[lex24]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

If he becomes a hot commodity he will look for a better job.  I don’t think the Stanford position, if it opens up is very attractive.  So, more likely, an assistant with promise or an HC reclamation project.

In my jaded world of viewing Stanford sports, I view such surrender comments as a backdoor defense of keeping Shaw around ("Why hire someone else?  If he's any good, he'll just leave.").  For the umpteenth time, Stanford as a stepping stone was the accepted model when the University refused to put head coaches on Form 990s.  That ship sailed a long time ago, per Shaw and the 2019 $9M whopper.

The same things that would make Stanford attractive to a winning football coach (good pay, good kids, less pain-in-the-ass alumni/boosters) make it attractive to a winning hoops coach.  Monty was evidently attracted to Stanford - and that was before the Era of Big Pay.  Heck, I'd argue you'd have a better chance of retaining a good hoops coach than a good football coach because you can fill Maples with 7K fans, and it takes 35-40K to make the football stadium seem reasonably filled [every coach likes support].  Bottom line:  I still don't buy the "anyone good will move on to greener pastures."

BTW, I'm also curious as to fans' conclusion that Haase must go; but Shaw must not.  The latter is presiding over a dumpster fire right now; the former just a nondescript program.  The only legit rationale for giving Shaw more leash is that he "has won big previously."  Of course, that assumes that his prior Winning Big was all attributable to him, as opposed to Harbaugh Residual.  The more I see of Shaw at sea level, the more I think the Harbaugh wave made Shaw's success.

Good job, Teejers. You got Shaw into a basketball coach discussion.  Impressive!

[lex24]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

If he becomes a hot commodity he will look for a better job.  I don’t think the Stanford position, if it opens up is very attractive.  So, more likely, an assistant with promise or an HC reclamation project.

In my jaded world of viewing Stanford sports, I view such surrender comments as a backdoor defense of keeping Shaw around ("Why hire someone else?  If he's any good, he'll just leave.").  For the umpteenth time, Stanford as a stepping stone was the accepted model when the University refused to put head coaches on Form 990s.  That ship sailed a long time ago, per Shaw and the 2019 $9M whopper.

The same things that would make Stanford attractive to a winning football coach (good pay, good kids, less pain-in-the-ass alumni/boosters) make it attractive to a winning hoops coach.  Monty was evidently attracted to Stanford - and that was before the Era of Big Pay.  Heck, I'd argue you'd have a better chance of retaining a good hoops coach than a good football coach because you can fill Maples with 7K fans, and it takes 35-40K to make the football stadium seem reasonably filled [every coach likes support].  Bottom line:  I still don't buy the "anyone good will move on to greener pastures."

BTW, I'm also curious as to fans' conclusion that Haase must go; but Shaw must not.  The latter is presiding over a dumpster fire right now; the former just a nondescript program.  The only legit rationale for giving Shaw more leash is that he "has won big previously."  Of course, that assumes that his prior Winning Big was all attributable to him, as opposed to Harbaugh Residual.  The more I see of Shaw at sea level, the more I think the Harbaugh wave made Shaw's success.

Good job, Teejers. You got Shaw into a basketball coach discussion.  Impressive!

[BostonCard]

AYFKM Teejers?

David Shaw: 92-38, conference record 64-31, post-season record 5-3; PAC-12 titles: 3
Jerod Haase: 95-83, conference record 50-54, post-season record 1-1 (a single NIT bid); PAC-12 titles: 0.  Best finish: 3rd in conference

Even if you truncate Shaw’s record to 2016, when Haase started, Shaw has a 22-20 conference record, which is, at least, a winning record.  Haase has a losing conference record and has had exactly one winning conference seqson in his entire tenure at Stanford (we might limp to a second winning conference record this year); Shaw has done it all but two years in his tenure, including 4 times in the last six years. 

Even if you adopt a what have you done for me lately attitude, the last time Shaw went to a Bowl game was in 2018.  The last time Haase went to the NCAA tournament, he was coaching for UAB and Shaw was taking us to the Rose Bowl.

You have to have a very selective three year horizon to look at Haase’s record versus Shaw’s and conclude that they are remotely in the same ballpark.  You can put them in the same league when Haase takes us to the postseason 8 out of the next 11 years.

