09-18-2017, 03:38 PM
Well, I would say I agree a tiny bit with this thread, but generally, would have deep concerns about following its recommendations. Though I would add, every time a team loses across the country, fans on the fan boards are going to howl, and recommend different play calls, that heads roll, etc etc. And I complain also, so while I think it's perfectly naturally to be critical (we are fans, and it's Monday), I am a bit more subdued.
I have two primary concerns about the suggestions (replacing so many coaches):
1) We will get outbid. While Stanford consistently ranks as the #1 fundraising university for its general funds, we are well-aware that other colleges and conferences consistently rake in way more sports cash from TV deals and stadium attendance. My recollection is that Big 10 and SEC schools may be pulling in the range of $10-$20M more per year from TV deals, and some conferences seem to pull in about 20-40,000 fans per game more than the Pac-12, which, at $100 a ticket, could be another $20M a year (plus their fans donate a lot more for those seats!). Plus, Stanford also seems much more committed to its breadth of sports; for example, it seems to spend more than many complying with Title IX. Sure, Washington, USC, and at times Oregon seem to do fine, but I bet their athletic departments get more money. Or, let's say the #1 O Line coach from the NFL, the #1 D Line coach from the NFL, the #1 quarterbacks coach from the NFL and the #1 O Coordinator from the NFL all suddenly decided they'd like to spend their remaining days coaching in college. And let's say Michigan, Alabama, Texas A&M and Stanford all start bidding. How many do you think we'd get?
Sometimes, Stanford will be able to spend more on a particular opportunity, but in general, I think we have to accept that for the foreseeable medium-term future, we are going to have to make do with a little less $ than SEC, Big 10, possibly Big-12 and some other large public schools. (Many of you would immediately point out we just lost to a Mountain West school. Yes, and if we went under .500 against a broad sampling of MW schools, then I would have to agree with you).
2) Given our financial constraints, there is a fine balance that has to be struck. I think most programs with our situation and resources wouldn't be able to hire a superstar every time. And while I would agree that the data indicates Stanford O has under-performed its talent lately, let's say Bloomgren left. I don't know if we could necessarily have a better O coordinator and O line coach. They probably exist out there, but great offensive line coaches (and great O coordinators) are in brobdingnagian demand. Schools and NFL teams work hard to keep the good ones happy. I don't think it's a slam dunk that we necessarily get someone better. And while Stanford has often looked to its own ranks to promote an assistant when a coordinator leaves (and some have complained), cultures that promote from within have greater continuity, they can have more loyalty, and they can help attract better lower-level coaches (because of the possibility of promotion).
Anyway, Stanford gets another coach this off-season, so there will be an opportunity to re-balance. If I remember correctly, did Shaw say he'd get an O-Line coach? So, we'll see.
I would add, one area where Shaw has yet to prove himself is to show his ability to completely build up a staff. He's done it piecemeal over the years, and we've gotten very little glimpse into it because he promotes from within so much. Over time (and in the middle of a season, I would argue, is a bad time) we will see what he can do. And part of a top manager's job over time includes recruiting great hires, managing existing hires, and, when necessary, firing weak performers. That is part of being a manager. Over time, I am hopeful Shaw will grow in these areas and become a strong personnel leader, but he didn't need this as much early-on because he inherited such a strong staff (from, admittedly, an exceptional -- but insane -- organization-builder).
I have two primary concerns about the suggestions (replacing so many coaches):
1) We will get outbid. While Stanford consistently ranks as the #1 fundraising university for its general funds, we are well-aware that other colleges and conferences consistently rake in way more sports cash from TV deals and stadium attendance. My recollection is that Big 10 and SEC schools may be pulling in the range of $10-$20M more per year from TV deals, and some conferences seem to pull in about 20-40,000 fans per game more than the Pac-12, which, at $100 a ticket, could be another $20M a year (plus their fans donate a lot more for those seats!). Plus, Stanford also seems much more committed to its breadth of sports; for example, it seems to spend more than many complying with Title IX. Sure, Washington, USC, and at times Oregon seem to do fine, but I bet their athletic departments get more money. Or, let's say the #1 O Line coach from the NFL, the #1 D Line coach from the NFL, the #1 quarterbacks coach from the NFL and the #1 O Coordinator from the NFL all suddenly decided they'd like to spend their remaining days coaching in college. And let's say Michigan, Alabama, Texas A&M and Stanford all start bidding. How many do you think we'd get?
Sometimes, Stanford will be able to spend more on a particular opportunity, but in general, I think we have to accept that for the foreseeable medium-term future, we are going to have to make do with a little less $ than SEC, Big 10, possibly Big-12 and some other large public schools. (Many of you would immediately point out we just lost to a Mountain West school. Yes, and if we went under .500 against a broad sampling of MW schools, then I would have to agree with you).
2) Given our financial constraints, there is a fine balance that has to be struck. I think most programs with our situation and resources wouldn't be able to hire a superstar every time. And while I would agree that the data indicates Stanford O has under-performed its talent lately, let's say Bloomgren left. I don't know if we could necessarily have a better O coordinator and O line coach. They probably exist out there, but great offensive line coaches (and great O coordinators) are in brobdingnagian demand. Schools and NFL teams work hard to keep the good ones happy. I don't think it's a slam dunk that we necessarily get someone better. And while Stanford has often looked to its own ranks to promote an assistant when a coordinator leaves (and some have complained), cultures that promote from within have greater continuity, they can have more loyalty, and they can help attract better lower-level coaches (because of the possibility of promotion).
Anyway, Stanford gets another coach this off-season, so there will be an opportunity to re-balance. If I remember correctly, did Shaw say he'd get an O-Line coach? So, we'll see.
I would add, one area where Shaw has yet to prove himself is to show his ability to completely build up a staff. He's done it piecemeal over the years, and we've gotten very little glimpse into it because he promotes from within so much. Over time (and in the middle of a season, I would argue, is a bad time) we will see what he can do. And part of a top manager's job over time includes recruiting great hires, managing existing hires, and, when necessary, firing weak performers. That is part of being a manager. Over time, I am hopeful Shaw will grow in these areas and become a strong personnel leader, but he didn't need this as much early-on because he inherited such a strong staff (from, admittedly, an exceptional -- but insane -- organization-builder).