[Austroturf]

What nobody is saying... In terms of talent Stanford gradually has sunk to depths we haven't seen since 2006.

You get to the heart of the problem: recruiting, recruiting, recruiting.  Recruit substantially better players and most of fans' complaints will fade into the background as the team wins.

Recruiting, skill development, and strength & conditioning. I highly doubt Ben Gardner would have become an NFL-quality player without Hart & Turley (one of multiple examples).

A buddy told me that Turley has landed at Colorado.  So watch out for them.

https://cubuffs.com/staff-directory/shannon-turley/980

Turley, 43, has long been considered as one of the nation’s top strength coaches.  In 12 years at Stanford under head coaches Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw, the Cardinal won three Pac-12 titles, earning five New Year’s Six bowl berths, with 42 players drafted into the NFL, 10 of those going on to earn Pro Bowl status...

At Stanford, he was renowned for his innovate approach to strength training, which included many more components than just weights and conditioning.  Integral parts of his program included sports nutrition education, lifestyle management and sports psychology programming, all of which ensured the optimal physical and mental preparation of Stanford’s athletes. He was also responsible for planning meals for the program’s training table, travel and game days to guarantee optimal nutrition and hydration.  He also collaborated with the sports medicine staff to develop an individualized, sport and position specific, active integration rehabilitation plan to ensure the successful return to competition of all injured players.
 
It all added up to a creative and comprehensive player development program designed to achieve three primary goals: injury prevention, athletic performance enhancement and mental discipline development.

On Shannon Turley from January of this year.  https://www.buffzone.com/2021/01/26/repo...-cu-buffs/

[Austroturf]

What nobody is saying... In terms of talent Stanford gradually has sunk to depths we haven't seen since 2006.

You get to the heart of the problem: recruiting, recruiting, recruiting.  Recruit substantially better players and most of fans' complaints will fade into the background as the team wins.

Recruiting, skill development, and strength & conditioning. I highly doubt Ben Gardner would have become an NFL-quality player without Hart & Turley (one of multiple examples).

A buddy told me that Turley has landed at Colorado.  So watch out for them.

https://cubuffs.com/staff-directory/shannon-turley/980

Turley, 43, has long been considered as one of the nation’s top strength coaches.  In 12 years at Stanford under head coaches Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw, the Cardinal won three Pac-12 titles, earning five New Year’s Six bowl berths, with 42 players drafted into the NFL, 10 of those going on to earn Pro Bowl status...

At Stanford, he was renowned for his innovate approach to strength training, which included many more components than just weights and conditioning.  Integral parts of his program included sports nutrition education, lifestyle management and sports psychology programming, all of which ensured the optimal physical and mental preparation of Stanford’s athletes. He was also responsible for planning meals for the program’s training table, travel and game days to guarantee optimal nutrition and hydration.  He also collaborated with the sports medicine staff to develop an individualized, sport and position specific, active integration rehabilitation plan to ensure the successful return to competition of all injured players.
 
It all added up to a creative and comprehensive player development program designed to achieve three primary goals: injury prevention, athletic performance enhancement and mental discipline development.

On Shannon Turley from January of this year.  https://www.buffzone.com/2021/01/26/repo...-cu-buffs/

[gailtate]

What nobody is saying... In terms of talent Stanford gradually has sunk to depths we haven't seen since 2006.

You get to the heart of the problem: recruiting, recruiting, recruiting.  Recruit substantially better players and most of fans' complaints will fade into the background as the team wins.

Recruiting, skill development, and strength & conditioning. I highly doubt Ben Gardner would have become an NFL-quality player without Hart & Turley (one of multiple examples).

A buddy told me that Turley has landed at Colorado.  So watch out for them.

https://cubuffs.com/staff-directory/shannon-turley/980

Turley, 43, has long been considered as one of the nation’s top strength coaches.  In 12 years at Stanford under head coaches Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw, the Cardinal won three Pac-12 titles, earning five New Year’s Six bowl berths, with 42 players drafted into the NFL, 10 of those going on to earn Pro Bowl status...

At Stanford, he was renowned for his innovate approach to strength training, which included many more components than just weights and conditioning.  Integral parts of his program included sports nutrition education, lifestyle management and sports psychology programming, all of which ensured the optimal physical and mental preparation of Stanford’s athletes. He was also responsible for planning meals for the program’s training table, travel and game days to guarantee optimal nutrition and hydration.  He also collaborated with the sports medicine staff to develop an individualized, sport and position specific, active integration rehabilitation plan to ensure the successful return to competition of all injured players.
 
It all added up to a creative and comprehensive player development program designed to achieve three primary goals: injury prevention, athletic performance enhancement and mental discipline development.