BC

---

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, that would both surprise the ever-loving s*** out of me and certainly buy him a lot more time. I just have zero faith that happens.

The other question is whether he wins the P12 north and the other 2 seasons are still crap...what then? I don't know if we've really seen examples of teams doing that, though.

Didn't Willingham do something like that, in the Pac 10.  Went to the Rose Bowl after 2 losing seasons.

Rose Bowl in the 2020 season followed 5-6 and 3-8 seasons and an Epic loss to Texas.  The year after the Rose Bowl was also a losing season (5-6), and a Seattle Bowl season the following year was enough to get him the Notre Dame job.

BC

[BostonCard]

AYFKM Teejers?

David Shaw: 92-38, conference record 64-31, post-season record 5-3; PAC-12 titles: 3
Jerod Haase: 95-83, conference record 50-54, post-season record 1-1 (a single NIT bid); PAC-12 titles: 0.  Best finish: 3rd in conference

Even if you truncate Shaw’s record to 2016, when Haase started, Shaw has a 22-20 conference record, which is, at least, a winning record.  Haase has a losing conference record and has had exactly one winning conference seqson in his entire tenure at Stanford (we might limp to a second winning conference record this year); Shaw has done it all but two years in his tenure, including 4 times in the last six years. 

Even if you adopt a what have you done for me lately attitude, the last time Shaw went to a Bowl game was in 2018.  The last time Haase went to the NCAA tournament, he was coaching for UAB and Shaw was taking us to the Rose Bowl.

You have to have a very selective three year horizon to look at Haase’s record versus Shaw’s and conclude that they are remotely in the same ballpark.  You can put them in the same league when Haase takes us to the postseason 8 out of the next 11 years.

BC

---

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, that would both surprise the ever-loving s*** out of me and certainly buy him a lot more time. I just have zero faith that happens.

The other question is whether he wins the P12 north and the other 2 seasons are still crap...what then? I don't know if we've really seen examples of teams doing that, though.

Didn't Willingham do something like that, in the Pac 10.  Went to the Rose Bowl after 2 losing seasons.

Rose Bowl in the 2020 season followed 5-6 and 3-8 seasons and an Epic loss to Texas.  The year after the Rose Bowl was also a losing season (5-6), and a Seattle Bowl season the following year was enough to get him the Notre Dame job.

BC

[BillBradley]

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S.  What about Martelli?  He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now.  (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

Wow, man, coming in hot for a guy who said on the recent MBB game thread that switching defenses have obviated the need to set screens. I didn't want to pile on then, but talk about brainless. Apparently no good teams set screens anymore. Oh wait.... By the way, Keefe running in and aimlessly setting a pick at the elbow at the beginning of a possession isn't what anyone is talking about. He doesn't know what else to do and 95% of the time it leads to nothing.

I'm not sure I can help you if you can't think of any boxes that Jarron ticks other than alum. But how about: young, black, former long-time NBA player, long-time and successful NBA assistant coach, former big man who has coached big men (you may have noticed we tend to have big teams), former coach of an NBA franchise renowned for both its ball-movement and defense (both of which are in short supply now, even defense these days despite Haase's reputation). Most of those are of immense proportions pluses for recruiting, and the latter for x's and o's. Every star recruit thinks he's going to play in the NBA, and here we have an alum who played 11 years in the league and has coached 8+ years in it, and he shines the path to a recruit on playing at Stanford before taking it to the next level. I've acknowledged from the outset that he has no head coaching experience, but given where we are it's a "risk" I think is worth taking, particularly when we know that prior head coaching success doesn't guarantee anything.

So, he's young and he's black and he played in the NBA and he was affiliated with the Ws.  Those will make him a good recruiter, according to you, which will ultimately lead to Ws.

To that I say "maybe."  Haase is none of those (though I don't recall if he had a cup of coffee in the NBA or not), and is a pretty good recruiter.  Recruiting is about hard work and hustle and showing the love, etc.  And even with good recruiting, you need good game coaching.

But nothing in Collins's history suggests he can be successful head coach in college.  (And was he successful as a bench coach with the Ws?  Could be, but I don't know.).  If Collins is interested in head coaching at the college level, then let him start at non-P5 level - I mean, he checks all the boxes so should be a no-brainer for anyone looking for a coach, right?  If he has success, then try to lure him to Stanford.

