[teejers1]

...I think Shaw can sustain a 6 - 10 win team with occasional ups and downs around that.  I think we will be in the conversation for a conference title; I don't think we will win it at the same clip as Shaw did his first five years.  There will be room for improvement, and we will debate that ad nauseum on this board.

BC

I share this view.  And I think that's a great scenario for Stanford, substantially elevated from our historical (pre-Harbaugh/Shaw) performance and as much as can be expected from a coaching staff over a sustained period.

I do not share this view unless he demonstrates that he is willing to make changes in his staff. I don't see this team doing any better than 6 wins next season, and I don't see 10-win potential in this program without significant changes to the staff.

The reason the D gets more of a break is that the recruiting on that side of the ball has been markedly below that on the O side of the ball, especially under Shaw.  

In all events, Shaw does not "coach up the talent" - thus, Stanford needs 8 win talent for 6 wins; 10 win talent for 8 wins; etc.  Given the shine is off the program, Stanford will not be able to recruit 10 win talent, meaning 8 wins under Shaw is the ceiling.  Next year will be an interesting test.  Stanford brings back a loaded offense, even with the portal evacuees.  The D, otoh, will be marginal (again).

This puts a premium on Stanford's O being great - which has never been Shaw's strength.  Never.

I figure 6 wins is about the cap, given "same 'ol, same 'ol" that Coach Shaw is evidently committed to for the program.

P.S.  What will it take for Shaw to make moves on his own accord?  The team is coming off a 4-8 season; players are leaving in alarmingly high numbers.  I mean, WTH will it take?  
And if he doesn't, when will Muir wake up and do his job and "encourage" such changes?

[teejers1]

...I think Shaw can sustain a 6 - 10 win team with occasional ups and downs around that.  I think we will be in the conversation for a conference title; I don't think we will win it at the same clip as Shaw did his first five years.  There will be room for improvement, and we will debate that ad nauseum on this board.

BC

I share this view.  And I think that's a great scenario for Stanford, substantially elevated from our historical (pre-Harbaugh/Shaw) performance and as much as can be expected from a coaching staff over a sustained period.

I do not share this view unless he demonstrates that he is willing to make changes in his staff. I don't see this team doing any better than 6 wins next season, and I don't see 10-win potential in this program without significant changes to the staff.

The reason the D gets more of a break is that the recruiting on that side of the ball has been markedly below that on the O side of the ball, especially under Shaw.  

In all events, Shaw does not "coach up the talent" - thus, Stanford needs 8 win talent for 6 wins; 10 win talent for 8 wins; etc.  Given the shine is off the program, Stanford will not be able to recruit 10 win talent, meaning 8 wins under Shaw is the ceiling.  Next year will be an interesting test.  Stanford brings back a loaded offense, even with the portal evacuees.  The D, otoh, will be marginal (again).

This puts a premium on Stanford's O being great - which has never been Shaw's strength.  Never.

I figure 6 wins is about the cap, given "same 'ol, same 'ol" that Coach Shaw is evidently committed to for the program.

P.S.  What will it take for Shaw to make moves on his own accord?  The team is coming off a 4-8 season; players are leaving in alarmingly high numbers.  I mean, WTH will it take?  
And if he doesn't, when will Muir wake up and do his job and "encourage" such changes?

[BostonCard]

That’s an odd statement to make, given that under Shaw, we have had the third best (2011) and fourth best (2015) offense in the country.  While there is always room for improvement, if there is really a gap between recruiting and offensive output, it didn’t show. I could buy an argument that the “Shaw offense” only works effectively under certain hard to reproduce circumstances, but the fact that he was able to do it twice, four years apart, with no lineup overlap means that it is not impossible to reproduce.

It’s clear that Shaw’s offense is also capable of crap seasons like this year.  But your supposed basis for comparison (the Willingham/Didrich) offenses at the turn of the Millenium also put together a crap season in 2000, and you still haven’t explained why. If it really is all about the X’s and O’s, and the coaching didn’t change, then what the hell happened that year.

I would posit that any scheme can succeed if it has the right players running it, whether it was Husain in 1999, Luck in 2011, or a senior year Hogan with McCaffrey in the backfield in 2015, and that the same scheme is doomed to fail if your offensive line is starting three freshmen, at one point I; time you are on your third string QB, and your running back is the college equivalent of a journeyman.

