09-07-2015, 07:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2015, 08:12 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Most of you know I follow Ca.l and Stanford very closely and root for both teams. I have hesitated to say this until now, but because so many Stanford fans are looking for answers - and because past history often allows us to foresee and hopefully learn from past mistakes - I'm going to say it. David Shaw is going down a very similar path as Jeff Tedford. And it really should be no surprise, because neither Ca.l or Stanford has historically demanded high performance from their football programs.
Though Shaw has achieved more than Tedford as a head coach (and hasn't yet had a losing season), and had a predecessor build the foundation of the Stanford program, relatively speaking, Shaw and Tedford delivered outsized results relative to the overall history of the two programs they were/are at. When Tedford made Ca.l a serious contender, he was lavished with praise, NFL head coaching jobs were offered, and he was rewarded with largesse for past performance, with no accountability to future performance. This made him comfortable, and as a result, Tedford slowly became soft. This eventually found its way to his team. As his team softened, he became more obsessed with the Xs and Os of the offense, convinced that if he could just get his team to execute these magical plays, all would be well. Then he got lazy with recruiting, and figured if he could bring better athletes to Ca.l that would solve his problems. Well, what happened was his offense became too complex while being at the same time predictable, because he just couldn't change who he was; he was more concerned about his comfort than winning because his employer didn't demand winning. So the losses mounted, too many guys flunked out and recruiting went in the sh*tter. Ca.l's administration didn't demand more performance or hold Tedford accountable to winning at the same level he had won, as a condition of his big contract extension. So in the end, Ca.l got what should have been expected, sliding results with no accountability for performance; a coach who was going to get paid millions whether he won or lost, even after being fired!
Shaw may not lower Stanford's standards of recruiting, in fact he seems to be raising them. However, the one thing I have heard people (including Hulk) say that they worry about with Shaw is the fact the players could be too comfortable and not tough enough, not physically, but mentally. This is because Shaw, like Tedford was, is too comfortable, IMO. He's got his dream job and isn't looking for a bigger one. He lives in Palo Alto. He went to four BCS games in his first four years as a Head Coach. He's got the NFL knocking on his door. He played for the school he coached at. Who is going to tell him he's got to maintain championship seasons or be fired? And does Stanford/Muir even demand this? As for the players, how can they have it better than being on the Stanford campus, set up with degrees to take care of them for life? Is losing a few games a year all that bad when you have all that going for you?Â
Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable because he wanted more, frankly a bigger job in the NFL. He was self-motivated to win and didn't need anyone demanding him to perform. Shaw has proven he can win, but he isn't looking for a bigger job. That means he must be held accountable for winning championships or his job will be more about his comfort than needing to win. That is just human nature. You really think Shaw would punt from the NU 37 if he knew he would be fired if he didn't get to the playoff this year? Or he knew his team's scoring average had to improve this year or he would take a pay cut? Everyone needs to be held accountable to performance either by their own selves or by others, or they won't perform. When you have everything you want, it's going to be tough to be that self-motivated to continue to maintain the highest possible performance level when there are no consequences for slipping results. Nobody is going to go out of their comfort zone to maintain performance in such conditions.
In any case, the common denominator with Tedford and Shaw was/is that they were/are too comfortable at institutions that don't historically demand winning championships. Tedford was motivated to be a top-paid head coach and performed until he became one. While nothing short of a championship was acceptable to Harbaugh, Stanford had that as a standard of performance in the program. Shaw wanted to prove he could be a top-flight coach and got results until he did. When good, highly self-motivated guys were present, Ca.l and Stanford won championships (Cal won a "co-Chapionship" in 2009). But the institutions have never demanded that performance themselves, so it doesn't naturally exist. Coaches can easily get comfortable in those environments, so the institutions must demand that performance from coaches who have proven themselves or they will not maintain it.
Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too. It seems safe to say Shaw doesn't want to win more than he wants to be comfortable. If this is the case, his employer has to make it clear to him he is expected to win at a certain level or suffer the consequences. Those four BCS bowls are nice, but Shaw has to know they don't mean squat in the context of how his performance is viewed in the future. If Stanford lets Shaw rest on those laurels, there really is no reason to expect the football team to be an annual championship contender.
Though Shaw has achieved more than Tedford as a head coach (and hasn't yet had a losing season), and had a predecessor build the foundation of the Stanford program, relatively speaking, Shaw and Tedford delivered outsized results relative to the overall history of the two programs they were/are at. When Tedford made Ca.l a serious contender, he was lavished with praise, NFL head coaching jobs were offered, and he was rewarded with largesse for past performance, with no accountability to future performance. This made him comfortable, and as a result, Tedford slowly became soft. This eventually found its way to his team. As his team softened, he became more obsessed with the Xs and Os of the offense, convinced that if he could just get his team to execute these magical plays, all would be well. Then he got lazy with recruiting, and figured if he could bring better athletes to Ca.l that would solve his problems. Well, what happened was his offense became too complex while being at the same time predictable, because he just couldn't change who he was; he was more concerned about his comfort than winning because his employer didn't demand winning. So the losses mounted, too many guys flunked out and recruiting went in the sh*tter. Ca.l's administration didn't demand more performance or hold Tedford accountable to winning at the same level he had won, as a condition of his big contract extension. So in the end, Ca.l got what should have been expected, sliding results with no accountability for performance; a coach who was going to get paid millions whether he won or lost, even after being fired!
Shaw may not lower Stanford's standards of recruiting, in fact he seems to be raising them. However, the one thing I have heard people (including Hulk) say that they worry about with Shaw is the fact the players could be too comfortable and not tough enough, not physically, but mentally. This is because Shaw, like Tedford was, is too comfortable, IMO. He's got his dream job and isn't looking for a bigger one. He lives in Palo Alto. He went to four BCS games in his first four years as a Head Coach. He's got the NFL knocking on his door. He played for the school he coached at. Who is going to tell him he's got to maintain championship seasons or be fired? And does Stanford/Muir even demand this? As for the players, how can they have it better than being on the Stanford campus, set up with degrees to take care of them for life? Is losing a few games a year all that bad when you have all that going for you?Â
Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable because he wanted more, frankly a bigger job in the NFL. He was self-motivated to win and didn't need anyone demanding him to perform. Shaw has proven he can win, but he isn't looking for a bigger job. That means he must be held accountable for winning championships or his job will be more about his comfort than needing to win. That is just human nature. You really think Shaw would punt from the NU 37 if he knew he would be fired if he didn't get to the playoff this year? Or he knew his team's scoring average had to improve this year or he would take a pay cut? Everyone needs to be held accountable to performance either by their own selves or by others, or they won't perform. When you have everything you want, it's going to be tough to be that self-motivated to continue to maintain the highest possible performance level when there are no consequences for slipping results. Nobody is going to go out of their comfort zone to maintain performance in such conditions.
In any case, the common denominator with Tedford and Shaw was/is that they were/are too comfortable at institutions that don't historically demand winning championships. Tedford was motivated to be a top-paid head coach and performed until he became one. While nothing short of a championship was acceptable to Harbaugh, Stanford had that as a standard of performance in the program. Shaw wanted to prove he could be a top-flight coach and got results until he did. When good, highly self-motivated guys were present, Ca.l and Stanford won championships (Cal won a "co-Chapionship" in 2009). But the institutions have never demanded that performance themselves, so it doesn't naturally exist. Coaches can easily get comfortable in those environments, so the institutions must demand that performance from coaches who have proven themselves or they will not maintain it.
Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too. It seems safe to say Shaw doesn't want to win more than he wants to be comfortable. If this is the case, his employer has to make it clear to him he is expected to win at a certain level or suffer the consequences. Those four BCS bowls are nice, but Shaw has to know they don't mean squat in the context of how his performance is viewed in the future. If Stanford lets Shaw rest on those laurels, there really is no reason to expect the football team to be an annual championship contender.