Stanford is still a pretty sweet gig, and it should aim for proven head coaches, imo.

Also, my preference is for a strong Xs and Os guy because Stanford draws its own kind of kids, in no small part.  That's  true across the board, imo (which is a big reason why I think Stanford can do better than Shaw).  It may be less true in hoops than other sports, but there is still an institutional draw there.

Our back-and-forth has reached its sell-by date. Any new coach is a risk. I like Jarron's risk profile, you prefer a "proven" coach like Haase was. Fine. By the way, the idea that Haase had a "cup of coffee" in the NBA is laughable. He was a "hustle" guy at Cal and Kansas who had zero NBA potential and of course didn't get a look, nor should he have. I mention this in part because I have a theory, which is probably not all that far-fetched, that Haase and his near-fetishization of "floor burns" is partly responsible for his incomprehensible substitution patterns and his problems with certain players. As crazy as it sounds, I think the guy somehow manages to overvalue "hustle" over, hmm, actual basketball talent. I had to laugh at the Colorado game when Haase practically had an orgasm on the sideline when Delaire and another Stanford player (forgetting who) dove to the floor at the same time despite Delaire getting called for a foul on the play (diving into a Colorado player). It was the most animated I had ever seen him. I like "hustle" as much as the next guy, and process over results and all that, but it just seemed sadly emblematic of Haase as a coach.

I totally agree w/that observation about Haase. It also might explain why he puts Beskind in the game.

[BillBradley]

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S.  What about Martelli?  He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now.  (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

Wow, man, coming in hot for a guy who said on the recent MBB game thread that switching defenses have obviated the need to set screens. I didn't want to pile on then, but talk about brainless. Apparently no good teams set screens anymore. Oh wait.... By the way, Keefe running in and aimlessly setting a pick at the elbow at the beginning of a possession isn't what anyone is talking about. He doesn't know what else to do and 95% of the time it leads to nothing.

I'm not sure I can help you if you can't think of any boxes that Jarron ticks other than alum. But how about: young, black, former long-time NBA player, long-time and successful NBA assistant coach, former big man who has coached big men (you may have noticed we tend to have big teams), former coach of an NBA franchise renowned for both its ball-movement and defense (both of which are in short supply now, even defense these days despite Haase's reputation). Most of those are of immense proportions pluses for recruiting, and the latter for x's and o's. Every star recruit thinks he's going to play in the NBA, and here we have an alum who played 11 years in the league and has coached 8+ years in it, and he shines the path to a recruit on playing at Stanford before taking it to the next level. I've acknowledged from the outset that he has no head coaching experience, but given where we are it's a "risk" I think is worth taking, particularly when we know that prior head coaching success doesn't guarantee anything.

So, he's young and he's black and he played in the NBA and he was affiliated with the Ws.  Those will make him a good recruiter, according to you, which will ultimately lead to Ws.

To that I say "maybe."  Haase is none of those (though I don't recall if he had a cup of coffee in the NBA or not), and is a pretty good recruiter.  Recruiting is about hard work and hustle and showing the love, etc.  And even with good recruiting, you need good game coaching.

But nothing in Collins's history suggests he can be successful head coach in college.  (And was he successful as a bench coach with the Ws?  Could be, but I don't know.).  If Collins is interested in head coaching at the college level, then let him start at non-P5 level - I mean, he checks all the boxes so should be a no-brainer for anyone looking for a coach, right?  If he has success, then try to lure him to Stanford.

Stanford is still a pretty sweet gig, and it should aim for proven head coaches, imo.

Also, my preference is for a strong Xs and Os guy because Stanford draws its own kind of kids, in no small part.  That's  true across the board, imo (which is a big reason why I think Stanford can do better than Shaw).  It may be less true in hoops than other sports, but there is still an institutional draw there.

Our back-and-forth has reached its sell-by date. Any new coach is a risk. I like Jarron's risk profile, you prefer a "proven" coach like Haase was. Fine. By the way, the idea that Haase had a "cup of coffee" in the NBA is laughable. He was a "hustle" guy at Cal and Kansas who had zero NBA potential and of course didn't get a look, nor should he have. I mention this in part because I have a theory, which is probably not all that far-fetched, that Haase and his near-fetishization of "floor burns" is partly responsible for his incomprehensible substitution patterns and his problems with certain players. As crazy as it sounds, I think the guy somehow manages to overvalue "hustle" over, hmm, actual basketball talent. I had to laugh at the Colorado game when Haase practically had an orgasm on the sideline when Delaire and another Stanford player (forgetting who) dove to the floor at the same time despite Delaire getting called for a foul on the play (diving into a Colorado player). It was the most animated I had ever seen him. I like "hustle" as much as the next guy, and process over results and all that, but it just seemed sadly emblematic of Haase as a coach.

