[msqueri]

You mean his son, the no star “Athlete?”

He'd be competitive for a walk-on spot at Stanford. Speaking of bars to clear, a head coach's son doesn't have a high one historically at many programs across the country to get a walk-on spot. From a football perspective, Carter Shaw was one of the top few juniors on a championship-winning (albeit low level of competition) team and played two ways capably (#4 receiving target, tops among non-seniors; two interceptions on defense to go with a couple of other big plays, one of the top few DBs on the roster). He competed at the ESPN 300 Elite Underclassmen Combine and one observer thought he looked solid and noted his wingspan. He's hearing from San Jose State and FCS- and DII-level programs. Academically I know less but he's his father's son and his sister went to Amherst, so not much of an assumption to think he's a good student.

The question is whether Carter Shaw wants to make his own name elsewhere (and perhaps get a scholarship at a lower level), not whether he can be a walk-on at Stanford IMHO.

[msqueri]

You mean his son, the no star “Athlete?”

He'd be competitive for a walk-on spot at Stanford. Speaking of bars to clear, a head coach's son doesn't have a high one historically at many programs across the country to get a walk-on spot. From a football perspective, Carter Shaw was one of the top few juniors on a championship-winning (albeit low level of competition) team and played two ways capably (#4 receiving target, tops among non-seniors; two interceptions on defense to go with a couple of other big plays, one of the top few DBs on the roster). He competed at the ESPN 300 Elite Underclassmen Combine and one observer thought he looked solid and noted his wingspan. He's hearing from San Jose State and FCS- and DII-level programs. Academically I know less but he's his father's son and his sister went to Amherst, so not much of an assumption to think he's a good student.

The question is whether Carter Shaw wants to make his own name elsewhere (and perhaps get a scholarship at a lower level), not whether he can be a walk-on at Stanford IMHO.

[gailtate]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.

BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

[gailtate]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.

BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

[JohnR34231]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.

BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Just wondering what kind of season would be necessary for you to consider it a return to respectibility, if not glory. Or at least a step in the right direction.

[JohnR34231]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.

BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Just wondering what kind of season would be necessary for you to consider it a return to respectibility, if not glory. Or at least a step in the right direction.

[msqueri]

A few thoughts:

A Shaw-determined graceful (or as graceful as record allows) exit remains more likely than him being fired.

To the extent Shaw ever faces accountability or, heaven forfend, firing, it will be more in the "we'll know it when we see it" realm than any particular win/loss threshold. In our history when coaches (Wiggin, Teevens, Harris) have run out of goodwill it's been because the players, or at least an influential/vocal subset, turn on the coach and take their concerns to powers-that-be. That remains the most likely thing to move an administration that loves to pat itself on the back for running the program for the benefit of the student-athletes and for not being like the football factories. But we (and few teams in history) have any history with the program's GOAT reaching this point, plus the transfer portal now allows a safety valve for disenchanted players (thus decreasing the likelihood team leaders would go to the administration), which are among the reasons the Shaw-determined exit remains more likely.

Regarding what it will take to return to respectability, I think at a very bare minimum it has to be a Willingham-level of success, which means winning seasons more than half the time. Less than six wins in any year is bad. The pressure will, and absolutely should, rise on Shaw if 2022 is a losing season.

[msqueri]

A few thoughts:

A Shaw-determined graceful (or as graceful as record allows) exit remains more likely than him being fired.

To the extent Shaw ever faces accountability or, heaven forfend, firing, it will be more in the "we'll know it when we see it" realm than any particular win/loss threshold. In our history when coaches (Wiggin, Teevens, Harris) have run out of goodwill it's been because the players, or at least an influential/vocal subset, turn on the coach and take their concerns to powers-that-be. That remains the most likely thing to move an administration that loves to pat itself on the back for running the program for the benefit of the student-athletes and for not being like the football factories. But we (and few teams in history) have any history with the program's GOAT reaching this point, plus the transfer portal now allows a safety valve for disenchanted players (thus decreasing the likelihood team leaders would go to the administration), which are among the reasons the Shaw-determined exit remains more likely.

Regarding what it will take to return to respectability, I think at a very bare minimum it has to be a Willingham-level of success, which means winning seasons more than half the time. Less than six wins in any year is bad. The pressure will, and absolutely should, rise on Shaw if 2022 is a losing season.

