[msqueri]

The course of action that respects Shaw's legacy, strives for excellence in all things at Stanford University, and does right by the players, fans, and community Stanford football serves should be clear: thank Shaw for his service and turn the page to a new era. New leadership is needed to chart a course for Stanford football amidst an evolving college sports landscape. Some argue that Shaw remains the man for the job due to his connection to the university and record of past success. Unfortunately, the comprehensive, catastrophic failures of three of the last four seasons make clear that time has passed him by and he does not know how to fix what ails the program. Simply put, if he knew how Stanford could win in the new era of college football he would have done it by now.

Those who contend that a spate of bad injury luck in recent years explains the failure accurately recognize the high prevalence of injuries on Stanford's football team but reach the wrong conclusion. While it is true that injuries plagued many of Shaw's worst teams, performance shortcomings on Stanford's roster routinely occur at healthy and beleaguered positions alike. When injuries become a dominant part of the program's internal story of itself, it should consider whether the same circumstance year after year can credibly be attributed to "luck." In any case, empirical analysis of the effects of injuries on team performance in college football indicates that injury luck can swing outcomes by a few wins and losses per season. The depths of Stanford football's incompetence in recent years mean that even two additional wins per year would still render mediocre, non-winning teams in three of the last four seasons. Injuries may explain why Stanford has been one of the worst teams in the country but they can't explain why Stanford has failed.

Others argue that, given this new era of college football, nobody can succeed at Stanford. This is an argument that flies in the face of everything it means to be Stanford Cardinal. Stanford's 131 NCAA team champions and 177 Olympic medalists didn't reach the top because they took the easy route. As with all the elements of Stanford's well-earned reputation as a world-class institution, Stanford's place as the premier athletics institution stems from not just a willingness but an eagerness to take on the hard challenges and excel. It remains debatable how much the advent of the transfer portal and Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) regulations hamstring Stanford football. Other football programs, such as Michigan and Iowa, achieved far greater success than Stanford despite similarly lacking an influx of transfers. Yet even if the new features of the competitive landscape make Stanford's previous model antiquated, the response befitting Stanford's commitment to excellence must be to chart a new course in line with the Stanford way: adapting and innovating as necessary to show that world-class academics, research, athletics, and campus life can not only coexist but mutually reinforce one another to provide the best university experience and value proposition available anywhere in the world.

The sad reality is that the decline of the Stanford football program fails to live up to its end of that bargain. Stanford football no longer provides a good experience to student-athletes, builds bonds of attachment for alumni to the university, generates revenue needed to support other sports, or advances Stanford's reputation for excellence. In light of this lose-lose-lose-lose proposition, it is time for new leadership for Stanford football. David Shaw must go.

[msqueri]

The course of action that respects Shaw's legacy, strives for excellence in all things at Stanford University, and does right by the players, fans, and community Stanford football serves should be clear: thank Shaw for his service and turn the page to a new era. New leadership is needed to chart a course for Stanford football amidst an evolving college sports landscape. Some argue that Shaw remains the man for the job due to his connection to the university and record of past success. Unfortunately, the comprehensive, catastrophic failures of three of the last four seasons make clear that time has passed him by and he does not know how to fix what ails the program. Simply put, if he knew how Stanford could win in the new era of college football he would have done it by now.

Those who contend that a spate of bad injury luck in recent years explains the failure accurately recognize the high prevalence of injuries on Stanford's football team but reach the wrong conclusion. While it is true that injuries plagued many of Shaw's worst teams, performance shortcomings on Stanford's roster routinely occur at healthy and beleaguered positions alike. When injuries become a dominant part of the program's internal story of itself, it should consider whether the same circumstance year after year can credibly be attributed to "luck." In any case, empirical analysis of the effects of injuries on team performance in college football indicates that injury luck can swing outcomes by a few wins and losses per season. The depths of Stanford football's incompetence in recent years mean that even two additional wins per year would still render mediocre, non-winning teams in three of the last four seasons. Injuries may explain why Stanford has been one of the worst teams in the country but they can't explain why Stanford has failed.

Others argue that, given this new era of college football, nobody can succeed at Stanford. This is an argument that flies in the face of everything it means to be Stanford Cardinal. Stanford's 131 NCAA team champions and 177 Olympic medalists didn't reach the top because they took the easy route. As with all the elements of Stanford's well-earned reputation as a world-class institution, Stanford's place as the premier athletics institution stems from not just a willingness but an eagerness to take on the hard challenges and excel. It remains debatable how much the advent of the transfer portal and Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) regulations hamstring Stanford football. Other football programs, such as Michigan and Iowa, achieved far greater success than Stanford despite similarly lacking an influx of transfers. Yet even if the new features of the competitive landscape make Stanford's previous model antiquated, the response befitting Stanford's commitment to excellence must be to chart a new course in line with the Stanford way: adapting and innovating as necessary to show that world-class academics, research, athletics, and campus life can not only coexist but mutually reinforce one another to provide the best university experience and value proposition available anywhere in the world.

The sad reality is that the decline of the Stanford football program fails to live up to its end of that bargain. Stanford football no longer provides a good experience to student-athletes, builds bonds of attachment for alumni to the university, generates revenue needed to support other sports, or advances Stanford's reputation for excellence. In light of this lose-lose-lose-lose proposition, it is time for new leadership for Stanford football. David Shaw must go.