I totally agree w/that observation about Haase. It also might explain why he puts Beskind in the game.

[winflop]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

7+ wins every season and a division title in the next 3

[winflop]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

7+ wins every season and a division title in the next 3

[SamuelMcF]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

7+ wins every season and a division title in the next 3

I actually completely agree with this and have zero faith it happens.

[SamuelMcF]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

7+ wins every season and a division title in the next 3

I actually completely agree with this and have zero faith it happens.

[gailtate]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

7+ wins every season and a division title in the next 3

I actually completely agree with this and have zero faith it happens.

In next three years, Stanford football under Shaw wins a total of 5-7 games. After this, he's gone. You read it here first.

[gailtate]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

7+ wins every season and a division title in the next 3

I actually completely agree with this and have zero faith it happens.

In next three years, Stanford football under Shaw wins a total of 5-7 games. After this, he's gone. You read it here first.

[Phogge]

If they win only 5-7 total in three years then give all the equipment to a deserving high school, stop spending money and turn over the stadium grounds to the Army because by then the draft will be back.

[Phogge]

If they win only 5-7 total in three years then give all the equipment to a deserving high school, stop spending money and turn over the stadium grounds to the Army because by then the draft will be back.

[Brickcity]

If they win only 5-7 total in three years then give all the equipment to a deserving high school, stop spending money and turn over the stadium grounds to the Army because by then the draft will be back.

OR, find a competent head football coaching candidate and try to hire him.

[Brickcity]

If they win only 5-7 total in three years then give all the equipment to a deserving high school, stop spending money and turn over the stadium grounds to the Army because by then the draft will be back.

OR, find a competent head football coaching candidate and try to hire him.

[Phogge]

The Dons fought hard in the first half but Gonzaga was at their best all night. 16 points. USF needs a very good conference tourney.

Lex has Golden going elsewhere and Garappolo traded. He's probably correct on both counts. With Corniche out of the Derby who do you like Lex?

[Phogge]

The Dons fought hard in the first half but Gonzaga was at their best all night. 16 points. USF needs a very good conference tourney.

Lex has Golden going elsewhere and Garappolo traded. He's probably correct on both counts. With Corniche out of the Derby who do you like Lex?

[teejers1]

AYFKM Teejers?

David Shaw: 92-38, conference record 64-31, post-season record 5-3; PAC-12 titles: 3
Jerod Haase: 95-83, conference record 50-54, post-season record 1-1 (a single NIT bid); PAC-12 titles: 0.  Best finish: 3rd in conference

Even if you truncate Shaw’s record to 2016, when Haase started, Shaw has a 22-20 conference record, which is, at least, a winning record.  Haase has a losing conference record and has had exactly one winning conference seqson in his entire tenure at Stanford (we might limp to a second winning conference record this year); Shaw has done it all but two years in his tenure, including 4 times in the last six years. 

No, not kidding.

Which program do you think is in better shape right now, and looking forward for the next 2-3 years?

And if you think Stanford's 2019 season (Covid 4-2 year) was a good year for Stanford football, or the sign of a program in good shape, well, I wonder if you actually watched the games that year.  Stanford was a bad football team that year that was fortunate to go 4-2 against bad opponents.  Sagarin ratings confirm this (and they don't have an anti-Shaw bias . . . or does it?).

The reality is that Stanford is on a 3-year slide to oblivion under Coach Shaw.  The end of last season WAS AS BAD AS ANYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN at Stanford.  [No need to rehash arguments on why I think fully crediting Shaw for Stanford's record from 2011-2015 is a fool's errand].

Will things get better next year?  We'll see.  I think only grounds for optimism are an O with a lot of returning talent (and hopefully an OL with more old man strength that can make things happen).  On D?  Yikes . . .

[teejers1]

AYFKM Teejers?

