started putting a lot of pressure on the coach to make changes (after a lot more than one bad season). He resigned rather than do it.
I wonder if Shaw would do the same thing. Not that it would break the hearts of some Stanford fans if he did.

[JohnR34231]

Irrespective of David Shaw’s urgency level, it is Stanford as a university and his employer for whom it is most incumbent to demonstrate having it.

The only way anyone ever performs is when they have pressure on them to succeed. If David Shaw doesn’t feel the urgency of now himself, it is up to the university and Muir to create it. If they don’t, they adopt a laissez faire attitude about the importance of winning, which permeates the culture.

I have argued David Shaw is already more concerned with his own comfort than winning because that’s what the evidence shows. If Stanford doesn’t remind him he’s making $4 million per year to win games and if he doesn’t they will find someone who will, he has no reason to make changes.

The way this stuff is suppose to work is the employer or board of directors sets the performance standard and the executive in charge is given what he says he needs to perform. If he performs, the executive stays. If not, someone else is found who can do the job. The issue is what the urgency is. Does it take another 4-8 season for Stanford to replace Shaw? Three losing seasons in a row? Four? Everyone has their threshold. But the more patient you are and the more you tolerate below what you set as the bar for performance, the more you risk enabling failure and falling further behind.

So sure, want Shaw to act with urgency to make changes when things aren’t working, but Stanford as his employer should be the one who’s feet you hold to the fire.

I'll repeat the same thing I said above.
It is going to take a lot more than one bad season for the Stanford administration to start putting a lot of pressure on Shaw to make sweeping changes to the program (even considering the fact that the trend line has been down),
Regardless of whether it should or not,
I remember when my son was at Air Force. The administration started putting a lot of pressure on the coach to make changes (after a lot more than one bad season). He resigned rather than do it.
I wonder if Shaw would do the same thing. Not that it would break the hearts of some Stanford fans if he did.

[OutsiderFan]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

[OutsiderFan]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

[JohnR34231]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

I'm not real fussy about who the coach is either. I will say, though, that coaches who can consistently deliver the kind of yearly performance some Stanford fans have come to expect don't grow on trees.
Hopefully the administration would be able to find one who would be consistently successful and not bolt for a bigger stage after he had some success.

[JohnR34231]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

I'm not real fussy about who the coach is either. I will say, though, that coaches who can consistently deliver the kind of yearly performance some Stanford fans have come to expect don't grow on trees.
Hopefully the administration would be able to find one who would be consistently successful and not bolt for a bigger stage after he had some success.

[winflop]

I think the question is whether this season is seen as a one-off or if it is the culmination of a steady downward trend over the last three seasons. My concern is that Shaw sees 8 regular season wins last year as OK - that team had too much talent to only get 8 wins and no need to re-litigate that as some will likely disagree.

I hope Shaw makes changes, but I don't expect him to. Which also means I expect another season with no bowl game in 2020.

[winflop]

I think the question is whether this season is seen as a one-off or if it is the culmination of a steady downward trend over the last three seasons. My concern is that Shaw sees 8 regular season wins last year as OK - that team had too much talent to only get 8 wins and no need to re-litigate that as some will likely disagree.

I hope Shaw makes changes, but I don't expect him to. Which also means I expect another season with no bowl game in 2020.

[teejers1]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach.

What would the rationale have been?

You're right.  All is well.

The team continues its slide under Shaw to a current record of 4-8;
The fans "love" coming to games . . . just look at all of them; and
There should be tons more next year, with the great home schedule.

FTR, only ONE CHANGE is an absolute must.  
And that of course is the hardest one for Shaw to make because it affects the guy in the mirror.  
(What he doesn't realize is that a good hire will improve his own reputation . . . but whatever, he's been clueless for the last 7 years, so I don't expect any epiphany on his part).

[teejers1]

In Shaw's nine years as head coach, he has not fired a single assistant coach.

What would the rationale have been?

You're right.  All is well.

The team continues its slide under Shaw to a current record of 4-8;
The fans "love" coming to games . . . just look at all of them; and
There should be tons more next year, with the great home schedule.

FTR, only ONE CHANGE is an absolute must.  
And that of course is the hardest one for Shaw to make because it affects the guy in the mirror.  
(What he doesn't realize is that a good hire will improve his own reputation . . . but whatever, he's been clueless for the last 7 years, so I don't expect any epiphany on his part).

[JeffInCorvallis]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

Sorry, I can't agree. I care too much about Stanford as an institution to say "I don't care, just win, baby".

Putting our student-athletes in a position where they can be successful is important. Character, leadership, and integrity are more important.

I don't want Urban Meyer, or Mike Leach, or the likes of Jerry Sandusky. Doesn't matter how many championships they might win.

[JeffInCorvallis]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

Sorry, I can't agree. I care too much about Stanford as an institution to say "I don't care, just win, baby".

Putting our student-athletes in a position where they can be successful is important. Character, leadership, and integrity are more important.

I don't want Urban Meyer, or Mike Leach, or the likes of Jerry Sandusky. Doesn't matter how many championships they might win.

[OutsiderFan]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

Sorry, I can't agree. I care too much about Stanford as an institution to say "I don't care, just win, baby".

Putting our student-athletes in a position where they can be successful is important. Character, leadership, and integrity are more important.

I don't want Urban Meyer, or Mike Leach, or the likes of Jerry Sandusky. Doesn't matter how many championships they might win.

This has to be the biggest self-own of a post ever.  You're defensiveness is absolutely off the charts, because this reply assumes mine is advocating for what you are against, when it absolutely is not.

