[Phogge]

Well Lex, I would apply but I just don’t give a schit.

[Phogge]

Well Lex, I would apply but I just don’t give a schit.

[teejers1]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

[teejers1]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

[Papa John]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

I am with you on this, mostly.  But consider also that nobody here expects us to have a winning record next season, due mostly to lack of proven ability and depth on the defensive line / front 7. That seems to be unfixable by next year, barring major surprises from some young and inexperienced players.  

So by this time next year, we are probably talking about 3 out of 4 seasons where performance is well below par.  

That’s why this poll was difficult for me.  I want to give Shaw time to fix it himself (hire new assistants, make changes, etc.), but giving him one year seems pointless and giving him two years seems too long.

I felt the same tensions CardinalSagehen. Based on the recruiting mistakes from the last couple of years, the writing was on the wall regarding deficiencies at the DL for next year. I'm baffled as to why the OL performed so poorly this year, and I think it should be fixable for 2022 but I have my doubts. I just don't see how Stanford football can have a winning record next year, so it was pointless to vote for that item.

For me it comes down to this. Which is more likely? Stanford having a winning record in 2023 with (1) Shaw at the helm or (2) someone else at the helm?

I voted for two more years for Shaw, because he was part of the team that dug us out from the Teevens/Harris hole. But I also understand that if I'm wrong Stanford will have losing seasons in 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023 and I'd be looking for a new coach who would probably need a few seasons--Harbaugh needed three--to produce a winning record. So that could mean six out of seven losing seasons, which would make me a very bad athletic director.

---

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

Sagarin is great when a full season is played by everyone. 2020 was a mess because some teams played 3 games and Alabama played 13. And it's not just how many games your team played. It's also how many games your opponents played.

Here are the 2020 Sagarin ratings for the Pac-12:

ASU #23 (2-2)
USC #34 (5-1)
Oregon #43 (4-3)
UCLA #46 (3-4)
Utah #52 (3-2)
Stanford #75 (4-2)
Colorado #77 (4-2)
Washington #78 (3-1)
OSU #91 (2-5)
Cal #94 (1-3)
WSU #98 (1-3)
UA #121 (0-5)

If the Pac-12 had played a full season, I have a hard time believing that only one team in the conference would crack the top 25 at season's end. Lots of problems with algorithms when you don't have enough data points. But even so, Stanford ends up with the 6th-best Sagarin rating in the conference in 2020.

[Papa John]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

I am with you on this, mostly.  But consider also that nobody here expects us to have a winning record next season, due mostly to lack of proven ability and depth on the defensive line / front 7. That seems to be unfixable by next year, barring major surprises from some young and inexperienced players.  

So by this time next year, we are probably talking about 3 out of 4 seasons where performance is well below par.  

That’s why this poll was difficult for me.  I want to give Shaw time to fix it himself (hire new assistants, make changes, etc.), but giving him one year seems pointless and giving him two years seems too long.

I felt the same tensions CardinalSagehen. Based on the recruiting mistakes from the last couple of years, the writing was on the wall regarding deficiencies at the DL for next year. I'm baffled as to why the OL performed so poorly this year, and I think it should be fixable for 2022 but I have my doubts. I just don't see how Stanford football can have a winning record next year, so it was pointless to vote for that item.

For me it comes down to this. Which is more likely? Stanford having a winning record in 2023 with (1) Shaw at the helm or (2) someone else at the helm?

I voted for two more years for Shaw, because he was part of the team that dug us out from the Teevens/Harris hole. But I also understand that if I'm wrong Stanford will have losing seasons in 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023 and I'd be looking for a new coach who would probably need a few seasons--Harbaugh needed three--to produce a winning record. So that could mean six out of seven losing seasons, which would make me a very bad athletic director.

---

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

Sagarin is great when a full season is played by everyone. 2020 was a mess because some teams played 3 games and Alabama played 13. And it's not just how many games your team played. It's also how many games your opponents played.