[BostonCard]

Shaw could have losing seasons the next seven years and still have more winning seasons than not. The question is what the half-life is for older winning seasons. I don’t think they should be completely devalued, but i don’t think anyone wants to have six years worth of losing seasons before we say that he has fallen on the other side of the bar.  But even if you trúncate to the last seven years, Shaw has more winning seasons (5) than Willingham had (4), but if he has another two losing seasons, then his trailing seven years will fall below Wilingham’s.

BC

[BostonCard]

Shaw could have losing seasons the next seven years and still have more winning seasons than not. The question is what the half-life is for older winning seasons. I don’t think they should be completely devalued, but i don’t think anyone wants to have six years worth of losing seasons before we say that he has fallen on the other side of the bar.  But even if you trúncate to the last seven years, Shaw has more winning seasons (5) than Willingham had (4), but if he has another two losing seasons, then his trailing seven years will fall below Wilingham’s.

BC

[SamuelMcF]

Shaw could have losing seasons the next seven years and still have more winning seasons than not. The question is what the half-life is for older winning seasons. I don’t think they should be completely devalued, but i don’t think anyone wants to have six years worth of losing seasons before we say that he has fallen on the other side of the bar.  But even if you trúncate to the last seven years, Shaw has more winning seasons (5) than Willingham had (4), but if he has another two losing seasons, then his trailing seven years will fall below Wilingham’s.

BC

The real scary thought is a barely winning (6-7 win) season with McKee "buying time" for an even longer drought.

[SamuelMcF]

Shaw could have losing seasons the next seven years and still have more winning seasons than not. The question is what the half-life is for older winning seasons. I don’t think they should be completely devalued, but i don’t think anyone wants to have six years worth of losing seasons before we say that he has fallen on the other side of the bar.  But even if you trúncate to the last seven years, Shaw has more winning seasons (5) than Willingham had (4), but if he has another two losing seasons, then his trailing seven years will fall below Wilingham’s.

BC

The real scary thought is a barely winning (6-7 win) season with McKee "buying time" for an even longer drought.

[qwerty49]

I just don’t think the dust has settled yet w/r/t NIL and, to a lesser extent, the transfer portal. It seems to me they remain two highly moving parts that make it difficult to predict how MTL, Drell and others will move forward (or not) in a radically different competitive recruiting environment than just 2-3 years ago. The powers-that-be don’t seem to get that Stanford doesn’t necessarily sell itself anymore, compared to some gargantuan donor-funded NIL stash. I just get the feeling we’re proudly standing tall with a knife amidst a gunfight.  I’m not sure we see the need to adapt very clearly, and I’m certain that the lack of pressure to make coaching changes at ANY level in FB is but the tip of the iceberg.

So I voted with my feet last weekend, and after 48 years as a STH I don’t want to get unduly stressed about it any more. I’m happy to be a bandwagon fan now. If Shaw can turn things around, great; if not, meh.

[qwerty49]

I just don’t think the dust has settled yet w/r/t NIL and, to a lesser extent, the transfer portal. It seems to me they remain two highly moving parts that make it difficult to predict how MTL, Drell and others will move forward (or not) in a radically different competitive recruiting environment than just 2-3 years ago. The powers-that-be don’t seem to get that Stanford doesn’t necessarily sell itself anymore, compared to some gargantuan donor-funded NIL stash. I just get the feeling we’re proudly standing tall with a knife amidst a gunfight.  I’m not sure we see the need to adapt very clearly, and I’m certain that the lack of pressure to make coaching changes at ANY level in FB is but the tip of the iceberg.

So I voted with my feet last weekend, and after 48 years as a STH I don’t want to get unduly stressed about it any more. I’m happy to be a bandwagon fan now. If Shaw can turn things around, great; if not, meh.

[gailtate]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.



BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Just wondering what kind of season would be necessary for you to consider it a return to respectibility, if not glory. Or at least a step in the right direction.

 
The program is in the ditch. Inferior talent up and down the roster list with a very few exceptions "coached" by a staff of journeymen lieutenants who are rightfully overlooked by competitors during off-seasons. As for Shaw himself: essentially a has-been who is revered only by the cheerleading sycophants and the die-hard blinkered loyalists who who live in the past and scorn the blasphemers and heretics who see the Emperor, Buck Naked. Critics such as I who have watched his dumpster fire ignite, burn and stink.