Let me re-iterate what I said, so it is 100% clear:  

It doesn't matter who the coach is, as long as the team wins on AND off the field.  Nowhere in that statement does it say winning at all costs.  Nowhere does it say anything other than on field performance isn't important. 

So you can't be for a team that wins and makes you proud of it off the field.  What the hell else do you want?  Please don't tell me David Shaw is the only possible person who can make Stanford a winner on and off the field.  To be clear, I'm not advocating for his dismissal, just trying to get fans to separate the performance requirement from the individual responsible for it.  Performance, not who is leading it, is what matters. 

There is a saying in college football. This isn't as sartorially splendorious as I believe I've seen, but it goes something like this:  Coaches who fall in love with QBs regardless of performance get fired. AD's who fall in love with coaches regardless of performance get fired.

[OutsiderFan]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

Sorry, I can't agree. I care too much about Stanford as an institution to say "I don't care, just win, baby".

Putting our student-athletes in a position where they can be successful is important. Character, leadership, and integrity are more important.

I don't want Urban Meyer, or Mike Leach, or the likes of Jerry Sandusky. Doesn't matter how many championships they might win.

This has to be the biggest self-own of a post ever.  You're defensiveness is absolutely off the charts, because this reply assumes mine is advocating for what you are against, when it absolutely is not.

Let me re-iterate what I said, so it is 100% clear:  

It doesn't matter who the coach is, as long as the team wins on AND off the field.  Nowhere in that statement does it say winning at all costs.  Nowhere does it say anything other than on field performance isn't important. 

So you can't be for a team that wins and makes you proud of it off the field.  What the hell else do you want?  Please don't tell me David Shaw is the only possible person who can make Stanford a winner on and off the field.  To be clear, I'm not advocating for his dismissal, just trying to get fans to separate the performance requirement from the individual responsible for it.  Performance, not who is leading it, is what matters. 

There is a saying in college football. This isn't as sartorially splendorious as I believe I've seen, but it goes something like this:  Coaches who fall in love with QBs regardless of performance get fired. AD's who fall in love with coaches regardless of performance get fired.

[JeffInCorvallis]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

Sorry, I can't agree. I care too much about Stanford as an institution to say "I don't care, just win, baby".

Putting our student-athletes in a position where they can be successful is important. Character, leadership, and integrity are more important.

I don't want Urban Meyer, or Mike Leach, or the likes of Jerry Sandusky. Doesn't matter how many championships they might win.

This has to be the biggest self-own of a post ever.  You're defensiveness is absolutely off the charts, because this reply assumes mine is advocating for what you are against, when it absolutely is not.

Let me re-iterate what I said, so it is 100% clear:  

It doesn't matter who the coach is, as long as the team wins on AND off the field.  Nowhere in that statement does it say winning at all costs.  Nowhere does it say anything other than on field performance isn't important. 

So you can't be for a team that wins and makes you proud of it off the field.  What the hell else do you want?  Please don't tell me David Shaw is the only possible person who can make Stanford a winner on and off the field.  To be clear, I'm not advocating for his dismissal, just trying to get fans to separate the performance requirement from the individual responsible for it.  Performance, not who is leading it, is what matters. 

There is a saying in college football. This isn't as sartorially splendorious as I believe I've seen, but it goes something like this:  Coaches who fall in love with QBs regardless of performance get fired. AD's who fall in love with coaches regardless of performance get fired.

Let's agree on this: David Shaw is not the only person who can make Stanford a winner on and off the field. This season has not been his best. Scholarships went unused. Players didn't develop. There were also a ton of injuries for whatever reason. For right now Shaw's earned a pass in my book. A few more seasons without some change in direction and I might be convinced otherwise. Remember, too, the list of proven head coaches who would make Stanford a destination is short.

[JeffInCorvallis]

The performance is what matters. Not who is leading it. I don’t care who the coach is or isn’t and neither should anyone, as long as they are winning on and off the field.

Right now I love Kyle Shanahan as Niners Head Coach. But Sean McVay is a cautionary tale of the perils of falling in love with a person doing a job over their performance in the job. I could say the same for Jared Goff and his insane contract extension.

Sorry, I can't agree. I care too much about Stanford as an institution to say "I don't care, just win, baby".

Putting our student-athletes in a position where they can be successful is important. Character, leadership, and integrity are more important.

I don't want Urban Meyer, or Mike Leach, or the likes of Jerry Sandusky. Doesn't matter how many championships they might win.

This has to be the biggest self-own of a post ever.  You're defensiveness is absolutely off the charts, because this reply assumes mine is advocating for what you are against, when it absolutely is not.

Let me re-iterate what I said, so it is 100% clear:  

It doesn't matter who the coach is, as long as the team wins on AND off the field.  Nowhere in that statement does it say winning at all costs.  Nowhere does it say anything other than on field performance isn't important. 

So you can't be for a team that wins and makes you proud of it off the field.  What the hell else do you want?  Please don't tell me David Shaw is the only possible person who can make Stanford a winner on and off the field.  To be clear, I'm not advocating for his dismissal, just trying to get fans to separate the performance requirement from the individual responsible for it.  Performance, not who is leading it, is what matters. 

There is a saying in college football. This isn't as sartorially splendorious as I believe I've seen, but it goes something like this:  Coaches who fall in love with QBs regardless of performance get fired. AD's who fall in love with coaches regardless of performance get fired.

Let's agree on this: David Shaw is not the only person who can make Stanford a winner on and off the field. This season has not been his best. Scholarships went unused. Players didn't develop. There were also a ton of injuries for whatever reason. For right now Shaw's earned a pass in my book. A few more seasons without some change in direction and I might be convinced otherwise. Remember, too, the list of proven head coaches who would make Stanford a destination is short.