Here are the 2020 Sagarin ratings for the Pac-12:

ASU #23 (2-2)
USC #34 (5-1)
Oregon #43 (4-3)
UCLA #46 (3-4)
Utah #52 (3-2)
Stanford #75 (4-2)
Colorado #77 (4-2)
Washington #78 (3-1)
OSU #91 (2-5)
Cal #94 (1-3)
WSU #98 (1-3)
UA #121 (0-5)

If the Pac-12 had played a full season, I have a hard time believing that only one team in the conference would crack the top 25 at season's end. Lots of problems with algorithms when you don't have enough data points. But even so, Stanford ends up with the 6th-best Sagarin rating in the conference in 2020.

[BobK]

It’s interesting many of our coaches are out recruiting

[BobK]

It’s interesting many of our coaches are out recruiting

[gailtate]

It’s interesting many of our coaches are out recruiting

Of course they are. I mean, what else would they be doing? ;)

[gailtate]

It’s interesting many of our coaches are out recruiting

Of course they are. I mean, what else would they be doing? ;)

[Papa John]

It’s interesting many of our coaches are out recruiting

Of course they are. I mean, what else would they be doing? ;)

Sending out their resumes?

[Papa John]

It’s interesting many of our coaches are out recruiting

Of course they are. I mean, what else would they be doing? ;)

Sending out their resumes?

[murky]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

I decided 2020 didn't count before the season started, and generally all expectations were set aside (other than maintaining dignity and integrity).

4-2 was a pleasant surprise considering the start and the circumstances.  But the whole season was surrounded by so many bizarre circumstances - write off.   And along with that could be longer term consequences.  

The biggest hope for next year would be some kind of resurrection of O-line assuming that the players we have are underperforming and not just overrated.  What that means in terms of coaching or structure, or any other reason, I don't care.  But physically you'd think these player profiles would have been able to produce at least an above average Pac 12 O-Line in years past.

Defense seems like it could/should take some time for holes to fill and the young talent to become the core of the defense.  That doesn't sound like an above average D in 2022.

So the perform next year or get fired choice doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[murky]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

I decided 2020 didn't count before the season started, and generally all expectations were set aside (other than maintaining dignity and integrity).

4-2 was a pleasant surprise considering the start and the circumstances.  But the whole season was surrounded by so many bizarre circumstances - write off.   And along with that could be longer term consequences.  

The biggest hope for next year would be some kind of resurrection of O-line assuming that the players we have are underperforming and not just overrated.  What that means in terms of coaching or structure, or any other reason, I don't care.  But physically you'd think these player profiles would have been able to produce at least an above average Pac 12 O-Line in years past.

Defense seems like it could/should take some time for holes to fill and the young talent to become the core of the defense.  That doesn't sound like an above average D in 2022.

So the perform next year or get fired choice doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[BostonCard]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

Sagrarin was pointless because the PAC-12 was a closed system it’s no OOC games, COVID messed with everything, and sagarin doesn’t account for playing the last four games on the road, without a chance to go home, or for Mills being out with a questionable COVID test result.

BC

[BostonCard]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

Sagrarin was pointless because the PAC-12 was a closed system it’s no OOC games, COVID messed with everything, and sagarin doesn’t account for playing the last four games on the road, without a chance to go home, or for Mills being out with a questionable COVID test result.

BC

[cardcrimson]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

Sagrarin was pointless because the PAC-12 was a closed system it’s no OOC games, COVID messed with everything, and sagarin doesn’t account for playing the last four games on the road, without a chance to go home, or for Mills being out with a questionable COVID test result.

BC

Careful BC, blaming Stanford's poor Sagarin ratings last year on the draconian measures taken in Santa Clara County and not elsewhere, "playing the last four games on the road, without a chance to go home, or for Mills being out with a questionable COVID test result", might just get you in trouble with the anti-political monitors. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Just mentioning failures at Stanford.
Beware of what you wish for.  It doesn’t always work out

If the current guy either can't see the problems AND implement solutions or (just as bad) can see them and WON'T implement, then I'd rather someone else at least tries even if the results are worse. Maintaining status quo after the last four seasons is not OK

I know times are tough, but we were 9-4 in 2018.  We were also 4-2 in 2020, despite having to play on the road endlessly (and one wonders where we would have been had Mills not been a weird COVID testing situation).  We were dreadful in 2019 and again this year, so maybe it feels like it has been forever since we had a winning season.

BC

Despite 4-2 record, Stanford was also dreadful in 2020, per Sagarin.