David Shaw: 92-38, conference record 64-31, post-season record 5-3; PAC-12 titles: 3
Jerod Haase: 95-83, conference record 50-54, post-season record 1-1 (a single NIT bid); PAC-12 titles: 0.  Best finish: 3rd in conference

Even if you truncate Shaw’s record to 2016, when Haase started, Shaw has a 22-20 conference record, which is, at least, a winning record.  Haase has a losing conference record and has had exactly one winning conference seqson in his entire tenure at Stanford (we might limp to a second winning conference record this year); Shaw has done it all but two years in his tenure, including 4 times in the last six years. 

No, not kidding.

Which program do you think is in better shape right now, and looking forward for the next 2-3 years?

And if you think Stanford's 2019 season (Covid 4-2 year) was a good year for Stanford football, or the sign of a program in good shape, well, I wonder if you actually watched the games that year.  Stanford was a bad football team that year that was fortunate to go 4-2 against bad opponents.  Sagarin ratings confirm this (and they don't have an anti-Shaw bias . . . or does it?).

The reality is that Stanford is on a 3-year slide to oblivion under Coach Shaw.  The end of last season WAS AS BAD AS ANYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN at Stanford.  [No need to rehash arguments on why I think fully crediting Shaw for Stanford's record from 2011-2015 is a fool's errand].

Will things get better next year?  We'll see.  I think only grounds for optimism are an O with a lot of returning talent (and hopefully an OL with more old man strength that can make things happen).  On D?  Yikes . . .

[SamuelMcF]

If they win only 5-7 total in three years then give all the equipment to a deserving high school, stop spending money and turn over the stadium grounds to the Army because by then the draft will be back.

OR, find a competent head football coaching candidate and try to hire him.

You've got $9M a year apparently, but let's really call it 7 because apparently 2 were "deferred salary and bonus" or something.

Pay $4.5M for a promising/competent candidate.

Give him the other $2.5M to allocate elsewhere: 
- We need to attract good assistants with higher salaries. Add 400K for the OC and DC, and another 800K for the other 8 assistants (1.6M total)
- Allocate another 500K for a few analysts (Saban has an army of 10 in a given year)
- Allocate 300K to raise pay across the board to attract and keep good S&C assistants and athletic trainers
- Allocate the last 100K to hire another recruiting assistant, specializing in grad transfers (mine the transfer portal for academically-qualified candidates, know each grad program's deadlines, get applications to those interested, and facilitate discussions between grad program admissions and football). Just 1-2 grad transfers a year at positions of need can make a big difference.

I obviously have no idea how much we pay ours, but for reference on top assistants:
- Brent Venables was making $2.5M as Clemson DC, which, to be fair, was absolutely ridiculous and $400K more than the next-highest coordinator (ALSO at Clemson).
- Derek Mason was making $1.5M as Auburn DC, making him the 10th-highest-paid coordinator.
- Pete Kwiatkowski was making $900K-$1M as UW DC, and will be making $1.7M at Texas.
- Oklahoma ILB coach Brian Odom was making $435K.
- Former Stanford-turned-ND RB coach Lance Taylor was making ~$500K. He has since left to become the OC at Louisville. Congrats!

Of course literally none of this will happen, but it was fun to do the exercise!

[SamuelMcF]

If they win only 5-7 total in three years then give all the equipment to a deserving high school, stop spending money and turn over the stadium grounds to the Army because by then the draft will be back.

OR, find a competent head football coaching candidate and try to hire him.

You've got $9M a year apparently, but let's really call it 7 because apparently 2 were "deferred salary and bonus" or something.

Pay $4.5M for a promising/competent candidate.

Give him the other $2.5M to allocate elsewhere: 
- We need to attract good assistants with higher salaries. Add 400K for the OC and DC, and another 800K for the other 8 assistants (1.6M total)
- Allocate another 500K for a few analysts (Saban has an army of 10 in a given year)
- Allocate 300K to raise pay across the board to attract and keep good S&C assistants and athletic trainers
- Allocate the last 100K to hire another recruiting assistant, specializing in grad transfers (mine the transfer portal for academically-qualified candidates, know each grad program's deadlines, get applications to those interested, and facilitate discussions between grad program admissions and football). Just 1-2 grad transfers a year at positions of need can make a big difference.