Respectable? For starters, channel the competitive fire, systems, processes, and procedures of EUTM and abandon the false-idol of The Stanford Man. The roster is now full of those guys AND, HELLO, THEY DON'T WIN FOOTBALL GAMES.  Practically speaking, I would imagine that it would turn my head if it's a 7-5 season and a victory in a respectable bowl game. But it ain't gonna happen so it's all moot. See the first paragraph above. Shaw is a loser today. I don't care what his vaunted winning percentage is. His program sucks and it happened on his watch with eyes wide shut. The fans who still buy tix are circling the drain and Stanford football looks like the water level of Lake Mead.

[gailtate]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.



BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Just wondering what kind of season would be necessary for you to consider it a return to respectibility, if not glory. Or at least a step in the right direction.

 
The program is in the ditch. Inferior talent up and down the roster list with a very few exceptions "coached" by a staff of journeymen lieutenants who are rightfully overlooked by competitors during off-seasons. As for Shaw himself: essentially a has-been who is revered only by the cheerleading sycophants and the die-hard blinkered loyalists who who live in the past and scorn the blasphemers and heretics who see the Emperor, Buck Naked. Critics such as I who have watched his dumpster fire ignite, burn and stink.

Respectable? For starters, channel the competitive fire, systems, processes, and procedures of EUTM and abandon the false-idol of The Stanford Man. The roster is now full of those guys AND, HELLO, THEY DON'T WIN FOOTBALL GAMES.  Practically speaking, I would imagine that it would turn my head if it's a 7-5 season and a victory in a respectable bowl game. But it ain't gonna happen so it's all moot. See the first paragraph above. Shaw is a loser today. I don't care what his vaunted winning percentage is. His program sucks and it happened on his watch with eyes wide shut. The fans who still buy tix are circling the drain and Stanford football looks like the water level of Lake Mead.

[winflop]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.

BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Just wondering what kind of season would be necessary for you to consider it a return to respectibility, if not glory. Or at least a step in the right direction.

6 regular seasons wins and at least 4 Pac-12 wins would be a step in the right direction, but not a bar that is respectable long term. Need 7+ regular season and 5+ conference for respectability.

[winflop]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.

BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Just wondering what kind of season would be necessary for you to consider it a return to respectibility, if not glory. Or at least a step in the right direction.

6 regular seasons wins and at least 4 Pac-12 wins would be a step in the right direction, but not a bar that is respectable long term. Need 7+ regular season and 5+ conference for respectability.

[cardcrimson]

 
The program is in the ditch. Inferior talent up and down the roster list with a very few exceptions "coached" by a staff of journeymen lieutenants who are rightfully overlooked by competitors during off-seasons. As for Shaw himself: essentially a has-been who is revered only by the cheerleading sycophants and the die-hard blinkered loyalists who who live in the past and scorn the blasphemers and heretics who see the Emperor, Buck Naked. Critics such as I who have watched his dumpster fire ignite, burn and stink.

Respectable? For starters, channel the competitive fire, systems, processes, and procedures of EUTM and abandon the false-idol of The Stanford Man. The roster is now full of those guys AND, HELLO, THEY DON'T WIN FOOTBALL GAMES.  Practically speaking, I would imagine that it would turn my head if it's a 7-5 season and a victory in a respectable bowl game. But it ain't gonna happen so it's all moot. See the first paragraph above. Shaw is a loser today. I don't care what his vaunted winning percentage is. His program sucks and it happened on his watch with eyes wide shut. The fans who still buy tix are circling the drain and Stanford football looks like the water level of Lake Mead.

I wish you wouldn't waffle with your opinion. . . .

[cardcrimson]

 
The program is in the ditch. Inferior talent up and down the roster list with a very few exceptions "coached" by a staff of journeymen lieutenants who are rightfully overlooked by competitors during off-seasons. As for Shaw himself: essentially a has-been who is revered only by the cheerleading sycophants and the die-hard blinkered loyalists who who live in the past and scorn the blasphemers and heretics who see the Emperor, Buck Naked. Critics such as I who have watched his dumpster fire ignite, burn and stink.