On Shannon Turley from January of this year.  https://www.buffzone.com/2021/01/26/repo...-cu-buffs/

And Stanford, in its infinite wisdom, decides to give a guy like this the heave-ho because, what, he offended the tender sensibilities of somebody who was probably due for it???l His absence is STILL being felt. Was it really worthwhile?  Would any other program in the country paying an HC $9MM dismiss an S&C coach of Turley's caliber for anything less than a felony??

[gailtate]

What nobody is saying... In terms of talent Stanford gradually has sunk to depths we haven't seen since 2006.

You get to the heart of the problem: recruiting, recruiting, recruiting.  Recruit substantially better players and most of fans' complaints will fade into the background as the team wins.

Recruiting, skill development, and strength & conditioning. I highly doubt Ben Gardner would have become an NFL-quality player without Hart & Turley (one of multiple examples).

A buddy told me that Turley has landed at Colorado.  So watch out for them.

https://cubuffs.com/staff-directory/shannon-turley/980

Turley, 43, has long been considered as one of the nation’s top strength coaches.  In 12 years at Stanford under head coaches Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw, the Cardinal won three Pac-12 titles, earning five New Year’s Six bowl berths, with 42 players drafted into the NFL, 10 of those going on to earn Pro Bowl status...

At Stanford, he was renowned for his innovate approach to strength training, which included many more components than just weights and conditioning.  Integral parts of his program included sports nutrition education, lifestyle management and sports psychology programming, all of which ensured the optimal physical and mental preparation of Stanford’s athletes. He was also responsible for planning meals for the program’s training table, travel and game days to guarantee optimal nutrition and hydration.  He also collaborated with the sports medicine staff to develop an individualized, sport and position specific, active integration rehabilitation plan to ensure the successful return to competition of all injured players.
 
It all added up to a creative and comprehensive player development program designed to achieve three primary goals: injury prevention, athletic performance enhancement and mental discipline development.

On Shannon Turley from January of this year.  https://www.buffzone.com/2021/01/26/repo...-cu-buffs/

And Stanford, in its infinite wisdom, decides to give a guy like this the heave-ho because, what, he offended the tender sensibilities of somebody who was probably due for it???l His absence is STILL being felt. Was it really worthwhile?  Would any other program in the country paying an HC $9MM dismiss an S&C coach of Turley's caliber for anything less than a felony??

[Austroturf]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

[Austroturf]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

[CardinalSagehen]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

[CardinalSagehen]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

[Phogge]

He got axed by the "Thing we can't post about."

[Phogge]

He got axed by the "Thing we can't post about."

[teejers1]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

[teejers1]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

[Mick]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

I have a good friend in my business who was terminated from his position as head of sales for a very prominent law firm.  In his only full year with the firm, they had their best annual growth in the last two decades.  And they let him go for a Turley-ish reason, if I understand the nature of Turley's departure.

Interesting guy, this friend of mine.  For his entire career, he's bulldozed barriers to sales within his firms.  Most recently, he left a firm that he'd been with for a bit less than a decade.  Their growth rate was reduced to about 1/4th of the average he produced during his tenure.  But he irritated the wrong partner.  He calculated that letting him go cost his prior firm about $11 million annually.  Now he's with a new firm, a second-tier national firm.  In his first full year with this firm, they are having the most significant growth in the century-plus history of their firm, more than double the growth rate of their next best firm.  Somewhat cynically, he's wondering when he'll be let go.  Seems to be a pattern.

[Mick]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

I have a good friend in my business who was terminated from his position as head of sales for a very prominent law firm.  In his only full year with the firm, they had their best annual growth in the last two decades.  And they let him go for a Turley-ish reason, if I understand the nature of Turley's departure.

Interesting guy, this friend of mine.  For his entire career, he's bulldozed barriers to sales within his firms.  Most recently, he left a firm that he'd been with for a bit less than a decade.  Their growth rate was reduced to about 1/4th of the average he produced during his tenure.  But he irritated the wrong partner.  He calculated that letting him go cost his prior firm about $11 million annually.  Now he's with a new firm, a second-tier national firm.  In his first full year with this firm, they are having the most significant growth in the century-plus history of their firm, more than double the growth rate of their next best firm.  Somewhat cynically, he's wondering when he'll be let go.  Seems to be a pattern.

[CardinalSagehen]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

I was speaking generally about one reason why organizations terminate employees that did something inappropriate or irresponsible.  If the organization doesn’t take action, they worry that the complainant is more likely to sue them or make a bigger stink.  And the concern is valid because the damages go way up in that scenario.  That’s all - it’s not a news flash.  Happens every day in corporate America. 

To be clear, I have no idea whether Turley’s issue would have given rise to a lawsuit or a PR disaster.  But I do know, in general, that the likelihood of negative repercussions (including lawsuits) goes way up if the organization doesn’t take action, because the damages are an order of magnitude greater.  