But that’s why in my opinion, the defense doesn’t get a pass.  Shaw knows that for the team to be successful, it needs impact players.  And he needs to find and recruit those players.  And he has fallen flat in that regard.  The defenses from the early 2010’s had something like 9 players who would go on to be drafted or play in the NFL.  I’m struggling to identify more than two on this year’s team.  Now maybe we just lucked out in 2012-2014 and had the right combination of lucky recruiting, finding diamonds in the rough, having position changes pay off, etc., and I wouldn’t count on always having that many future NfLers on the team. But at least some of the woe is self-inflicted, starting with having back-to-back classes with zero inside linebackers (and going back, really struggling to consistently bring in enough defensive linemen).

On offense, we haven’t had an above average line since Garnett, Peat, and Murphy were on it together, and it is really hard to do what we want to do without one. i hope you are right about the line next year; the portal entries are non-trivial, and I won’t rest easy about Little until Jan 20th has passed. The other wildcard is Mills’ knee. I still think the offense is very susceptible to injury disruption because the lack of depth at key positions (exacerbated by the portalees).

BC

[BostonCard]

That’s an odd statement to make, given that under Shaw, we have had the third best (2011) and fourth best (2015) offense in the country.  While there is always room for improvement, if there is really a gap between recruiting and offensive output, it didn’t show. I could buy an argument that the “Shaw offense” only works effectively under certain hard to reproduce circumstances, but the fact that he was able to do it twice, four years apart, with no lineup overlap means that it is not impossible to reproduce.

It’s clear that Shaw’s offense is also capable of crap seasons like this year.  But your supposed basis for comparison (the Willingham/Didrich) offenses at the turn of the Millenium also put together a crap season in 2000, and you still haven’t explained why. If it really is all about the X’s and O’s, and the coaching didn’t change, then what the hell happened that year.

I would posit that any scheme can succeed if it has the right players running it, whether it was Husain in 1999, Luck in 2011, or a senior year Hogan with McCaffrey in the backfield in 2015, and that the same scheme is doomed to fail if your offensive line is starting three freshmen, at one point I; time you are on your third string QB, and your running back is the college equivalent of a journeyman.

But that’s why in my opinion, the defense doesn’t get a pass.  Shaw knows that for the team to be successful, it needs impact players.  And he needs to find and recruit those players.  And he has fallen flat in that regard.  The defenses from the early 2010’s had something like 9 players who would go on to be drafted or play in the NFL.  I’m struggling to identify more than two on this year’s team.  Now maybe we just lucked out in 2012-2014 and had the right combination of lucky recruiting, finding diamonds in the rough, having position changes pay off, etc., and I wouldn’t count on always having that many future NfLers on the team. But at least some of the woe is self-inflicted, starting with having back-to-back classes with zero inside linebackers (and going back, really struggling to consistently bring in enough defensive linemen).

On offense, we haven’t had an above average line since Garnett, Peat, and Murphy were on it together, and it is really hard to do what we want to do without one. i hope you are right about the line next year; the portal entries are non-trivial, and I won’t rest easy about Little until Jan 20th has passed. The other wildcard is Mills’ knee. I still think the offense is very susceptible to injury disruption because the lack of depth at key positions (exacerbated by the portalees).

BC

[CTcard]

The reason the D gets more of a break is that the recruiting on that side of the ball has been markedly below that on the O side of the ball, especially under Shaw.  


...

This puts a premium on Stanford's O being great - which has never been Shaw's strength.  Never.

That’s an odd statement to make, given that under Shaw, we have had the third best (2011) and fourth best (2015) offense in the country. 

It appears BC is referring to the latter of the two statements above.

I find the first statement odder. First, because recruiting adequate players is quite clearly the coaching staff's, and ultimately the head coach's, responsibility. Secondly, while its quite difficult to separate talent from performance (particularly if not watching behind the scenes), I don't think the defensive talent has been that bad over the past five years. It has lagged the offense, but by measures such as recruiting rankings has outpaced the very good defenses of 2010-2013.

I worry that neither side of the ball has any particular identity or year on year consistency right now; and that could make it harder to recruit and harder to develop.