I obviously have no idea how much we pay ours, but for reference on top assistants:
- Brent Venables was making $2.5M as Clemson DC, which, to be fair, was absolutely ridiculous and $400K more than the next-highest coordinator (ALSO at Clemson).
- Derek Mason was making $1.5M as Auburn DC, making him the 10th-highest-paid coordinator.
- Pete Kwiatkowski was making $900K-$1M as UW DC, and will be making $1.7M at Texas.
- Oklahoma ILB coach Brian Odom was making $435K.
- Former Stanford-turned-ND RB coach Lance Taylor was making ~$500K. He has since left to become the OC at Louisville. Congrats!

Of course literally none of this will happen, but it was fun to do the exercise!

[82lsju]

To that I say "maybe."  Haase is none of those (though I don't recall if he had a cup of coffee in the NBA or not), and is a pretty good recruiter.  Recruiting is about hard work and hustle and showing the love, etc.  And even with good recruiting, you need good game coaching.

not the NBA but he did play for two months in Macedonia

Sighting differences with his coach as the primary reason, the 1992 South Tahoe High graduate has returned home from his first stint in professional basketball. After about two months of work with Zito Bardar, a European league team based in Veles, Macedonia, Haase is back in South Lake Tahoe. And his future is uncertain

https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/sports...omes-home/

[82lsju]

To that I say "maybe."  Haase is none of those (though I don't recall if he had a cup of coffee in the NBA or not), and is a pretty good recruiter.  Recruiting is about hard work and hustle and showing the love, etc.  And even with good recruiting, you need good game coaching.

not the NBA but he did play for two months in Macedonia

Sighting differences with his coach as the primary reason, the 1992 South Tahoe High graduate has returned home from his first stint in professional basketball. After about two months of work with Zito Bardar, a European league team based in Veles, Macedonia, Haase is back in South Lake Tahoe. And his future is uncertain

https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/sports...omes-home/

[BostonCard]

Haase has made Johnny Dawkins look good.

Dawkins in 8 miserable seasons went to the NCAA tournament once, where he made it to the sweet sixteen, and took the team to the NIT three times, winning it twice.

Haase in his sixth season has never been to the NCAA tournament (and we won’t go this year barring a miracle pac-12 championship win) and got to the NIT once.  I suppose if we finish strong we have a chance of going again this year, but man, his record looks bad against even Dawkins’.

Teejers, you ask me who I think has a better chance going forward, and I will pick the coach who has at least demonstrated an ability to win at Stanford.  Haase just hasn’t, and it has been six years now.  What indication do we have that this year is any different from the previous five, or that next year will be different from his first six at Stanford? The guy can recruit the occasional whale, and that’s about it.  Shaw at least has shown he can win, and I would much rather bet on the guy who has shown himself capable than on the guy who has a single NIT to show for his entire Stanford career.

BC

[BostonCard]

Haase has made Johnny Dawkins look good.

Dawkins in 8 miserable seasons went to the NCAA tournament once, where he made it to the sweet sixteen, and took the team to the NIT three times, winning it twice.

Haase in his sixth season has never been to the NCAA tournament (and we won’t go this year barring a miracle pac-12 championship win) and got to the NIT once.  I suppose if we finish strong we have a chance of going again this year, but man, his record looks bad against even Dawkins’.

Teejers, you ask me who I think has a better chance going forward, and I will pick the coach who has at least demonstrated an ability to win at Stanford.  Haase just hasn’t, and it has been six years now.  What indication do we have that this year is any different from the previous five, or that next year will be different from his first six at Stanford? The guy can recruit the occasional whale, and that’s about it.  Shaw at least has shown he can win, and I would much rather bet on the guy who has shown himself capable than on the guy who has a single NIT to show for his entire Stanford career.

BC

[BostonCard]

Prior to Shaw, the last coach to win 7+ games and a conference title at least once was John Ralston, before I was born.  The last time we’ve finished over .500 three consecutive years before Shaw was 1976-1978 (Jack Christensen’s last year and Walsh I’s two years).

BC

[BostonCard]

Prior to Shaw, the last coach to win 7+ games and a conference title at least once was John Ralston, before I was born.  The last time we’ve finished over .500 three consecutive years before Shaw was 1976-1978 (Jack Christensen’s last year and Walsh I’s two years).