I’m reacting to the earlier claim that it should take a felony to get fired if you’re a good football coach. That’s completely untrue in any other profession. The vast majority of involuntary non-performance related terminations aren’t crimes at all, but that doesn’t mean the organization should not take action. I would not automatically assume that Stanford acted irresponsibly unless you actually know what happened.  

It can be simultaneously true that Stanford acted wisely, the offense as a one-off wasn’t all that bad, and the guy deserves and has received another shot (but not at Stanford).

[CardinalSagehen]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

I was speaking generally about one reason why organizations terminate employees that did something inappropriate or irresponsible.  If the organization doesn’t take action, they worry that the complainant is more likely to sue them or make a bigger stink.  And the concern is valid because the damages go way up in that scenario.  That’s all - it’s not a news flash.  Happens every day in corporate America. 

To be clear, I have no idea whether Turley’s issue would have given rise to a lawsuit or a PR disaster.  But I do know, in general, that the likelihood of negative repercussions (including lawsuits) goes way up if the organization doesn’t take action, because the damages are an order of magnitude greater.  

I’m reacting to the earlier claim that it should take a felony to get fired if you’re a good football coach. That’s completely untrue in any other profession. The vast majority of involuntary non-performance related terminations aren’t crimes at all, but that doesn’t mean the organization should not take action. I would not automatically assume that Stanford acted irresponsibly unless you actually know what happened.  

It can be simultaneously true that Stanford acted wisely, the offense as a one-off wasn’t all that bad, and the guy deserves and has received another shot (but not at Stanford).

[teejers1]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

I was speaking generally about one reason why organizations terminate employees that did something inappropriate or irresponsible.  If the organization doesn’t take action, they worry that the complainant is more likely to sue them or make a bigger stink.  And the concern is valid because the damages go way up in that scenario.  That’s all - it’s not a news flash.  Happens every day in corporate America. 

I’m reacting to the earlier claim that it should take a felony to get fired if you’re a good football coach. That’s completely untrue in any other profession. The vast majority of involuntary non-performance related terminations aren’t crimes at all, but that doesn’t mean the organization should not take action. I would not automatically assume that Stanford acted irresponsibly unless you actually know what happened.  

It can be simultaneously true that Stanford acted wisely, the offense as a one-off wasn’t all that bad, and the guy deserves and has received another shot (but not at Stanford).

I am not assuming anything - that Stanford acted wisely or unwisely, prudently, or pansy-assedly.  

I would be very surprised, however, if a football player actually filed a lawsuit against a coach, or a university, due to said coach pulling out his junk in the locker room.  But hey, in this day and age, I suppose anything is possible.

[teejers1]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

I was speaking generally about one reason why organizations terminate employees that did something inappropriate or irresponsible.  If the organization doesn’t take action, they worry that the complainant is more likely to sue them or make a bigger stink.  And the concern is valid because the damages go way up in that scenario.  That’s all - it’s not a news flash.  Happens every day in corporate America. 

I’m reacting to the earlier claim that it should take a felony to get fired if you’re a good football coach. That’s completely untrue in any other profession. The vast majority of involuntary non-performance related terminations aren’t crimes at all, but that doesn’t mean the organization should not take action. I would not automatically assume that Stanford acted irresponsibly unless you actually know what happened.  

It can be simultaneously true that Stanford acted wisely, the offense as a one-off wasn’t all that bad, and the guy deserves and has received another shot (but not at Stanford).

I am not assuming anything - that Stanford acted wisely or unwisely, prudently, or pansy-assedly.  

I would be very surprised, however, if a football player actually filed a lawsuit against a coach, or a university, due to said coach pulling out his junk in the locker room.  But hey, in this day and age, I suppose anything is possible.

[CardinalSagehen]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

I was speaking generally about one reason why organizations terminate employees that did something inappropriate or irresponsible.  If the organization doesn’t take action, they worry that the complainant is more likely to sue them or make a bigger stink.  And the concern is valid because the damages go way up in that scenario.  That’s all - it’s not a news flash.  Happens every day in corporate America. 

I’m reacting to the earlier claim that it should take a felony to get fired if you’re a good football coach. That’s completely untrue in any other profession. The vast majority of involuntary non-performance related terminations aren’t crimes at all, but that doesn’t mean the organization should not take action. I would not automatically assume that Stanford acted irresponsibly unless you actually know what happened.  

It can be simultaneously true that Stanford acted wisely, the offense as a one-off wasn’t all that bad, and the guy deserves and has received another shot (but not at Stanford).

I am not assuming anything - that Stanford acted wisely or unwisely, prudently, or pansy-assedly.  