[CTcard]

The reason the D gets more of a break is that the recruiting on that side of the ball has been markedly below that on the O side of the ball, especially under Shaw.  


...

This puts a premium on Stanford's O being great - which has never been Shaw's strength.  Never.

That’s an odd statement to make, given that under Shaw, we have had the third best (2011) and fourth best (2015) offense in the country. 

It appears BC is referring to the latter of the two statements above.

I find the first statement odder. First, because recruiting adequate players is quite clearly the coaching staff's, and ultimately the head coach's, responsibility. Secondly, while its quite difficult to separate talent from performance (particularly if not watching behind the scenes), I don't think the defensive talent has been that bad over the past five years. It has lagged the offense, but by measures such as recruiting rankings has outpaced the very good defenses of 2010-2013.

I worry that neither side of the ball has any particular identity or year on year consistency right now; and that could make it harder to recruit and harder to develop.

[martyup]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

[martyup]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

[winflop]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Don't want 10 wins every year, but want it to happen sometimes. I don't think this staff is capable of it - EVER

[winflop]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Don't want 10 wins every year, but want it to happen sometimes. I don't think this staff is capable of it - EVER

[stupac2]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Don't want 10 wins every year, but want it to happen sometimes. I don't think this staff is capable of it - EVER

Basically this staff got 10 wins 3 years ago, unless you want to argue that Bloomgren was the glue holding everything together (which would be odd given that I've read a lot of chatter that our current OL depth woes are largely his fault).

[stupac2]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Don't want 10 wins every year, but want it to happen sometimes. I don't think this staff is capable of it - EVER

Basically this staff got 10 wins 3 years ago, unless you want to argue that Bloomgren was the glue holding everything together (which would be odd given that I've read a lot of chatter that our current OL depth woes are largely his fault).

[Phogge]

Hot Stove college football lags far behind baseball. And this year it’s “Woe is us.” It would be much more fun if trades were allowed. Like, “We will give you Little and the recruit Humphreys for Amon Ra and one of your 425 pound freshmen along with two sweater girls for our entire band.”

[Phogge]

Hot Stove college football lags far behind baseball. And this year it’s “Woe is us.” It would be much more fun if trades were allowed. Like, “We will give you Little and the recruit Humphreys for Amon Ra and one of your 425 pound freshmen along with two sweater girls for our entire band.”

[BostonCard]

Hot Stove college football lags far behind baseball. And this year it’s “Woe is us.” It would be much more fun if trades were allowed. Like, “We will give you Little and the recruit Humphreys for Amon Ra and one of your 425 pound freshmen along with two sweater girls for our entire band.”

LOL, I like that.  Do you think we could get a compensatory draft pick for Illinois taking Powell as a free agent?

BC

[BostonCard]

Hot Stove college football lags far behind baseball. And this year it’s “Woe is us.” It would be much more fun if trades were allowed. Like, “We will give you Little and the recruit Humphreys for Amon Ra and one of your 425 pound freshmen along with two sweater girls for our entire band.”

LOL, I like that.  Do you think we could get a compensatory draft pick for Illinois taking Powell as a free agent?

BC

[Phogge]

I think Charlie Dressen was traded for Bill Swift in the early 60’s. A manager for a manager. Ok how about DS for Dabbo?

For the compensatory pick I would take the Duck freshman DE named Thideboux(sp?). He is going to put a few PAC 12 QB’s on the DL in the next two years.

[Phogge]

I think Charlie Dressen was traded for Bill Swift in the early 60’s. A manager for a manager. Ok how about DS for Dabbo?

For the compensatory pick I would take the Duck freshman DE named Thideboux(sp?). He is going to put a few PAC 12 QB’s on the DL in the next two years.

[CowboyIndian]

it was Husain in 1999

Ran out of elegibility, drafted by the Baghdad Beavers of the Arab League

[CowboyIndian]

it was Husain in 1999

Ran out of elegibility, drafted by the Baghdad Beavers of the Arab League

[teejers1]

That’s an odd statement to make, given that under Shaw, we have had the third best (2011) and fourth best (2015) offense in the country.  While there is always room for improvement, if there is really a gap between recruiting and offensive output, it didn’t show. I could buy an argument that the “Shaw offense” only works effectively under certain hard to reproduce circumstances, but the fact that he was able to do it twice, four years apart, with no lineup overlap means that it is not impossible to reproduce.

