[Farm93]

At first I thought BCS Championship, no doubt.  But then...

If Stanford had 2 losses for five straight years, then odds are good that some of those losses would be in bowl games.  That would mean that Stanford probably entered the bowl season at 12-1 once or twice during that run.  Pac-12 champs at 12-1 after multiple years at 11-2 would almost certainly mean playing in, but then losing the BCS NCG.  Note: A team with a rich history of two losses could appear in the BCS NCG (see LSU).

In any event after 5 years of that Stanford would be an elite.  If Stanford was not in a single NCG during that run that would probably mean the team was 5-0 in bowl games.  Either way years 6-10 in the Shaw era would be epic.  It would probably be rather similar to VA-Tech\'s situation.  Where they lost in the big show once, but have been a power since that trip.  What was VA-Tech really before the Vick years?

I think for the good of the program, I would take path #2.  Path #1 would be nice, a quickie NCG.  But ticket sales would never ramp up, and the 5 loss seasons would confirm the team was lucky (bad choice, I know).  5 loss seasons would evolve into 4, 5, 6, & 7 loss seasons, and like Tedford people would be screaming for change.

5 straight 2 loss seasons would mean the team is loaded and full of monster recruiting classes.  The staff would be immortals.  ESPN probably would have to show up a few times.  And importantly because ticket sales always lag success, the stadium would be rockin\' towards the end of that run.  It would be a healthier AD, that\'s for sure.

Also, I would feel a lot better about 2016 & beyond in scenario #2.  I would be very confident that Big Game wins would become our right, much like USC over UCLA.  Pac-12 North Titles, Pac-12 Championship Games and BCS Bowl invites would become the norm for a decade or more.

In fact, I would bet that 5 years of 2 loss seasons would almost certainly include 2 or more NCGs over the next 20 years.  (Shaw is only 38).

I invest for future rewards that are not nearly as promising.  I would invest in scenario 2, hypothetically, of course.  

[Farm93]

At first I thought BCS Championship, no doubt.  But then...

If Stanford had 2 losses for five straight years, then odds are good that some of those losses would be in bowl games.  That would mean that Stanford probably entered the bowl season at 12-1 once or twice during that run.  Pac-12 champs at 12-1 after multiple years at 11-2 would almost certainly mean playing in, but then losing the BCS NCG.  Note: A team with a rich history of two losses could appear in the BCS NCG (see LSU).

In any event after 5 years of that Stanford would be an elite.  If Stanford was not in a single NCG during that run that would probably mean the team was 5-0 in bowl games.  Either way years 6-10 in the Shaw era would be epic.  It would probably be rather similar to VA-Tech\'s situation.  Where they lost in the big show once, but have been a power since that trip.  What was VA-Tech really before the Vick years?

I think for the good of the program, I would take path #2.  Path #1 would be nice, a quickie NCG.  But ticket sales would never ramp up, and the 5 loss seasons would confirm the team was lucky (bad choice, I know).  5 loss seasons would evolve into 4, 5, 6, & 7 loss seasons, and like Tedford people would be screaming for change.

5 straight 2 loss seasons would mean the team is loaded and full of monster recruiting classes.  The staff would be immortals.  ESPN probably would have to show up a few times.  And importantly because ticket sales always lag success, the stadium would be rockin\' towards the end of that run.  It would be a healthier AD, that\'s for sure.

Also, I would feel a lot better about 2016 & beyond in scenario #2.  I would be very confident that Big Game wins would become our right, much like USC over UCLA.  Pac-12 North Titles, Pac-12 Championship Games and BCS Bowl invites would become the norm for a decade or more.

In fact, I would bet that 5 years of 2 loss seasons would almost certainly include 2 or more NCGs over the next 20 years.  (Shaw is only 38).

I invest for future rewards that are not nearly as promising.  I would invest in scenario 2, hypothetically, of course.