[76lsjumb]

76LSJUMB:  I am not virulently anti-Shaw (that is your spin/take).  I actually have met the man through kids' sports in Palo Alto (I coached his older son in one sport) and like him.  I love what he has shown on recruiting front.  And I really like the fact that he could be a lifer at Stanford (something I have always thought Stanford needed and should be able to attract).

And I love this defense - arguably the best D since at least the Thunderchicken Rose Bowl defense.

But, I am virulently anti-crappy offense (Teevensesque), especially when I firmly believe that such an offense is underperforming to its roster.  I believe that if this persists - and I hope it does not, and believe it will not (but I believed the same thing under Teevens) - it will cripple the program, irrespective of the W/L record.  This is so because few fans will show and no one will want to play in an empty stadium.

I don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to "get," yet it evidently has evaded WIM.  You (and others) may disagree with it, but I have 40+ years of attending Stanford football games that inform my conclusions.  You (and others) may think I am Chicken Little ridiculously claiming that the sky is falling.  I consider it a fair warning of a very important matter that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

It looks like we may agree on more things than we disagree on.  I, too:

  -- think he's done a pretty good recruting job;
  -- think having a long-term coach [if he's good] is a good thing;
  -- think this defense is pretty good [and, unlike others, think it is likely to be pretty good for at least another year or two];
  -- am anti-crappy offense; and,
  -- believe this offense is underperforming.

I seem to recall you were not too thrilled about the play-calling at the end of the Fiesta Bowl, and I interpreted some other posts as critical of Shaw's play-calling and personnel decisions [essentially attributing the crappy, underperforming offense this season to those factors].  I'll take your word that I was wrong about that, but I still don't think my spin/take was wholly unsupported by the evidence.

Finally, I don't deny that poor offensive performance adversely impacts fan interest, but I don't believe it does so to the extent you are claiming.  Using the WSU game as evidence of that theory is suspect in my estimation, given that the two home games immediately preceding the WSU game were among the two more exciting games Stanford has played at home in some time, with performances by the offense that may not have been perfect, but clearly don't deserve a "crappy" rating, either.  Unless it's Homecoming weekend, people just don't go to the WSU game here...and they probably never will.

In short...it's all good!  :)

[76lsjumb]

76LSJUMB:  I am not virulently anti-Shaw (that is your spin/take).  I actually have met the man through kids' sports in Palo Alto (I coached his older son in one sport) and like him.  I love what he has shown on recruiting front.  And I really like the fact that he could be a lifer at Stanford (something I have always thought Stanford needed and should be able to attract).

And I love this defense - arguably the best D since at least the Thunderchicken Rose Bowl defense.

But, I am virulently anti-crappy offense (Teevensesque), especially when I firmly believe that such an offense is underperforming to its roster.  I believe that if this persists - and I hope it does not, and believe it will not (but I believed the same thing under Teevens) - it will cripple the program, irrespective of the W/L record.  This is so because few fans will show and no one will want to play in an empty stadium.

I don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to "get," yet it evidently has evaded WIM.  You (and others) may disagree with it, but I have 40+ years of attending Stanford football games that inform my conclusions.  You (and others) may think I am Chicken Little ridiculously claiming that the sky is falling.  I consider it a fair warning of a very important matter that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

It looks like we may agree on more things than we disagree on.  I, too:

  -- think he's done a pretty good recruting job;
  -- think having a long-term coach [if he's good] is a good thing;
  -- think this defense is pretty good [and, unlike others, think it is likely to be pretty good for at least another year or two];
  -- am anti-crappy offense; and,
  -- believe this offense is underperforming.

I seem to recall you were not too thrilled about the play-calling at the end of the Fiesta Bowl, and I interpreted some other posts as critical of Shaw's play-calling and personnel decisions [essentially attributing the crappy, underperforming offense this season to those factors].  I'll take your word that I was wrong about that, but I still don't think my spin/take was wholly unsupported by the evidence.

Finally, I don't deny that poor offensive performance adversely impacts fan interest, but I don't believe it does so to the extent you are claiming.  Using the WSU game as evidence of that theory is suspect in my estimation, given that the two home games immediately preceding the WSU game were among the two more exciting games Stanford has played at home in some time, with performances by the offense that may not have been perfect, but clearly don't deserve a "crappy" rating, either.  Unless it's Homecoming weekend, people just don't go to the WSU game here...and they probably never will.

In short...it's all good!  :)