2011 was Harbaugh's players and Andrew Luck running the offensive show.

2015 is "the exception that proves the rule."  And even that team was led by 5th year senior Hogan (Harbaugh recruit) and a few other Harbaugh leftovers playing important roles. And of course, C-Mac, a generational talent who was robbed of the Heis.man Trophy.

Why do I think Shaw perenially underperforms to talent?  First, the number of sub-350 yards of total offense during his tenure.  Second, the number of 21 points or fewer games under his tenure.  And it is not just I.  Per Sea Hang on TOS:

"And my pet stat, games with 21 or fewer points by the offense:

1. 2011 - 0
2. 2015 - 1
3. 2013 - 4
3. 2017 - 4
5. 2018 - 5
6. 2014 - 6
6. 2016 - 6
8. 2019 - 7"

And as another poster there said:

"I occasionally think about the amount of talent on the 2014 offense. To get results as bad as we got is astounding

OL:
Peat
Murphy
Garnett
Shuler
Caspers
Fanaika

TE:
Hooper
Cotton
Taboada

WR:
Montgomery
Cajuste
Rector

RB:
McCaffrey
Wright

FB:
Lee Ward (beast)

QB:
Hogan


Sea Hang came back with this:

About the offense from that 2014 season:



We had two NFL running backs on that team, and they had the two highest average yards per carry, and they were 5th and tied for 6th (with Ricky Seale) in carries.



We had nine drives against USC, all of them reaching USC territory, and we scored 10 points. We punted from the USC 29 while trailing by 7 in the first quarter. It was a touchback. We punted from the USC 32 while tied in the fourth quarter. USC immediately drove for the game-winning FG.



We scored a TD on our opening drive against Utah, then proceeded to get shut out for the rest of regulation, including a punt from the Utah 34 with 1:38 remaining in a tie game. We then made a FG from that exact spot in double overtime after the offense lost nine yards on the drive.


The defense finished second in the nation in points allowed, but we lost five games in which the offense scored, in regulation, 10 (lost by 3), 14 (including a 12-yard drive set up by the defense, lost by 3), 10, 16, and 7 (lost in OT)."

So these are the reasons, among others, why I think Shaw is not a good steward of the Stanford offense.  At all.

[teejers1]

That’s an odd statement to make, given that under Shaw, we have had the third best (2011) and fourth best (2015) offense in the country.  While there is always room for improvement, if there is really a gap between recruiting and offensive output, it didn’t show. I could buy an argument that the “Shaw offense” only works effectively under certain hard to reproduce circumstances, but the fact that he was able to do it twice, four years apart, with no lineup overlap means that it is not impossible to reproduce.

2011 was Harbaugh's players and Andrew Luck running the offensive show.

2015 is "the exception that proves the rule."  And even that team was led by 5th year senior Hogan (Harbaugh recruit) and a few other Harbaugh leftovers playing important roles. And of course, C-Mac, a generational talent who was robbed of the Heis.man Trophy.

Why do I think Shaw perenially underperforms to talent?  First, the number of sub-350 yards of total offense during his tenure.  Second, the number of 21 points or fewer games under his tenure.  And it is not just I.  Per Sea Hang on TOS:

"And my pet stat, games with 21 or fewer points by the offense:

1. 2011 - 0
2. 2015 - 1
3. 2013 - 4
3. 2017 - 4
5. 2018 - 5
6. 2014 - 6
6. 2016 - 6
8. 2019 - 7"

And as another poster there said:

"I occasionally think about the amount of talent on the 2014 offense. To get results as bad as we got is astounding

OL:
Peat
Murphy
Garnett
Shuler
Caspers
Fanaika

TE:
Hooper
Cotton
Taboada

WR:
Montgomery
Cajuste
Rector

RB:
McCaffrey
Wright

FB:
Lee Ward (beast)

QB:
Hogan


Sea Hang came back with this:

About the offense from that 2014 season:



We had two NFL running backs on that team, and they had the two highest average yards per carry, and they were 5th and tied for 6th (with Ricky Seale) in carries.