Respectable? For starters, channel the competitive fire, systems, processes, and procedures of EUTM and abandon the false-idol of The Stanford Man. The roster is now full of those guys AND, HELLO, THEY DON'T WIN FOOTBALL GAMES.  Practically speaking, I would imagine that it would turn my head if it's a 7-5 season and a victory in a respectable bowl game. But it ain't gonna happen so it's all moot. See the first paragraph above. Shaw is a loser today. I don't care what his vaunted winning percentage is. His program sucks and it happened on his watch with eyes wide shut. The fans who still buy tix are circling the drain and Stanford football looks like the water level of Lake Mead.

I wish you wouldn't waffle with your opinion. . . .

[Phogge]

The first step isn’t about winning. It’s about putting a product on the field on both sides of the ball that is watchable. The last games were a train wreck that screamed “Let’s get this over with and go home.”

[Phogge]

The first step isn’t about winning. It’s about putting a product on the field on both sides of the ball that is watchable. The last games were a train wreck that screamed “Let’s get this over with and go home.”

[Goose]

The first step isn’t about winning. It’s about putting a product on the field on both sides of the ball that is watchable. The last games were a train wreck that screamed “Let’s get this over with and go home.”

Amen! It is one thing to lose games, that's bad enough. But looking totally inept and not playing with a degree of competence is another. If we are supposed to be a play or two away from victory, it has to at a minimum look like that could be the case. It didn't.

[Goose]

The first step isn’t about winning. It’s about putting a product on the field on both sides of the ball that is watchable. The last games were a train wreck that screamed “Let’s get this over with and go home.”

Amen! It is one thing to lose games, that's bad enough. But looking totally inept and not playing with a degree of competence is another. If we are supposed to be a play or two away from victory, it has to at a minimum look like that could be the case. It didn't.

[82lsju]

The first step isn’t about winning. It’s about putting a product on the field on both sides of the ball that is watchable. The last games were a train wreck that screamed “Let’s get this over with and go home.”

or at least potentially exciting to watch. some of the teams in the late 70s and early 80s were not all that good but on any given week we could beat anyone or lose to anyone...

while I did renew my tickets for this year my excitement trend line for future seasons is not going in the right direction (and I may skip Big Game this year for various reasons), but I'm sure there are lots of younger buyers eagerly waiting to take over my sunny side seats (not)....

[82lsju]

The first step isn’t about winning. It’s about putting a product on the field on both sides of the ball that is watchable. The last games were a train wreck that screamed “Let’s get this over with and go home.”

or at least potentially exciting to watch. some of the teams in the late 70s and early 80s were not all that good but on any given week we could beat anyone or lose to anyone...

while I did renew my tickets for this year my excitement trend line for future seasons is not going in the right direction (and I may skip Big Game this year for various reasons), but I'm sure there are lots of younger buyers eagerly waiting to take over my sunny side seats (not)....

[Jamesy]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.



BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Just wondering what kind of season would be necessary for you to consider it a return to respectibility, if not glory. Or at least a step in the right direction.

 
The program is in the ditch. Inferior talent up and down the roster list with a very few exceptions "coached" by a staff of journeymen lieutenants who are rightfully overlooked by competitors during off-seasons. As for Shaw himself: essentially a has-been who is revered only by the cheerleading sycophants and the die-hard blinkered loyalists who who live in the past and scorn the blasphemers and heretics who see the Emperor, Buck Naked. Critics such as I who have watched his dumpster fire ignite, burn and stink.

Respectable? For starters, channel the competitive fire, systems, processes, and procedures of EUTM and abandon the false-idol of The Stanford Man. The roster is now full of those guys AND, HELLO, THEY DON'T WIN FOOTBALL GAMES.  Practically speaking, I would imagine that it would turn my head if it's a 7-5 season and a victory in a respectable bowl game. But it ain't gonna happen so it's all moot. See the first paragraph above. Shaw is a loser today. I don't care what his vaunted winning percentage is. His program sucks and it happened on his watch with eyes wide shut. The fans who still buy tix are circling the drain and Stanford football looks like the water level of Lake Mead.