Sagrarin was pointless because the PAC-12 was a closed system it’s no OOC games, COVID messed with everything, and sagarin doesn’t account for playing the last four games on the road, without a chance to go home, or for Mills being out with a questionable COVID test result.

BC

Careful BC, blaming Stanford's poor Sagarin ratings last year on the draconian measures taken in Santa Clara County and not elsewhere, "playing the last four games on the road, without a chance to go home, or for Mills being out with a questionable COVID test result", might just get you in trouble with the anti-political monitors. . . .

[BostonCard]

I wasn’t pointing fingers.  Besides, regardless of the heterogeneity in response, ultimately the virus was in charge.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wasn’t pointing fingers.  Besides, regardless of the heterogeneity in response, ultimately the virus was in charge.

BC

[Jamesy]

Looks like all the coaches are out recruiting per social media. No one fired yet. Makes me worried no changes are coming...

[Jamesy]

Looks like all the coaches are out recruiting per social media. No one fired yet. Makes me worried no changes are coming...

[baycommuter]

If you think you're going to get fired, you should work extra hard to show everyone (including your recruits) they're making a mistake.

Looks like all the coaches are out recruiting per social media. No one fired yet. Makes me worried no changes are coming...

[baycommuter]

If you think you're going to get fired, you should work extra hard to show everyone (including your recruits) they're making a mistake.

Looks like all the coaches are out recruiting per social media. No one fired yet. Makes me worried no changes are coming...

[martyup]

I was just watching CGD and they had Kirby Smart and Nick Saban at the desk.  Smart was asked what he liked about working for Saban.  His response was that Saban is consistent and holds everyone in the organization accountable for their job.  It seems like that is exactly what Shaw is lacking.

[martyup]

I was just watching CGD and they had Kirby Smart and Nick Saban at the desk.  Smart was asked what he liked about working for Saban.  His response was that Saban is consistent and holds everyone in the organization accountable for their job.  It seems like that is exactly what Shaw is lacking.

[GK3]

I was just watching CGD and they had Kirby Smart and Nick Saban at the desk.  Smart was asked what he liked about working for Saban.  His response was that Saban is consistent and holds everyone in the organization accountable for their job.  It seems like that is exactly what Shaw is lacking.

For this problem to be fixed I think we need an administration who cares enough about the results to make a change and I don't think that we do.  If we did, the AD would have left when the Sailing fiasco came out.
If a change is made do you want the current AD making the decision as to the replacement?
What are the chances that we would offer a new coach anywhere near what Shaw is making?
I believe his salary is partially endowed, not fully endowed.
How many times have we hired the right guy when we have replaced the head football coach?  Not often, more like rarely. 
How important are ticket and ancillary revenues to the Athletic Department budget?  

Shaw has had 2 losing seasons out of 11.  My guess is that he will get a lot more rope before they make a change.  We don't want to look too much like a football factory school.

I do not see any articles saying that the AD has met with Shaw and discussed the state of the program.  Nothing but silence.  

I vote Nothing will Happen.

[GK3]

I was just watching CGD and they had Kirby Smart and Nick Saban at the desk.  Smart was asked what he liked about working for Saban.  His response was that Saban is consistent and holds everyone in the organization accountable for their job.  It seems like that is exactly what Shaw is lacking.

For this problem to be fixed I think we need an administration who cares enough about the results to make a change and I don't think that we do.  If we did, the AD would have left when the Sailing fiasco came out.
If a change is made do you want the current AD making the decision as to the replacement?
What are the chances that we would offer a new coach anywhere near what Shaw is making?
I believe his salary is partially endowed, not fully endowed.
How many times have we hired the right guy when we have replaced the head football coach?  Not often, more like rarely. 
How important are ticket and ancillary revenues to the Athletic Department budget?  

Shaw has had 2 losing seasons out of 11.  My guess is that he will get a lot more rope before they make a change.  We don't want to look too much like a football factory school.

I do not see any articles saying that the AD has met with Shaw and discussed the state of the program.  Nothing but silence.  

I vote Nothing will Happen.

