[Snorlax94]

Option G:  Fire myself and let Stanford hire a new AD who knows how to hire coaches for NCAA football and basketball.  

I think as it's listed it's a false choice that creates angst with the constrained choices, but Option G (Hire a new AD) is the closest to my response.

But, to answer the question, if I were AD (or, if I was telling the President & Board what I'd want the AD to do):

I'd make it clear Stanford Football needs a new plan, and that the old ways -- and old compensation contracts -- need to change. And the new plan means to stop promoting from within, and that the compensation scheme needs to be adjusted. Stanford should NOT be among the top schools in the nation for paying a head coach -- but they SHOULD be the most aggressive school in the country to hire the right assistant coaches, starting with the Strength and Conditioning Coach. Would it surprise anyone that the colleges paying the most to get the best S&C coaches include Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma State, and one of the top-paid S&C coaches in the Pac-12 is at Utah?

I'm not opposed to hiring from within -- it has its place and its benefits -- but the problem is that Stanford clearly isn't getting the right people. Ironically, some of Shaw's greatest successes has been hiring experienced college coaches -- Alamar, Kennedy, Akina. And all the coaches we scream about were promoted and never held their current positions in college (Carroll, Reynolds, Pritchard, Anderson, and Hansen until he left).

I also think it's not just about scheme, but it's about people who can connect with young people. Maybe S&C Coach Carroll knows exactly what Shannon did on paper, but he doesn't do it the way Shannon did it. And anyone who's seen Randy Hart with his players knows it was both what he taught and HOW he taught it. Maybe Carroll, Pritchard, and Reynolds are all exceptionally knowledgeable and would be successful in the NFL, but their groups are weaknesses and these areas are not developing relative to the talent we recruit. (Actually, I get the feeling that some day in the future, after Pritchard has the opportunity to learn more about the running game and other aspects, he may some day be The One in the NFL).

And then I'd sit down with Shaw and go over the new plan, and discuss whether Shaw was the right person to do this at Stanford.

No football coach has won more games at Stanford, and Shaw has delivered multiple Rose Bowl victories. Unlike people like Muir (and ack! Willie Taggart), Shaw has shown he can succeed at the highest levels. And who knows -- maybe Shaw has been kicking and screaming for these changes for years but has been constrained by Muir.

But if I were AD, there would be a new plan for Stanford moving forward. It's not about how many years Stanford should hire Shaw -- it could be 0 and it could never end. The first action is to say there needs to be a new plan, and then you'd go figure out who the right person is to deliver that plan.

[Snorlax94]

Option G:  Fire myself and let Stanford hire a new AD who knows how to hire coaches for NCAA football and basketball.  

I think as it's listed it's a false choice that creates angst with the constrained choices, but Option G (Hire a new AD) is the closest to my response.

But, to answer the question, if I were AD (or, if I was telling the President & Board what I'd want the AD to do):

I'd make it clear Stanford Football needs a new plan, and that the old ways -- and old compensation contracts -- need to change. And the new plan means to stop promoting from within, and that the compensation scheme needs to be adjusted. Stanford should NOT be among the top schools in the nation for paying a head coach -- but they SHOULD be the most aggressive school in the country to hire the right assistant coaches, starting with the Strength and Conditioning Coach. Would it surprise anyone that the colleges paying the most to get the best S&C coaches include Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma State, and one of the top-paid S&C coaches in the Pac-12 is at Utah?

I'm not opposed to hiring from within -- it has its place and its benefits -- but the problem is that Stanford clearly isn't getting the right people. Ironically, some of Shaw's greatest successes has been hiring experienced college coaches -- Alamar, Kennedy, Akina. And all the coaches we scream about were promoted and never held their current positions in college (Carroll, Reynolds, Pritchard, Anderson, and Hansen until he left).

I also think it's not just about scheme, but it's about people who can connect with young people. Maybe S&C Coach Carroll knows exactly what Shannon did on paper, but he doesn't do it the way Shannon did it. And anyone who's seen Randy Hart with his players knows it was both what he taught and HOW he taught it. Maybe Carroll, Pritchard, and Reynolds are all exceptionally knowledgeable and would be successful in the NFL, but their groups are weaknesses and these areas are not developing relative to the talent we recruit. (Actually, I get the feeling that some day in the future, after Pritchard has the opportunity to learn more about the running game and other aspects, he may some day be The One in the NFL).

And then I'd sit down with Shaw and go over the new plan, and discuss whether Shaw was the right person to do this at Stanford.

No football coach has won more games at Stanford, and Shaw has delivered multiple Rose Bowl victories. Unlike people like Muir (and ack! Willie Taggart), Shaw has shown he can succeed at the highest levels. And who knows -- maybe Shaw has been kicking and screaming for these changes for years but has been constrained by Muir.

But if I were AD, there would be a new plan for Stanford moving forward. It's not about how many years Stanford should hire Shaw -- it could be 0 and it could never end. The first action is to say there needs to be a new plan, and then you'd go figure out who the right person is to deliver that plan.