Our recruiting (talent) isn't bad if you look at our recruiting rankings relative to the pac-12. That's just a bigger indictment of the coaching staff IMO.

[Jamesy]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.



BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Just wondering what kind of season would be necessary for you to consider it a return to respectibility, if not glory. Or at least a step in the right direction.

 
The program is in the ditch. Inferior talent up and down the roster list with a very few exceptions "coached" by a staff of journeymen lieutenants who are rightfully overlooked by competitors during off-seasons. As for Shaw himself: essentially a has-been who is revered only by the cheerleading sycophants and the die-hard blinkered loyalists who who live in the past and scorn the blasphemers and heretics who see the Emperor, Buck Naked. Critics such as I who have watched his dumpster fire ignite, burn and stink.

Respectable? For starters, channel the competitive fire, systems, processes, and procedures of EUTM and abandon the false-idol of The Stanford Man. The roster is now full of those guys AND, HELLO, THEY DON'T WIN FOOTBALL GAMES.  Practically speaking, I would imagine that it would turn my head if it's a 7-5 season and a victory in a respectable bowl game. But it ain't gonna happen so it's all moot. See the first paragraph above. Shaw is a loser today. I don't care what his vaunted winning percentage is. His program sucks and it happened on his watch with eyes wide shut. The fans who still buy tix are circling the drain and Stanford football looks like the water level of Lake Mead.

Our recruiting (talent) isn't bad if you look at our recruiting rankings relative to the pac-12. That's just a bigger indictment of the coaching staff IMO.

[msqueri]

Our recruiting (talent) isn't bad if you look at our recruiting rankings relative to the pac-12. That's just a bigger indictment of the coaching staff IMO.

I think this is exactly right. On paper Stanford is (conservatively) squarely in the top seven when it comes to talent in the conference. If you look at our performance compared to the teams with generally comparable talent it's not pretty. In the last three years, Stanford has 11 wins, one year in the top half of the division, and no bowl appearances. Compare that to:

Washington - 15 wins, two years in the top half of the division, one bowl appearance, and a division championship in a year without a bowl due to the pandemic
UCLA - 15 wins, two years in the top half of the division, one bowl invitation (cancelled due to the pandemic)
Arizona State - 18 wins, two years in the top half of the division, two bowls
Utah - 24 wins, three years in the top half of the division including two division championships, three bowls, two top 16 finishes

In Stanford's general echelon of talent there is no doubt we are the most under-achieving team. I did a separate analysis nationally of the teams generally in Stanford's echelon of talent (20-30 in the 247 talent composite) and found Stanford to be in the bottom quintile in terms of results. For those interested, Stanford, Florida State, and South Carolina are the egregious under-performers.

None of this is to say that a decline in talent isn't part of the story, however. Concurrent with the decline in performance has been a decline in talent by several measures and, of course, the eye test. Two things are true at once: Stanford performs significantly worse than the talent on the roster, and the talent on the roster has declined compared to when Stanford performed well. In my view this is indicative of a situation in which Shaw can get good results out of A or A- talent but cannot with B or B+ talent. His system was built on a certain degree of dominance and having merely top 25 national talent rather than top 15-20 national talent has been devastating (among other things, of which I would say a cultural shift from the 2007-mid 2010s teams has been a very big factor as well).

There's also a relevant dynamic of the utter mediocrity of the Pac-12 that I'm not sure how it plays in (because on one hand it drags everybody down but on another it means Stanford's national recruiting should theoretically be able to compete very well in a down conference) but bears mentioning. The Pac-12 sucks. While I think it's true from the above wins/conference finish/bowl appearance breakdown I did that Washington, UCLA, and Arizona State have been better than Stanford in recent years, it's also true that none of them have been good. Not a single team among those three (or Stanford, of course) has been top 25 even once in the last three years. Pathetic. Ultimately, being the fourth/fifth/sixth/seventh most talented team in the Pac-12 doesn't mean what it used to. Shaw could get us back to a point where we're going to bowls two thirds of the time and that still might not be "respectable," or at least not relevant on the national stage. UCLA and Arizona State aren't very relevant, for instance.

[msqueri]

Our recruiting (talent) isn't bad if you look at our recruiting rankings relative to the pac-12. That's just a bigger indictment of the coaching staff IMO.