[PVTree]

The LSU S&C coach is available if we happen to be looking to hire at that position. Seems to be highly-regarded.

https://www.on3.com/college/lsu-tigers/n...ob-hebert/

[PVTree]

The LSU S&C coach is available if we happen to be looking to hire at that position. Seems to be highly-regarded.

https://www.on3.com/college/lsu-tigers/n...ob-hebert/

[SamuelMcF]

I would imagine we'd want to sign recruits on Early Signing Day BEFORE canning their position coaches and risking losing them.

[SamuelMcF]

I would imagine we'd want to sign recruits on Early Signing Day BEFORE canning their position coaches and risking losing them.

[gailtate]

It’s interesting many of our coaches are out recruiting

Of course they are. I mean, what else would they be doing? ;)

Sending out their resumes?

LOL! My point, exactly.

[gailtate]

It’s interesting many of our coaches are out recruiting

Of course they are. I mean, what else would they be doing? ;)

Sending out their resumes?

LOL! My point, exactly.

[fullmetal]

Option G:  Fire myself and let Stanford hire a new AD who knows how to hire coaches for NCAA football and basketball.  

I think as it's listed it's a false choice that creates angst with the constrained choices, but Option G (Hire a new AD) is the closest to my response.

But, to answer the question, if I were AD (or, if I was telling the President & Board what I'd want the AD to do):

I'd make it clear Stanford Football needs a new plan, and that the old ways -- and old compensation contracts -- need to change. And the new plan means to stop promoting from within, and that the compensation scheme needs to be adjusted. Stanford should NOT be among the top schools in the nation for paying a head coach -- but they SHOULD be the most aggressive school in the country to hire the right assistant coaches, starting with the Strength and Conditioning Coach. Would it surprise anyone that the colleges paying the most to get the best S&C coaches include Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma State, and one of the top-paid S&C coaches in the Pac-12 is at Utah?

I'm not opposed to hiring from within -- it has its place and its benefits -- but the problem is that Stanford clearly isn't getting the right people. I also think it's not just about scheme, but it's about people who can connect with young people. Maybe Shannon Turley's secret wasn't just the regimen that he put people on -- and maybe his replacement Carroll knows exactly what Shannon did on paper, but he doesn't do it the way Shannon did it. And anyone who's seen Randy Hart with his players knows it was both what he taught and HOW he taught it. Maybe Carroll, Pritchard, and Reynolds are all exceptionally knowledgeable and would be successful in the NFL, but they were all promoted and had never held their current positions in college before. (Actually, I get the feeling that some day in the future, after Pritchard has the opportunity to learn more about the running game and other aspects, he may some day be The One in the NFL).

And then I'd sit down with Shaw and go over the new plan, and discuss whether Shaw was the right person to do this at Stanford.

No football coach has won more games at Stanford, and Shaw has delivered multiple Rose Bowl victories. Unlike people like Muir (and ack! Willie Taggart), Shaw has shown he can succeed at the highest levels. And who knows -- maybe Shaw has been kicking and screaming for these changes for years but has been constrained by Muir.

But if I were AD, there would be a new plan for Stanford moving forward. It's not about how many years Stanford should hire Shaw -- that isn't the first or only action. The first action is to say there needs to be a new plan, and then you'd go figure out who the right person is to deliver that plan.

Good post, except for highlighted portion.  Do you really think there is even a scintilla of a chance of that being the case?  C'mon now . . .

To be fair afaik, Turley was fired from above Shaw's pay grade, likely over Shaw's protests.

[fullmetal]

Option G:  Fire myself and let Stanford hire a new AD who knows how to hire coaches for NCAA football and basketball.  

I think as it's listed it's a false choice that creates angst with the constrained choices, but Option G (Hire a new AD) is the closest to my response.

But, to answer the question, if I were AD (or, if I was telling the President & Board what I'd want the AD to do):

I'd make it clear Stanford Football needs a new plan, and that the old ways -- and old compensation contracts -- need to change. And the new plan means to stop promoting from within, and that the compensation scheme needs to be adjusted. Stanford should NOT be among the top schools in the nation for paying a head coach -- but they SHOULD be the most aggressive school in the country to hire the right assistant coaches, starting with the Strength and Conditioning Coach. Would it surprise anyone that the colleges paying the most to get the best S&C coaches include Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma State, and one of the top-paid S&C coaches in the Pac-12 is at Utah?