We had nine drives against USC, all of them reaching USC territory, and we scored 10 points. We punted from the USC 29 while trailing by 7 in the first quarter. It was a touchback. We punted from the USC 32 while tied in the fourth quarter. USC immediately drove for the game-winning FG.



We scored a TD on our opening drive against Utah, then proceeded to get shut out for the rest of regulation, including a punt from the Utah 34 with 1:38 remaining in a tie game. We then made a FG from that exact spot in double overtime after the offense lost nine yards on the drive.


The defense finished second in the nation in points allowed, but we lost five games in which the offense scored, in regulation, 10 (lost by 3), 14 (including a 12-yard drive set up by the defense, lost by 3), 10, 16, and 7 (lost in OT)."

So these are the reasons, among others, why I think Shaw is not a good steward of the Stanford offense.  At all.

[BostonCard]

2011 was Harbaugh's players and Andrew Luck running the offensive show.

You can't at once claim that Shaw always underperforms his talent and at the same time say that in 2011 and 2015 it was Harbaugh recruits.  If he really always underperforms his talent, it doesn't matter who recruited the talent.  Clearly with top notch talent, Shaw doesn't underperform, since twice he has led top-five offenses.

Criticisms of the 2014 offense are valid, and have been made more eloquently by CTCard among others.

BC

---

One last thought.  Willingham's 1999 team, like Shaw's 2015 team, had fifth year seniors (including the QB) recruited by their predecessors.  You have never called into question Willingham's 1999 accomplishment because there might have been some Walsh leftovers.

BC

[BostonCard]

2011 was Harbaugh's players and Andrew Luck running the offensive show.

You can't at once claim that Shaw always underperforms his talent and at the same time say that in 2011 and 2015 it was Harbaugh recruits.  If he really always underperforms his talent, it doesn't matter who recruited the talent.  Clearly with top notch talent, Shaw doesn't underperform, since twice he has led top-five offenses.

Criticisms of the 2014 offense are valid, and have been made more eloquently by CTCard among others.

BC

---

One last thought.  Willingham's 1999 team, like Shaw's 2015 team, had fifth year seniors (including the QB) recruited by their predecessors.  You have never called into question Willingham's 1999 accomplishment because there might have been some Walsh leftovers.

BC

[Beeg_Dawg]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

[Beeg_Dawg]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

[martyup]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

I'm pretty sure the Stanford community would not accept the compromises that would be required.  And, without severe reductions in admission standards it would not be possible.

[martyup]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

I'm pretty sure the Stanford community would not accept the compromises that would be required.  And, without severe reductions in admission standards it would not be possible.

[81alum]

I'm pretty sure the Stanford community would not accept the compromises that would be required.  And, without severe reductions in admission standards it would not be possible.

Agreed.

Before Harbaugh/Shaw, I was convinced that football at Stanford was essentially over for this reason.  A large part of the recovery of football may have had little to do with the coaching changes on which everyone is fixated, but the fact that Robin Mamlet left after the 2005 admissions season, replaced by Richard Shaw, and it took a few years for admissions to readjust its attitude toward student-athletes.  (Is Shaw still here?  He must be rivaling Fred Hargadon in longevity by now if he is.)

Harbaugh arrived in December 2006 just in the nick of time to take advantage of the newfound attitude in admissions.  I think it would be extremely hard to say that our sudden turnaround was due to superior coaching alone or even superior recruiting.  Buddy and Walt may have been awful coaches, but they could not possibly have recruited the kinds of players that Harbaugh was allowed to recruit even had they been wonderful coaches.  

But there is a limit to how far even a Richard Shaw is going to allow athletic recruiting to go.  A lot of us already are at least mildly concerned that while our football players meet higher academic standards than anyone else in the nation outside the Ivies, that they really don't meet the same academic standards as other Stanford students.  I know I know--making extracurriculars a major part of the admissions score theoretically equalizes these considerations, but how many admits who are NOT football recruits have been admitted with a "paltry" 3.65 gpa like Christian McCaffrey?  (Hint, the AVERAGE gpa for admits is 4.18.)

There isn't any chance at all that admissions standards will be relaxed even further, and unless this were done, there are going to be some years in which entire position groups simply lack any admissible elite athletes.  But the stars will align from time to time, too.  And unless admissions goes back to the Mamlet philosophy, football shouldn't be returning to the Buddy/Walt era either.

