[JohnR34231]

Unfortunately, it does demonstrate how far we are behind the top teams in the country.

Thanks for putting into crisp language the precise reason my enthusiasm for the current regime has flat-lined. Until I see significant and positive change, I will remain a disinterested (not to be confused with "uninterested") observer.  R.I.P. EUTM.

Gail, you don't understand, Shaw is not just a good coach . . . he's a great coach.  Ask everyone he . . . most everyone . . . well, some of the folks here still believe that.  But really, the Shaw "debate" is so passe - he's not going anywhere anytime soon.  The more pressing concern, as I see it, is McKee.  That guy is eligible to bolt after THIS season, and that would be catastrophic to the program.



I'm really hoping McKee has sufficient interest in Stanford University (including a degree) to stick around.  

Not sure the football draw part of it will be that great, though the OL should improve . . . shouldn't it?  And hopefully the team can build some second-half season momentum with several Ws (the next 2 games look pretty tough).

I suggested a month or two ago that there was a chance McKee might bolt after this season and was told that it was a silly concern. So I stopped worrying about it. Should I start again?

I don't think too many people on this board think Shaw is a great coach. However, they do think he is a good one, which they feel his record here demonstrates (even post 2015). I agree that a moratorium on that debate would be appropriate.

I am not, repeat NOT, engaging in or encouraging any form of "debate" about Shaw. He is a consummately knowledgeable "football man", as Glenn Dickey described Jack Christiansen. He is also a lock for the foreseeable future (translation: until his kids graduate). What Shaw is not is the kind of CEO who instinctively resists ingrained, rigid thinking and refuses to give up the right to be smarter tomorrow than he was today. Indeed, he is not a CEO in any form or fashion, a fundamental flaw. To him, disruption is anathema. The status quo is his true north. Cordial collegiality is the mandate, the overarching objective of the program. Think Software in the early 2000's. He is PeopleSoft up against Oracle.

OK, I think most can agree that (like most of us) Shaw has his strengths and his weaknesses.

Since his weaknesses have been pointed out dozens and dozens of times on this board I would humbly suggest we take a break from continuing to do it.

[JohnR34231]

Unfortunately, it does demonstrate how far we are behind the top teams in the country.

Thanks for putting into crisp language the precise reason my enthusiasm for the current regime has flat-lined. Until I see significant and positive change, I will remain a disinterested (not to be confused with "uninterested") observer.  R.I.P. EUTM.

Gail, you don't understand, Shaw is not just a good coach . . . he's a great coach.  Ask everyone he . . . most everyone . . . well, some of the folks here still believe that.  But really, the Shaw "debate" is so passe - he's not going anywhere anytime soon.  The more pressing concern, as I see it, is McKee.  That guy is eligible to bolt after THIS season, and that would be catastrophic to the program.



I'm really hoping McKee has sufficient interest in Stanford University (including a degree) to stick around.  

Not sure the football draw part of it will be that great, though the OL should improve . . . shouldn't it?  And hopefully the team can build some second-half season momentum with several Ws (the next 2 games look pretty tough).

I suggested a month or two ago that there was a chance McKee might bolt after this season and was told that it was a silly concern. So I stopped worrying about it. Should I start again?

I don't think too many people on this board think Shaw is a great coach. However, they do think he is a good one, which they feel his record here demonstrates (even post 2015). I agree that a moratorium on that debate would be appropriate.

I am not, repeat NOT, engaging in or encouraging any form of "debate" about Shaw. He is a consummately knowledgeable "football man", as Glenn Dickey described Jack Christiansen. He is also a lock for the foreseeable future (translation: until his kids graduate). What Shaw is not is the kind of CEO who instinctively resists ingrained, rigid thinking and refuses to give up the right to be smarter tomorrow than he was today. Indeed, he is not a CEO in any form or fashion, a fundamental flaw. To him, disruption is anathema. The status quo is his true north. Cordial collegiality is the mandate, the overarching objective of the program. Think Software in the early 2000's. He is PeopleSoft up against Oracle.

OK, I think most can agree that (like most of us) Shaw has his strengths and his weaknesses.

Since his weaknesses have been pointed out dozens and dozens of times on this board I would humbly suggest we take a break from continuing to do it.