[lex24]

Yes, the 4-7 2004 team was a top 50 team. The Pac-10 was good back then and we lost five games by a combined 20 points. Notably, we lost by 3 points to the national champion dynasty USC team, lost by 3 on the road to top 20 Arizona State, and lost by eight on the road against Notre Dame. The computer rankings had that team as the #46 team in the country. That team was arguably better than any Shaw team since 2018 (the 2020 pandemic-shortened season is the only one even arguably on Teevens' level but adjusting for opponent/margin/etc. 2004 was probably better).

---

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

Wow. Just wow.

Wow that Shaw has fallen so far or wow that I would disparage Shaw so?

Shaw's win percentage the last three years is .367 whereas Buddy Teevens' career win percentage is .464. Just looking at Teevens' Stanford win percentage, that was .303 at a time when the Pac-10 was one of the best conferences in the country whereas Shaw's .367 is at a time when the Pac-12 is by far the worst Power Five conference in the country.

Looking at computer rankings, Shaw's median in the last three years is #73 or #75 depending on what algorithm you use for the pandemic-shortened season whereas Teevens' median in his three years at Stanford was #69.

Irrelevant.  Had Teevens achieved what Shaw achieved then your comparison would matter.  But Teevens failed from (almost) day 1. While Shaw succeeded beyond any coach in modern Stanford history.  

‘19 was a bad year.  ‘21 atrocious.  ‘20 doesn’t really count.  So, he’s had a couple bad years. If next year doesn’t show some improvement, then perhaps the noise will reach levels where change happens.  I wish they’d made moves at the assistant level.  But they didn’t.  It’s on Shaw.  As essentially it’s always been (a fact recognized by folks when Stanford loses.  When Shaw was winning at levels not before seen - well that was, for many, someone else’s doing.  (Or, still not good enough cause suddenly winning an NC was the new standard) Which is the thing that ticks me off a bit).  But if they have another atrocious year, it’s more than justified to start calling for change at the top.  

I’m hoping they show some major improvement.  If not, let the howling begin.

[lex24]

Yes, the 4-7 2004 team was a top 50 team. The Pac-10 was good back then and we lost five games by a combined 20 points. Notably, we lost by 3 points to the national champion dynasty USC team, lost by 3 on the road to top 20 Arizona State, and lost by eight on the road against Notre Dame. The computer rankings had that team as the #46 team in the country. That team was arguably better than any Shaw team since 2018 (the 2020 pandemic-shortened season is the only one even arguably on Teevens' level but adjusting for opponent/margin/etc. 2004 was probably better).

---

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

Wow. Just wow.

Wow that Shaw has fallen so far or wow that I would disparage Shaw so?

Shaw's win percentage the last three years is .367 whereas Buddy Teevens' career win percentage is .464. Just looking at Teevens' Stanford win percentage, that was .303 at a time when the Pac-10 was one of the best conferences in the country whereas Shaw's .367 is at a time when the Pac-12 is by far the worst Power Five conference in the country.

Looking at computer rankings, Shaw's median in the last three years is #73 or #75 depending on what algorithm you use for the pandemic-shortened season whereas Teevens' median in his three years at Stanford was #69.

Irrelevant.  Had Teevens achieved what Shaw achieved then your comparison would matter.  But Teevens failed from (almost) day 1. While Shaw succeeded beyond any coach in modern Stanford history.  

‘19 was a bad year.  ‘21 atrocious.  ‘20 doesn’t really count.  So, he’s had a couple bad years. If next year doesn’t show some improvement, then perhaps the noise will reach levels where change happens.  I wish they’d made moves at the assistant level.  But they didn’t.  It’s on Shaw.  As essentially it’s always been (a fact recognized by folks when Stanford loses.  When Shaw was winning at levels not before seen - well that was, for many, someone else’s doing.  (Or, still not good enough cause suddenly winning an NC was the new standard) Which is the thing that ticks me off a bit).  But if they have another atrocious year, it’s more than justified to start calling for change at the top.  

I’m hoping they show some major improvement.  If not, let the howling begin.