[81alum]

I'm pretty sure the Stanford community would not accept the compromises that would be required.  And, without severe reductions in admission standards it would not be possible.

Agreed.

Before Harbaugh/Shaw, I was convinced that football at Stanford was essentially over for this reason.  A large part of the recovery of football may have had little to do with the coaching changes on which everyone is fixated, but the fact that Robin Mamlet left after the 2005 admissions season, replaced by Richard Shaw, and it took a few years for admissions to readjust its attitude toward student-athletes.  (Is Shaw still here?  He must be rivaling Fred Hargadon in longevity by now if he is.)

Harbaugh arrived in December 2006 just in the nick of time to take advantage of the newfound attitude in admissions.  I think it would be extremely hard to say that our sudden turnaround was due to superior coaching alone or even superior recruiting.  Buddy and Walt may have been awful coaches, but they could not possibly have recruited the kinds of players that Harbaugh was allowed to recruit even had they been wonderful coaches.  

But there is a limit to how far even a Richard Shaw is going to allow athletic recruiting to go.  A lot of us already are at least mildly concerned that while our football players meet higher academic standards than anyone else in the nation outside the Ivies, that they really don't meet the same academic standards as other Stanford students.  I know I know--making extracurriculars a major part of the admissions score theoretically equalizes these considerations, but how many admits who are NOT football recruits have been admitted with a "paltry" 3.65 gpa like Christian McCaffrey?  (Hint, the AVERAGE gpa for admits is 4.18.)

There isn't any chance at all that admissions standards will be relaxed even further, and unless this were done, there are going to be some years in which entire position groups simply lack any admissible elite athletes.  But the stars will align from time to time, too.  And unless admissions goes back to the Mamlet philosophy, football shouldn't be returning to the Buddy/Walt era either.

[Farm93]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

Football, in unlike other NCAA sports.   
In most NCAA sports almost all of the HS student-athletes understand they should go to the best academic opportunity that also offers a chance at winning.  Crowd size, TV appearances, and other ego boosting elements are all rather unimportant in their decision making process.

In football the HS athletes often prefer big time stadiums, tv ratings, and a chance to play in important games to improve their NFL draft status and launch their career endorsing products.   Academics are not even a factor for many of the athletes at the elite level.  

As a highly selective university without millions of crazed fans, Stanford has to recruit a slightly different type of student-athlete.   We are very fortunate that winning seasons are possible as Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke and Rice have enjoyed far less success over the last 30 years.

Most coaches that get 8+ wins at Stanford will leave for far better coaching roles after one or two seasons.  History is our guide here..  Walsh, Green, Willingham and Harbaugh all left for more prestigious football opportunities after they achieved one or two seasons winning seasons. 

The 2010s was the best decade in the history of Stanford football.   It would be amazing for the 2020s to have a similar level, but to expect it would be to ignore all of the forces working against that type of outcome.

[Farm93]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

Football, in unlike other NCAA sports.   
In most NCAA sports almost all of the HS student-athletes understand they should go to the best academic opportunity that also offers a chance at winning.  Crowd size, TV appearances, and other ego boosting elements are all rather unimportant in their decision making process.

In football the HS athletes often prefer big time stadiums, tv ratings, and a chance to play in important games to improve their NFL draft status and launch their career endorsing products.   Academics are not even a factor for many of the athletes at the elite level.  

As a highly selective university without millions of crazed fans, Stanford has to recruit a slightly different type of student-athlete.   We are very fortunate that winning seasons are possible as Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke and Rice have enjoyed far less success over the last 30 years.

Most coaches that get 8+ wins at Stanford will leave for far better coaching roles after one or two seasons.  History is our guide here..  Walsh, Green, Willingham and Harbaugh all left for more prestigious football opportunities after they achieved one or two seasons winning seasons. 

The 2010s was the best decade in the history of Stanford football.   It would be amazing for the 2020s to have a similar level, but to expect it would be to ignore all of the forces working against that type of outcome.

[cardcrimson]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

Football, in unlike other NCAA sports.   
In most NCAA sports almost all of the HS student-athletes understand they should go to the best academic opportunity that also offers a chance at winning.  Crowd size, TV appearances, and other ego boosting elements are all rather unimportant in their decision making process.

