[Phogge]

All this doesn’t matter and I vote to close the thread.

He’s not going to get fired by this AD or by the school.

Why would he retire when he’s making a fortune?

He’s become an institution, probably only the second after Warner at Stanford. You raise statues to institutions but at Stanford only Liusetti gets one. I’d prefer the cash anyway.

[Phogge]

All this doesn’t matter and I vote to close the thread.

He’s not going to get fired by this AD or by the school.

Why would he retire when he’s making a fortune?

He’s become an institution, probably only the second after Warner at Stanford. You raise statues to institutions but at Stanford only Liusetti gets one. I’d prefer the cash anyway.

[Goose]

I’d prefer the cash anyway.

Isn't that the Stanford Motto?

[Goose]

I’d prefer the cash anyway.

Isn't that the Stanford Motto?

[gailtate]

I’d prefer the cash anyway.

Isn't that the Stanford Motto?

Inspired! Well played.

[gailtate]

I’d prefer the cash anyway.

Isn't that the Stanford Motto?

Inspired! Well played.

[Maple Leaf]

All this doesn’t matter and I vote to close the thread.

He’s not going to get fired by this AD or by the school.

Why would he retire when he’s making a fortune?

He’s become an institution, probably only the second after Warner at Stanford. You raise statues to institutions but at Stanford only Liusetti gets one. I’d prefer the cash anyway.

Gee I think Bob Mathias should have one, and the female student who was I think was a student body vice president and had a spread in Playboy on her birthday suit.  Pogg.......did you do the shoot on that layout, you did it was an excellent job of focusing in on the critical details.

[Maple Leaf]

All this doesn’t matter and I vote to close the thread.

He’s not going to get fired by this AD or by the school.

Why would he retire when he’s making a fortune?

He’s become an institution, probably only the second after Warner at Stanford. You raise statues to institutions but at Stanford only Liusetti gets one. I’d prefer the cash anyway.

Gee I think Bob Mathias should have one, and the female student who was I think was a student body vice president and had a spread in Playboy on her birthday suit.  Pogg.......did you do the shoot on that layout, you did it was an excellent job of focusing in on the critical details.

[teejers1]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

[teejers1]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

[Phogge]

I shot a number of shows for the old Playboy TV when Hef was supposedly trying to create a "60 Minutes" lookalike with subjects like "Pro volleyball and nymphet fans." Another mercenary effort by yours truly. Also "Girls of the Pac 10." That was back in the 90's.

[Phogge]

I shot a number of shows for the old Playboy TV when Hef was supposedly trying to create a "60 Minutes" lookalike with subjects like "Pro volleyball and nymphet fans." Another mercenary effort by yours truly. Also "Girls of the Pac 10." That was back in the 90's.

[CowboyIndian]

But I promise not to raise the topic anymore

Vegas is giving 20-1

[CowboyIndian]

But I promise not to raise the topic anymore

Vegas is giving 20-1

[lex24]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

Why shouldn’t Stanford pay market rate to its Football Coach?  Especially a successful one.  I suppose if you want to assure irrelevant then you don’t pay market rate you get either inexperienced or lower tier coaches perhaps you catch lightning in a bottle once in a while at which time whomever  you’ve underpaid moves somewhere else. So I truly don’t get that one.

Stanford can afford it, I think……

[lex24]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

Why shouldn’t Stanford pay market rate to its Football Coach?  Especially a successful one.  I suppose if you want to assure irrelevant then you don’t pay market rate you get either inexperienced or lower tier coaches perhaps you catch lightning in a bottle once in a while at which time whomever  you’ve underpaid moves somewhere else. So I truly don’t get that one.

Stanford can afford it, I think……

[TriangleTree]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

Thanks for the answers.
I happen to agree with 1 and the first part of 2. I also don't like Stanford paying that kind of money but that's strictly based on principle.
I do think someone else would have paid it based on his results here. There is universal precedent for successful Stanford coaches being heavily rewarded for big time opportunities, but I understand that you disagree that it would be the case for Shaw.

[TriangleTree]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

Thanks for the answers.
I happen to agree with 1 and the first part of 2. I also don't like Stanford paying that kind of money but that's strictly based on principle.
I do think someone else would have paid it based on his results here. There is universal precedent for successful Stanford coaches being heavily rewarded for big time opportunities, but I understand that you disagree that it would be the case for Shaw.

[teejers1]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

Thanks for the answers.
I happen to agree with 1 and the first part of 2. I also don't like Stanford paying that kind of money but that's strictly based on principle.
I do think someone else would have paid it based on his results here. There is universal precedent for successful Stanford coaches being heavily rewarded for big time opportunities, but I understand that you disagree that it would be the case for Shaw.

Remember, your "universal precedent" occurred during a time when Stanford was "not Nebraska" and coaches were not anywhere close to "market."  Hell, it was a big deal when Harbs broke the $1M per glass ceiling.  Thus, when those prior coaches moved on, the significant bump in pay was a gimme.  But before the 2015 re-up, Shaw was already making $2M+.  Different world at Stanford by 2015.  And Lex, there is no way $6.7M "base" for Shaw is "market."  There is not a single employer out there (other than Good 'Ol Bernie) who would have signed up Shaw for that much jack.  I have serious questions about whether anyone would have lured him away at $3M - in part because I question whether someone doing due diligence would offer that, and in part because Shaw knows how sweet the gig is here.  But that's in the "we'll never know" category, I suppose.

[teejers1]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

Thanks for the answers.
I happen to agree with 1 and the first part of 2. I also don't like Stanford paying that kind of money but that's strictly based on principle.
I do think someone else would have paid it based on his results here. There is universal precedent for successful Stanford coaches being heavily rewarded for big time opportunities, but I understand that you disagree that it would be the case for Shaw.

Remember, your "universal precedent" occurred during a time when Stanford was "not Nebraska" and coaches were not anywhere close to "market."  Hell, it was a big deal when Harbs broke the $1M per glass ceiling.  Thus, when those prior coaches moved on, the significant bump in pay was a gimme.  But before the 2015 re-up, Shaw was already making $2M+.  Different world at Stanford by 2015.  And Lex, there is no way $6.7M "base" for Shaw is "market."  There is not a single employer out there (other than Good 'Ol Bernie) who would have signed up Shaw for that much jack.  I have serious questions about whether anyone would have lured him away at $3M - in part because I question whether someone doing due diligence would offer that, and in part because Shaw knows how sweet the gig is here.  But that's in the "we'll never know" category, I suppose.

[Mick]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

Yes.  It is a 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game.  ;)

[Mick]

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question

Serious answer:

1.  He coaches at Stanford - which should not be paying its head football coach anywhere near the kind of cash Shaw fleeced Bernard for; and

2.  If Shaw thinks he is so entitled to $5M+ in salary, then go coach at Michigan or Alabama or Clemson or . . . are there any others in college?  Or the NFL.  Oh that's right, those teams would actually have to want to hire Shaw (and at that salary).

The whole thing is absurd.  But I promise not to raise the topic anymore (though I might respond to those stretching to defend the decision).

P.S.  If Mick and Bob's predictions are correct, that's only $1M/win.  BTW, guys, is that 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game?

Yes.  It is a 9-4 record with a W or L in the bowl game.  ;)