I'm not opposed to hiring from within -- it has its place and its benefits -- but the problem is that Stanford clearly isn't getting the right people. I also think it's not just about scheme, but it's about people who can connect with young people. Maybe Shannon Turley's secret wasn't just the regimen that he put people on -- and maybe his replacement Carroll knows exactly what Shannon did on paper, but he doesn't do it the way Shannon did it. And anyone who's seen Randy Hart with his players knows it was both what he taught and HOW he taught it. Maybe Carroll, Pritchard, and Reynolds are all exceptionally knowledgeable and would be successful in the NFL, but they were all promoted and had never held their current positions in college before. (Actually, I get the feeling that some day in the future, after Pritchard has the opportunity to learn more about the running game and other aspects, he may some day be The One in the NFL).

And then I'd sit down with Shaw and go over the new plan, and discuss whether Shaw was the right person to do this at Stanford.

No football coach has won more games at Stanford, and Shaw has delivered multiple Rose Bowl victories. Unlike people like Muir (and ack! Willie Taggart), Shaw has shown he can succeed at the highest levels. And who knows -- maybe Shaw has been kicking and screaming for these changes for years but has been constrained by Muir.

But if I were AD, there would be a new plan for Stanford moving forward. It's not about how many years Stanford should hire Shaw -- that isn't the first or only action. The first action is to say there needs to be a new plan, and then you'd go figure out who the right person is to deliver that plan.

Good post, except for highlighted portion.  Do you really think there is even a scintilla of a chance of that being the case?  C'mon now . . .

To be fair afaik, Turley was fired from above Shaw's pay grade, likely over Shaw's protests.

[teejers1]

Option G:  Fire myself and let Stanford hire a new AD who knows how to hire coaches for NCAA football and basketball.  

I think as it's listed it's a false choice that creates angst with the constrained choices, but Option G (Hire a new AD) is the closest to my response.

But, to answer the question, if I were AD (or, if I was telling the President & Board what I'd want the AD to do):

I'd make it clear Stanford Football needs a new plan, and that the old ways -- and old compensation contracts -- need to change. And the new plan means to stop promoting from within, and that the compensation scheme needs to be adjusted. Stanford should NOT be among the top schools in the nation for paying a head coach -- but they SHOULD be the most aggressive school in the country to hire the right assistant coaches, starting with the Strength and Conditioning Coach. Would it surprise anyone that the colleges paying the most to get the best S&C coaches include Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma State, and one of the top-paid S&C coaches in the Pac-12 is at Utah?

I'm not opposed to hiring from within -- it has its place and its benefits -- but the problem is that Stanford clearly isn't getting the right people. I also think it's not just about scheme, but it's about people who can connect with young people. Maybe Shannon Turley's secret wasn't just the regimen that he put people on -- and maybe his replacement Carroll knows exactly what Shannon did on paper, but he doesn't do it the way Shannon did it. And anyone who's seen Randy Hart with his players knows it was both what he taught and HOW he taught it. Maybe Carroll, Pritchard, and Reynolds are all exceptionally knowledgeable and would be successful in the NFL, but they were all promoted and had never held their current positions in college before. (Actually, I get the feeling that some day in the future, after Pritchard has the opportunity to learn more about the running game and other aspects, he may some day be The One in the NFL).

And then I'd sit down with Shaw and go over the new plan, and discuss whether Shaw was the right person to do this at Stanford.

No football coach has won more games at Stanford, and Shaw has delivered multiple Rose Bowl victories. Unlike people like Muir (and ack! Willie Taggart), Shaw has shown he can succeed at the highest levels. And who knows -- maybe Shaw has been kicking and screaming for these changes for years but has been constrained by Muir.

But if I were AD, there would be a new plan for Stanford moving forward. It's not about how many years Stanford should hire Shaw -- that isn't the first or only action. The first action is to say there needs to be a new plan, and then you'd go figure out who the right person is to deliver that plan.

Good post, except for highlighted portion.  Do you really think there is even a scintilla of a chance of that being the case?  C'mon now . . .

To be fair afaik, Turley was fired from above Shaw's pay grade, likely over Shaw's protests.