In football the HS athletes often prefer big time stadiums, tv ratings, and a chance to play in important games to improve their NFL draft status and launch their career endorsing products.   Academics are not even a factor for many of the athletes at the elite level.  

As a highly selective university without millions of crazed fans, Stanford has to recruit a slightly different type of student-athlete.   We are very fortunate that winning seasons are possible as Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke and Rice have enjoyed far less success over the last 30 years.

Most coaches that get 8+ wins at Stanford will leave for far better coaching roles after one or two seasons.  History is our guide here..  Walsh, Green, Willingham and Harbaugh all left for more prestigious football opportunities after they achieved one or two seasons winning seasons. 

The 2010s was the best decade in the history of Stanford football.   It would be amazing for the 2020s to have a similar level, but to expect it would be to ignore all of the forces working against that type of outcome.

Great message. When the environment is tough and the competition tougher, expect mediocrity. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

Football, in unlike other NCAA sports.   
In most NCAA sports almost all of the HS student-athletes understand they should go to the best academic opportunity that also offers a chance at winning.  Crowd size, TV appearances, and other ego boosting elements are all rather unimportant in their decision making process.

In football the HS athletes often prefer big time stadiums, tv ratings, and a chance to play in important games to improve their NFL draft status and launch their career endorsing products.   Academics are not even a factor for many of the athletes at the elite level.  

As a highly selective university without millions of crazed fans, Stanford has to recruit a slightly different type of student-athlete.   We are very fortunate that winning seasons are possible as Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke and Rice have enjoyed far less success over the last 30 years.

Most coaches that get 8+ wins at Stanford will leave for far better coaching roles after one or two seasons.  History is our guide here..  Walsh, Green, Willingham and Harbaugh all left for more prestigious football opportunities after they achieved one or two seasons winning seasons. 

The 2010s was the best decade in the history of Stanford football.   It would be amazing for the 2020s to have a similar level, but to expect it would be to ignore all of the forces working against that type of outcome.

Great message. When the environment is tough and the competition tougher, expect mediocrity. . . .

[murky]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

Football, in unlike other NCAA sports.   
In most NCAA sports almost all of the HS student-athletes understand they should go to the best academic opportunity that also offers a chance at winning.  Crowd size, TV appearances, and other ego boosting elements are all rather unimportant in their decision making process.

In football the HS athletes often prefer big time stadiums, tv ratings, and a chance to play in important games to improve their NFL draft status and launch their career endorsing products.   Academics are not even a factor for many of the athletes at the elite level.  

As a highly selective university without millions of crazed fans, Stanford has to recruit a slightly different type of student-athlete.   We are very fortunate that winning seasons are possible as Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke and Rice have enjoyed far less success over the last 30 years.

Most coaches that get 8+ wins at Stanford will leave for far better coaching roles after one or two seasons.  History is our guide here..  Walsh, Green, Willingham and Harbaugh all left for more prestigious football opportunities after they achieved one or two seasons winning seasons. 

The 2010s was the best decade in the history of Stanford football.   It would be amazing for the 2020s to have a similar level, but to expect it would be to ignore all of the forces working against that type of outcome.

Great message. When the environment is tough and the competition tougher, expect mediocrity. . . .

Averaging 8 wins in a competitive conference is not mediocrity.    Expecting 10 plus regularly is delusion.  

But nobody is suggesting that Shaw aim for 8 wins, or 4th in the Pac 12.  

If that is the mean about which we fluctuate over the long term, we'll have done much better than our historical performance, better than our share, and better than most of the other teams in the conference in spite of our challenges.

Trying a new coaching staff every time we have a couple seasons that end near .500 is a recipe for much, much worse outcome.

[murky]

Stanford will never be a perennial football powerhouse.  We were blessed with our recent Rose Bowl and New Year's bowl appearances.  Shaw took Stanford football to heights many fans never thought they would see.  He may do it again, or he may not.  But if you want 10+ wins every year, become an Alabama fan.

Why can't Stanford be a perennial football powerhouse? What's wrong with expecting- no DEMANDING - a top 5 finish every year?  I tired of hearing all the excuses this year. 

As far as 10 wins - in this conference, 10 wins should be the floor.

