[murky]

I'm curious to see the replies, but I think you've misrepresented the poll result a bit.

We don't know if Shaw was "required" to make changes, so the premise for firing in that option hasn't been tested.  It may be Muir that many of those folks would like to see gone.

[murky]

I'm curious to see the replies, but I think you've misrepresented the poll result a bit.

We don't know if Shaw was "required" to make changes, so the premise for firing in that option hasn't been tested.  It may be Muir that many of those folks would like to see gone.

[Papa John]

I see your point, but in the imaginary world of the poll, those voters would have required Shaw to make significant changes, which he obviously hasn't (in reality)

[Papa John]

I see your point, but in the imaginary world of the poll, those voters would have required Shaw to make significant changes, which he obviously hasn't (in reality)

[murky]

I see your point, but in the imaginary world of the poll, those voters would have required Shaw to make significant changes, which he obviously hasn't (in reality)

I guess I expected that the requirement would have been communicated explicitly to Shaw, rather than a quiet, unspoken expectation.

I read that "require" like "demand", rather than "observe whether".  I think the "if he refuses" part, supports my interpretation.

The imaginary world of the poll would have required the Athletic Director to pose the ultimatum, which we can surmise hasn't occurred.

[murky]

I see your point, but in the imaginary world of the poll, those voters would have required Shaw to make significant changes, which he obviously hasn't (in reality)

I guess I expected that the requirement would have been communicated explicitly to Shaw, rather than a quiet, unspoken expectation.

I read that "require" like "demand", rather than "observe whether".  I think the "if he refuses" part, supports my interpretation.

The imaginary world of the poll would have required the Athletic Director to pose the ultimatum, which we can surmise hasn't occurred.

[Snorlax94]

In the past I haven't agreed with the fire coaches/fire the AD people because I think there are natural fluctuations and it was extraordinary to have a coach who won 2 Rose Bowls. And just in 2017 Stanford played a very close Pac 12 Championship game.

And earlier in the fall, I thought -- OK, no need to rush the firing/hiring process, but now it's the end of February, spring ball is started, and it's the exact same staff.

But my biggest frustration is that there have been no noises yet of replacing AD Bernard Muir. AD's come and go -- in fact, Muir will soon be Stanford's longest-serving AD! Most of them serve around 6 years and Muir is coming up on 10. Only 1 Stanford AD has served a longer term than Muir!?

The only positive explanation I can think of is that it takes time to find a new AD. 

But 10 years is plenty, nothing wrong with pushing out an AD after 10. Time for some new ideas. Because we also may need a new Men's BB coach and I don't want Muir to pick that candidate.

I think more pressure should have been applied on Shaw. I think the D Line and Strength and Conditioning coaches have had plenty of time to prove themselves.

Anyway, the team is promising a lot. The sound bites sound passionate. New defensive scheme. Some great returnees. We will see.

[Snorlax94]

In the past I haven't agreed with the fire coaches/fire the AD people because I think there are natural fluctuations and it was extraordinary to have a coach who won 2 Rose Bowls. And just in 2017 Stanford played a very close Pac 12 Championship game.

And earlier in the fall, I thought -- OK, no need to rush the firing/hiring process, but now it's the end of February, spring ball is started, and it's the exact same staff.

But my biggest frustration is that there have been no noises yet of replacing AD Bernard Muir. AD's come and go -- in fact, Muir will soon be Stanford's longest-serving AD! Most of them serve around 6 years and Muir is coming up on 10. Only 1 Stanford AD has served a longer term than Muir!?

The only positive explanation I can think of is that it takes time to find a new AD. 

But 10 years is plenty, nothing wrong with pushing out an AD after 10. Time for some new ideas. Because we also may need a new Men's BB coach and I don't want Muir to pick that candidate.

I think more pressure should have been applied on Shaw. I think the D Line and Strength and Conditioning coaches have had plenty of time to prove themselves.

Anyway, the team is promising a lot. The sound bites sound passionate. New defensive scheme. Some great returnees. We will see.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't even remember what I voted for in that poll.

All I know is Stanford, Cal, and all of college football has ceased being something I am passionate about. I honestly don't really care what Stanford does anymore. All I know is were I in charge, I would fire Muir, because overseeing such bottom feeding in MBB and a decline in Football on his watch, should cost any AD their job at any school that cares about winning.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't even remember what I voted for in that poll.

All I know is Stanford, Cal, and all of college football has ceased being something I am passionate about. I honestly don't really care what Stanford does anymore. All I know is were I in charge, I would fire Muir, because overseeing such bottom feeding in MBB and a decline in Football on his watch, should cost any AD their job at any school that cares about winning.

[Papa John]

I see your point, but in the imaginary world of the poll, those voters would have required Shaw to make significant changes, which he obviously hasn't (in reality)

I guess I expected that the requirement would have been communicated explicitly to Shaw, rather than a quiet, unspoken expectation.

I read that "require" like "demand", rather than "observe whether".  I think the "if he refuses" part, supports my interpretation.

The imaginary world of the poll would have required the Athletic Director to pose the ultimatum, which we can surmise hasn't occurred.

In the imaginary world of the poll, the voters were assigned the imaginary role of the Athletic Director so the ultimatum was imaginarily posed, so those voters have imaginarily fired Shaw.

[Papa John]

I see your point, but in the imaginary world of the poll, those voters would have required Shaw to make significant changes, which he obviously hasn't (in reality)

I guess I expected that the requirement would have been communicated explicitly to Shaw, rather than a quiet, unspoken expectation.

I read that "require" like "demand", rather than "observe whether".  I think the "if he refuses" part, supports my interpretation.

The imaginary world of the poll would have required the Athletic Director to pose the ultimatum, which we can surmise hasn't occurred.

In the imaginary world of the poll, the voters were assigned the imaginary role of the Athletic Director so the ultimatum was imaginarily posed, so those voters have imaginarily fired Shaw.