BC

[PVTree]

Stanford was voted to finish ninth in the preseason. Once ASU passes us, that's where we will end up. Muir will see it as the basketball team playing up to expectations. So, nothing to see here and move on to next season.

[PVTree]

Stanford was voted to finish ninth in the preseason. Once ASU passes us, that's where we will end up. Muir will see it as the basketball team playing up to expectations. So, nothing to see here and move on to next season.

[SamuelMcF]

Haase has made Johnny Dawkins look good.

Dawkins in 8 miserable seasons went to the NCAA tournament once, where he made it to the sweet sixteen, and took the team to the NIT three times, winning it twice.

Haase in his sixth season has never been to the NCAA tournament (and we won’t go this year barring a miracle pac-12 championship win) and got to the NIT once.  I suppose if we finish strong we have a chance of going again this year, but man, his record looks bad against even Dawkins’.

Teejers, you ask me who I think has a better chance going forward, and I will pick the coach who has at least demonstrated an ability to win at Stanford.  Haase just hasn’t, and it has been six years now.  What indication do we have that this year is any different from the previous five, or that next year will be different from his first six at Stanford? The guy can recruit the occasional whale, and that’s about it.  Shaw at least has shown he can win, and I would much rather bet on the guy who has shown himself capable than on the guy who has a single NIT to show for his entire Stanford career.

Dawkins didn't have a landscape full of mercenaries who didn't have to sit a year to compete against.

Is "neither coach" an acceptable answer to the question?

[SamuelMcF]

Haase has made Johnny Dawkins look good.

Dawkins in 8 miserable seasons went to the NCAA tournament once, where he made it to the sweet sixteen, and took the team to the NIT three times, winning it twice.

Haase in his sixth season has never been to the NCAA tournament (and we won’t go this year barring a miracle pac-12 championship win) and got to the NIT once.  I suppose if we finish strong we have a chance of going again this year, but man, his record looks bad against even Dawkins’.

Teejers, you ask me who I think has a better chance going forward, and I will pick the coach who has at least demonstrated an ability to win at Stanford.  Haase just hasn’t, and it has been six years now.  What indication do we have that this year is any different from the previous five, or that next year will be different from his first six at Stanford? The guy can recruit the occasional whale, and that’s about it.  Shaw at least has shown he can win, and I would much rather bet on the guy who has shown himself capable than on the guy who has a single NIT to show for his entire Stanford career.

Dawkins didn't have a landscape full of mercenaries who didn't have to sit a year to compete against.

Is "neither coach" an acceptable answer to the question?

[BostonCard]

Dawkins also coached in a more competitive PAC-12.

BC

[BostonCard]

Dawkins also coached in a more competitive PAC-12.

BC

[teejers1]

Haase has made Johnny Dawkins look good.

Dawkins in 8 miserable seasons went to the NCAA tournament once, where he made it to the sweet sixteen, and took the team to the NIT three times, winning it twice.

Haase in his sixth season has never been to the NCAA tournament (and we won’t go this year barring a miracle pac-12 championship win) and got to the NIT once.  I suppose if we finish strong we have a chance of going again this year, but man, his record looks bad against even Dawkins’.

Teejers, you ask me who I think has a better chance going forward, and I will pick the coach who has at least demonstrated an ability to win at Stanford.  Haase just hasn’t, and it has been six years now.  What indication do we have that this year is any different from the previous five, or that next year will be different from his first six at Stanford? The guy can recruit the occasional whale, and that’s about it.  Shaw at least has shown he can win, and I would much rather bet on the guy who has shown himself capable than on the guy who has a single NIT to show for his entire Stanford career.

BC

You blithely ignore that Shaw is the only coach in Stanford history to be handed a stacked roster, a Top 5 program, thus making even Football First studs (with sufficient academic chops) willing to sign the LOI.  Why wouldn't you go to Stanford - Top 5 program, best academics amongst teams playing D1 football, beautiful campus, weather, etc.?  That very unique and once-in-a-program-lifetime gift was handed to Shaw by Harbaugh.  Shaw managed to win with Harbaugh's players and continue the illusion that he was presiding over a Top 5 program for a couple years, which allowed him to reel in studs like McCaffrey and Love.   (Do you think either would sign with Stanford today)?  Good for him and us.  