Football, in unlike other NCAA sports.   
In most NCAA sports almost all of the HS student-athletes understand they should go to the best academic opportunity that also offers a chance at winning.  Crowd size, TV appearances, and other ego boosting elements are all rather unimportant in their decision making process.

In football the HS athletes often prefer big time stadiums, tv ratings, and a chance to play in important games to improve their NFL draft status and launch their career endorsing products.   Academics are not even a factor for many of the athletes at the elite level.  

As a highly selective university without millions of crazed fans, Stanford has to recruit a slightly different type of student-athlete.   We are very fortunate that winning seasons are possible as Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke and Rice have enjoyed far less success over the last 30 years.

Most coaches that get 8+ wins at Stanford will leave for far better coaching roles after one or two seasons.  History is our guide here..  Walsh, Green, Willingham and Harbaugh all left for more prestigious football opportunities after they achieved one or two seasons winning seasons. 

The 2010s was the best decade in the history of Stanford football.   It would be amazing for the 2020s to have a similar level, but to expect it would be to ignore all of the forces working against that type of outcome.

Great message. When the environment is tough and the competition tougher, expect mediocrity. . . .

Averaging 8 wins in a competitive conference is not mediocrity.    Expecting 10 plus regularly is delusion.  

But nobody is suggesting that Shaw aim for 8 wins, or 4th in the Pac 12.  

If that is the mean about which we fluctuate over the long term, we'll have done much better than our historical performance, better than our share, and better than most of the other teams in the conference in spite of our challenges.

Trying a new coaching staff every time we have a couple seasons that end near .500 is a recipe for much, much worse outcome.

[82lsju]

Averaging 8 wins in a competitive conference is not mediocrity.    Expecting 10 plus regularly is delusion.  

But nobody is suggesting that Shaw aim for 8 wins, or 4th in the Pac 12.  

If that is the mean about which we fluctuate over the long term, we'll have done much better than our historical performance, better than our share, and better than most of the other teams in the conference in spite of our challenges.

Trying a new coaching staff every time we have a couple seasons that end near .500 is a recipe for much, much worse outcome.

some historical context on what defines mediocre

decade   record  win%

2010-2019 (to date): 98-35 - 74% - not mediocre
2000-2009: 43-69 - 38% - bad
1990-1999: 60-54-2 - 52% - mediocre
1980-1989: 44-65-2 - 40% - bad
1970-1979: 70-40-2 - 63% - not mediocree

1970-2019 (to date): 315-263-6 - 55%

[82lsju]

Averaging 8 wins in a competitive conference is not mediocrity.    Expecting 10 plus regularly is delusion.  

But nobody is suggesting that Shaw aim for 8 wins, or 4th in the Pac 12.  

If that is the mean about which we fluctuate over the long term, we'll have done much better than our historical performance, better than our share, and better than most of the other teams in the conference in spite of our challenges.

Trying a new coaching staff every time we have a couple seasons that end near .500 is a recipe for much, much worse outcome.

some historical context on what defines mediocre

decade   record  win%

2010-2019 (to date): 98-35 - 74% - not mediocre
2000-2009: 43-69 - 38% - bad
1990-1999: 60-54-2 - 52% - mediocre
1980-1989: 44-65-2 - 40% - bad
1970-1979: 70-40-2 - 63% - not mediocree

1970-2019 (to date): 315-263-6 - 55%

[Phogge]

I would think all of you 99th percentile students would resent Eric's 55% figure. Stanford considers nothing in its universe 55%.

Of course I'm an outsider who doesn't care about the Nobels. The thing that drew me in in 1953 was Bobby Garrett and throwing the football all over the field. Been fun ever since including 1960 and 0-10. It was not very exciting in Wlat and Buddy's years and not exciting at all in 2019. Conflicted on buying season tix especially since there will be no sellouts in the near future.

[Phogge]

I would think all of you 99th percentile students would resent Eric's 55% figure. Stanford considers nothing in its universe 55%.

Of course I'm an outsider who doesn't care about the Nobels. The thing that drew me in in 1953 was Bobby Garrett and throwing the football all over the field. Been fun ever since including 1960 and 0-10. It was not very exciting in Wlat and Buddy's years and not exciting at all in 2019. Conflicted on buying season tix especially since there will be no sellouts in the near future.