I would be very surprised, however, if a football player actually filed a lawsuit against a coach, or a university, due to said coach pulling out his junk in the locker room.  But hey, in this day and age, I suppose anything is possible.

Is that what happened?  Am I the last to know?  I heard that rumor (probably around here) but didn't give it much credence.

[CardinalSagehen]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

I was speaking generally about one reason why organizations terminate employees that did something inappropriate or irresponsible.  If the organization doesn’t take action, they worry that the complainant is more likely to sue them or make a bigger stink.  And the concern is valid because the damages go way up in that scenario.  That’s all - it’s not a news flash.  Happens every day in corporate America. 

I’m reacting to the earlier claim that it should take a felony to get fired if you’re a good football coach. That’s completely untrue in any other profession. The vast majority of involuntary non-performance related terminations aren’t crimes at all, but that doesn’t mean the organization should not take action. I would not automatically assume that Stanford acted irresponsibly unless you actually know what happened.  

It can be simultaneously true that Stanford acted wisely, the offense as a one-off wasn’t all that bad, and the guy deserves and has received another shot (but not at Stanford).

I am not assuming anything - that Stanford acted wisely or unwisely, prudently, or pansy-assedly.  

I would be very surprised, however, if a football player actually filed a lawsuit against a coach, or a university, due to said coach pulling out his junk in the locker room.  But hey, in this day and age, I suppose anything is possible.

Is that what happened?  Am I the last to know?  I heard that rumor (probably around here) but didn't give it much credence.

[OutsiderFan]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

[OutsiderFan]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

[winflop]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

It is one of several missing ingredients.

[winflop]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

It is one of several missing ingredients.

[OutsiderFan]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

It is one of several missing ingredients.

I've yet to see a talented Head Coach be de-railed by inability to replace assistant coaches successfully.

[OutsiderFan]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

It is one of several missing ingredients.

I've yet to see a talented Head Coach be de-railed by inability to replace assistant coaches successfully.

[martyup]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

Somehow also missing an I.

[martyup]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

Somehow also missing an I.

[BostonCard]

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

Must be sanguineous, then. (This joke is for all the other MD's here).

BC

[BostonCard]

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

Must be sanguineous, then. (This joke is for all the other MD's here).

BC

[martyup]

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

Must be sanguineous, then. (This joke is for all the other MD's here).

BC

I like that.  Wearing my sanguineous glasses.

[martyup]

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

Must be sanguineous, then. (This joke is for all the other MD's here).

BC

I like that.  Wearing my sanguineous glasses.

[Austroturf]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

It is one of several missing ingredients.

I've yet to see a talented Head Coach be de-railed by inability to replace assistant coaches successfully.

A major contention on this board is that Shaw has let the quality of his assistants erode since taking over Harbaugh's staff in 2011 and that this is the fundamental reason we are seeing a steady decline in performance.  Turley would be just one case.  So if the program under Shaw is slowly being derailed, then your assertion above would mean that Shaw is not a very talented head coach.  Further, a talented head coach with mediocre assistants and players can only accomplish so much.

[Austroturf]

Are Stanford fans really entertaining the idea that losing a S&C coach is somehow the missing ingredient that has led to their dissatisfaction with the Football program? 

YOU CANNOT BE SEROUS!!!!

It is one of several missing ingredients.

I've yet to see a talented Head Coach be de-railed by inability to replace assistant coaches successfully.

A major contention on this board is that Shaw has let the quality of his assistants erode since taking over Harbaugh's staff in 2011 and that this is the fundamental reason we are seeing a steady decline in performance.  Turley would be just one case.  So if the program under Shaw is slowly being derailed, then your assertion above would mean that Shaw is not a very talented head coach.  Further, a talented head coach with mediocre assistants and players can only accomplish so much.

[OutsiderFan]

[A major contention on this board is that Shaw has let the quality of his assistants erode since taking over Harbaugh's staff in 2011 and that this is the fundamental reason we are seeing a steady decline in performance.  Turley would be just one case.  So if the program under Shaw is slowly being derailed, then your assertion above would mean that Shaw is not a very talented head coach.  Further, a talented head coach with mediocre assistants and players can only accomplish so much.

I believe the evidence demonstrates David Shaw is a great leader. It does not demonstrate he is a great Head Football Coach.

[OutsiderFan]

[A major contention on this board is that Shaw has let the quality of his assistants erode since taking over Harbaugh's staff in 2011 and that this is the fundamental reason we are seeing a steady decline in performance.  Turley would be just one case.  So if the program under Shaw is slowly being derailed, then your assertion above would mean that Shaw is not a very talented head coach.  Further, a talented head coach with mediocre assistants and players can only accomplish so much.

I believe the evidence demonstrates David Shaw is a great leader. It does not demonstrate he is a great Head Football Coach.