[Redrum]

For those bashing the writer, he's actually been writing intelligently on this subject for a few years. I don't know him, but to say he doesn't know of what he writes, or that he's just writing click-bait, is naive. Yes, he's not "big-time". But since when did the quality of a man's pedigree override the quality of that man's argument? Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters. 

Gosh,  rather than title his article "Eight Reasons Why I Think College Football Can and Must Change" , he starts out with a double insult to a person.  A prominent person.  If that first move isn't "click bait",  what would you call it?  We could dress it up as latin-- argumentum ad hominem-- and maybe that would make it seem what it isn't.

If the author has been " writing intelligently on this subject for years"  why get down in the gutter now?  Of course, bringing up Jim Harbaugh's bathroom/shower sure makes a point relevant to paying players. 

or:  "Shaw is right to use the word "believe" -- a word also frequently used when discussing Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny."  Talk about destroying bunk by the sheer power of logic.

Or: "Shaw is right. You could make that argument, same as you could argue that Yetis are real. Of course, there's no supporting evidence for either. "  Well, that moves the debate upward to a logical plane.  Sort of like saying  "Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters."

Or: "Sounds like Shaw is ready to follow my above suggestions, and also ask that most of his salary instead be spent on professors. Perhaps he'll even resign, apply for a classroom teaching position and volunteer to coach on the side, just for the love of the game. "  Still trying to find the logical connection of that to his thesis.

Or:  Using a Schwarzenegger quote from a 32-yr. old movie:  " Unless the wrong involves denying basic economic rights, in which case replace "come to their aid" with "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women." to address an assertion by Shaw that schools and coaches want to help players through a difficult, maturing time.  Even punched it up with a video clip from the movie.  Wow.  The logic was undeniable once we saw that clip.

So it isn't like we just decided his argument sucked.  He chose the format and he chose to use a coach -- in place of an idea-- as his punching bag.  His argument could have been half as long and twice as effective to make his point,  but he was having too much fun.  Tell you what, VFRing.  Go back and find those tight, focused arguments you say he made and bring them back here.  In the meantime,  I'll stick with the he-was-just-jonesing-for-clicks theory.

[Redrum]

For those bashing the writer, he's actually been writing intelligently on this subject for a few years. I don't know him, but to say he doesn't know of what he writes, or that he's just writing click-bait, is naive. Yes, he's not "big-time". But since when did the quality of a man's pedigree override the quality of that man's argument? Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters. 

Gosh,  rather than title his article "Eight Reasons Why I Think College Football Can and Must Change" , he starts out with a double insult to a person.  A prominent person.  If that first move isn't "click bait",  what would you call it?  We could dress it up as latin-- argumentum ad hominem-- and maybe that would make it seem what it isn't.

If the author has been " writing intelligently on this subject for years"  why get down in the gutter now?  Of course, bringing up Jim Harbaugh's bathroom/shower sure makes a point relevant to paying players. 

or:  "Shaw is right to use the word "believe" -- a word also frequently used when discussing Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny."  Talk about destroying bunk by the sheer power of logic.

Or: "Shaw is right. You could make that argument, same as you could argue that Yetis are real. Of course, there's no supporting evidence for either. "  Well, that moves the debate upward to a logical plane.  Sort of like saying  "Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters."

Or: "Sounds like Shaw is ready to follow my above suggestions, and also ask that most of his salary instead be spent on professors. Perhaps he'll even resign, apply for a classroom teaching position and volunteer to coach on the side, just for the love of the game. "  Still trying to find the logical connection of that to his thesis.

Or:  Using a Schwarzenegger quote from a 32-yr. old movie:  " Unless the wrong involves denying basic economic rights, in which case replace "come to their aid" with "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women." to address an assertion by Shaw that schools and coaches want to help players through a difficult, maturing time.  Even punched it up with a video clip from the movie.  Wow.  The logic was undeniable once we saw that clip.

So it isn't like we just decided his argument sucked.  He chose the format and he chose to use a coach -- in place of an idea-- as his punching bag.  His argument could have been half as long and twice as effective to make his point,  but he was having too much fun.  Tell you what, VFRing.  Go back and find those tight, focused arguments you say he made and bring them back here.  In the meantime,  I'll stick with the he-was-just-jonesing-for-clicks theory.