So yeah, Shaw won at a high clip early with Harbaugh's players and the Harbaugh Effect.  And he has since squandered all of it.  We are just seeing Shaw at sea level.  And it isn't pretty.

You're right that Haase hasn't won enough to defend against making a change.  But it's also true that he has not tanked the program like Shaw has, nor has Haase dropped the program to the depths Shaw has.  The Dawkins to Haase decline is marginal, especially in comparison to Orange Bowl/Fiesta Bowl (which Shaw blew, btw) seasons to 2021.

Look, it's obvious Shaw is going nowhere; Haase may get another year, too.  We'll see how they do next season.  If I had to bet, then I'd say Haase does better than Shaw next year (but I wouldn't voluntarily bet on either of them to have a post-season that matters).

[teejers1]

Haase has made Johnny Dawkins look good.

Dawkins in 8 miserable seasons went to the NCAA tournament once, where he made it to the sweet sixteen, and took the team to the NIT three times, winning it twice.

Haase in his sixth season has never been to the NCAA tournament (and we won’t go this year barring a miracle pac-12 championship win) and got to the NIT once.  I suppose if we finish strong we have a chance of going again this year, but man, his record looks bad against even Dawkins’.

Teejers, you ask me who I think has a better chance going forward, and I will pick the coach who has at least demonstrated an ability to win at Stanford.  Haase just hasn’t, and it has been six years now.  What indication do we have that this year is any different from the previous five, or that next year will be different from his first six at Stanford? The guy can recruit the occasional whale, and that’s about it.  Shaw at least has shown he can win, and I would much rather bet on the guy who has shown himself capable than on the guy who has a single NIT to show for his entire Stanford career.

BC

You blithely ignore that Shaw is the only coach in Stanford history to be handed a stacked roster, a Top 5 program, thus making even Football First studs (with sufficient academic chops) willing to sign the LOI.  Why wouldn't you go to Stanford - Top 5 program, best academics amongst teams playing D1 football, beautiful campus, weather, etc.?  That very unique and once-in-a-program-lifetime gift was handed to Shaw by Harbaugh.  Shaw managed to win with Harbaugh's players and continue the illusion that he was presiding over a Top 5 program for a couple years, which allowed him to reel in studs like McCaffrey and Love.   (Do you think either would sign with Stanford today)?  Good for him and us.  

So yeah, Shaw won at a high clip early with Harbaugh's players and the Harbaugh Effect.  And he has since squandered all of it.  We are just seeing Shaw at sea level.  And it isn't pretty.

You're right that Haase hasn't won enough to defend against making a change.  But it's also true that he has not tanked the program like Shaw has, nor has Haase dropped the program to the depths Shaw has.  The Dawkins to Haase decline is marginal, especially in comparison to Orange Bowl/Fiesta Bowl (which Shaw blew, btw) seasons to 2021.

Look, it's obvious Shaw is going nowhere; Haase may get another year, too.  We'll see how they do next season.  If I had to bet, then I'd say Haase does better than Shaw next year (but I wouldn't voluntarily bet on either of them to have a post-season that matters).

[BostonCard]

A stacked roster in 2010 is irrelevant to going to the Rose Bowl in 2015, winning the PAC-12 north in 2017, and making it to a bowl game in 2018. I’m completely willing to ignore 2011-2014, even though the roster turned over significantly each year and that after Andrew Luck left in 2011 everyone was ready to write the team off, but give the man his due for what he accomplished thereafter.

Conversely, after six years, Haase can no longer blame the former coach.

BC

[BostonCard]

A stacked roster in 2010 is irrelevant to going to the Rose Bowl in 2015, winning the PAC-12 north in 2017, and making it to a bowl game in 2018. I’m completely willing to ignore 2011-2014, even though the roster turned over significantly each year and that after Andrew Luck left in 2011 everyone was ready to write the team off, but give the man his due for what he accomplished thereafter.

Conversely, after six years, Haase can no longer blame the former coach.

BC

[burger]

Good job, Teejers. You got Shaw into a basketball coach discussion.  Impressive!

It's the Cardboard Corollary to Godwin's Law: as a Cardboard thread grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving David Shaw approaches 1.

[burger]

Good job, Teejers. You got Shaw into a basketball coach discussion.  Impressive!

It's the Cardboard Corollary to Godwin's Law: as a Cardboard thread grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving David Shaw approaches 1.