What makes you say that last phrase?  I conclude just the opposite - Turley gone because he didn't have Shaw advocating to keep him.  Speculation?  Sure.  But no more so than yours.

[teejers1]

Option G:  Fire myself and let Stanford hire a new AD who knows how to hire coaches for NCAA football and basketball.  

I think as it's listed it's a false choice that creates angst with the constrained choices, but Option G (Hire a new AD) is the closest to my response.

But, to answer the question, if I were AD (or, if I was telling the President & Board what I'd want the AD to do):

I'd make it clear Stanford Football needs a new plan, and that the old ways -- and old compensation contracts -- need to change. And the new plan means to stop promoting from within, and that the compensation scheme needs to be adjusted. Stanford should NOT be among the top schools in the nation for paying a head coach -- but they SHOULD be the most aggressive school in the country to hire the right assistant coaches, starting with the Strength and Conditioning Coach. Would it surprise anyone that the colleges paying the most to get the best S&C coaches include Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma State, and one of the top-paid S&C coaches in the Pac-12 is at Utah?

I'm not opposed to hiring from within -- it has its place and its benefits -- but the problem is that Stanford clearly isn't getting the right people. I also think it's not just about scheme, but it's about people who can connect with young people. Maybe Shannon Turley's secret wasn't just the regimen that he put people on -- and maybe his replacement Carroll knows exactly what Shannon did on paper, but he doesn't do it the way Shannon did it. And anyone who's seen Randy Hart with his players knows it was both what he taught and HOW he taught it. Maybe Carroll, Pritchard, and Reynolds are all exceptionally knowledgeable and would be successful in the NFL, but they were all promoted and had never held their current positions in college before. (Actually, I get the feeling that some day in the future, after Pritchard has the opportunity to learn more about the running game and other aspects, he may some day be The One in the NFL).

And then I'd sit down with Shaw and go over the new plan, and discuss whether Shaw was the right person to do this at Stanford.

No football coach has won more games at Stanford, and Shaw has delivered multiple Rose Bowl victories. Unlike people like Muir (and ack! Willie Taggart), Shaw has shown he can succeed at the highest levels. And who knows -- maybe Shaw has been kicking and screaming for these changes for years but has been constrained by Muir.

But if I were AD, there would be a new plan for Stanford moving forward. It's not about how many years Stanford should hire Shaw -- that isn't the first or only action. The first action is to say there needs to be a new plan, and then you'd go figure out who the right person is to deliver that plan.

Good post, except for highlighted portion.  Do you really think there is even a scintilla of a chance of that being the case?  C'mon now . . .

To be fair afaik, Turley was fired from above Shaw's pay grade, likely over Shaw's protests.

What makes you say that last phrase?  I conclude just the opposite - Turley gone because he didn't have Shaw advocating to keep him.  Speculation?  Sure.  But no more so than yours.

[Papa John]

With the advent of spring football, this seems like a reasonable time to bump this poll from last fall. We had 85 votes total and, based on the fact the David Shaw is still head coach and has not made significant changes to his staff, 58--or a bit more than 2/3--of the poll's respondents would have fired CDS by now. The rest are willing to give him at least one more year to produce a winning team. (In the interest of transparency, I voted to give CDS two more years, because I don't think there's a snowball's chance that this fall's team wins more than five games.)

As far as I can tell, the only thing that really changed since last fall is that the HS recruiting class is signed, sealed and delivered, there are three early enrollees and we had many departures and one arrival via the transfer portal.

So my question to those who voted: would you change your vote?

[Papa John]

With the advent of spring football, this seems like a reasonable time to bump this poll from last fall. We had 85 votes total and, based on the fact the David Shaw is still head coach and has not made significant changes to his staff, 58--or a bit more than 2/3--of the poll's respondents would have fired CDS by now. The rest are willing to give him at least one more year to produce a winning team. (In the interest of transparency, I voted to give CDS two more years, because I don't think there's a snowball's chance that this fall's team wins more than five games.)

As far as I can tell, the only thing that really changed since last fall is that the HS recruiting class is signed, sealed and delivered, there are three early enrollees and we had many departures and one arrival via the transfer portal.

So my question to those who voted: would you change your vote?