[Goose]

changes need to be made (including recruiting), but in the end the buck (or 4,500,000 of them annually) stops with Shaw.

This is totally true, and I suspect Shaw would concur. Stanford has had some really outstanding defensive players and has also had many years in the past (before Shaw) where we were lots of offense and not enough defense. To some degree we unfortunately seem to be reverting to that state. FWIW it is much easier to create a defense that plays well but lacks depth than it is one that is both good and deep. That is why TOP almost always matters for Stanford. We can recruit a "good" but not deep defense. ATM we are not even "good". Hopefully we can be adequate against UCLA.

[Goose]

changes need to be made (including recruiting), but in the end the buck (or 4,500,000 of them annually) stops with Shaw.

This is totally true, and I suspect Shaw would concur. Stanford has had some really outstanding defensive players and has also had many years in the past (before Shaw) where we were lots of offense and not enough defense. To some degree we unfortunately seem to be reverting to that state. FWIW it is much easier to create a defense that plays well but lacks depth than it is one that is both good and deep. That is why TOP almost always matters for Stanford. We can recruit a "good" but not deep defense. ATM we are not even "good". Hopefully we can be adequate against UCLA.