I think this is exactly right. On paper Stanford is (conservatively) squarely in the top seven when it comes to talent in the conference. If you look at our performance compared to the teams with generally comparable talent it's not pretty. In the last three years, Stanford has 11 wins, one year in the top half of the division, and no bowl appearances. Compare that to:

Washington - 15 wins, two years in the top half of the division, one bowl appearance, and a division championship in a year without a bowl due to the pandemic
UCLA - 15 wins, two years in the top half of the division, one bowl invitation (cancelled due to the pandemic)
Arizona State - 18 wins, two years in the top half of the division, two bowls
Utah - 24 wins, three years in the top half of the division including two division championships, three bowls, two top 16 finishes

In Stanford's general echelon of talent there is no doubt we are the most under-achieving team. I did a separate analysis nationally of the teams generally in Stanford's echelon of talent (20-30 in the 247 talent composite) and found Stanford to be in the bottom quintile in terms of results. For those interested, Stanford, Florida State, and South Carolina are the egregious under-performers.

None of this is to say that a decline in talent isn't part of the story, however. Concurrent with the decline in performance has been a decline in talent by several measures and, of course, the eye test. Two things are true at once: Stanford performs significantly worse than the talent on the roster, and the talent on the roster has declined compared to when Stanford performed well. In my view this is indicative of a situation in which Shaw can get good results out of A or A- talent but cannot with B or B+ talent. His system was built on a certain degree of dominance and having merely top 25 national talent rather than top 15-20 national talent has been devastating (among other things, of which I would say a cultural shift from the 2007-mid 2010s teams has been a very big factor as well).

There's also a relevant dynamic of the utter mediocrity of the Pac-12 that I'm not sure how it plays in (because on one hand it drags everybody down but on another it means Stanford's national recruiting should theoretically be able to compete very well in a down conference) but bears mentioning. The Pac-12 sucks. While I think it's true from the above wins/conference finish/bowl appearance breakdown I did that Washington, UCLA, and Arizona State have been better than Stanford in recent years, it's also true that none of them have been good. Not a single team among those three (or Stanford, of course) has been top 25 even once in the last three years. Pathetic. Ultimately, being the fourth/fifth/sixth/seventh most talented team in the Pac-12 doesn't mean what it used to. Shaw could get us back to a point where we're going to bowls two thirds of the time and that still might not be "respectable," or at least not relevant on the national stage. UCLA and Arizona State aren't very relevant, for instance.

[fullmetal]

My gut feeling says the program is in a very bad place fundamentally, with assistant coaches that are, in aggregate, out of their depth.  But it's very easy to feel good/self-righteous when criticizing the program, and I won't reiterate what those before me have so passionately said.

If the team plays healthy (relatively speaking), I think there's a chance we could be very good, and I fear that this might be our only window to excel before a lot of the team departs for the next level and the rebuild starts over again.

[fullmetal]

My gut feeling says the program is in a very bad place fundamentally, with assistant coaches that are, in aggregate, out of their depth.  But it's very easy to feel good/self-righteous when criticizing the program, and I won't reiterate what those before me have so passionately said.

If the team plays healthy (relatively speaking), I think there's a chance we could be very good, and I fear that this might be our only window to excel before a lot of the team departs for the next level and the rebuild starts over again.

[msqueri]

My gut feeling says the program is in a very bad place fundamentally, with assistant coaches that are, in aggregate, out of their depth.  But it's very easy to feel good/self-righteous when criticizing the program, and I won't reiterate what those before me have so passionately said.

If the team plays healthy (relatively speaking), I think there's a chance we could be very good, and I fear that this might be our only window to excel before a lot of the team departs for the next level and the rebuild starts over again.

I see two things as most key to right the ship and avoid the trap you reference of having a small window before talent departs and we don't have the juice:

In 2022, we need the front seven to massively surprise to the upside. The biggest cause for optimism is that some combination of the scheme change (hopefully it's more than cosmetic and actually changes what's broken) and oft-referenced attitude change lead to a much more effective and disruptive front seven. Without the front seven being much, much better than seems likely (or even really all that possible to my eyes) we're in for one of the worst defenses in the country. No matter how healthy we are or what the offense does (unless it's like 40+ point per game dominance, which would be beyond shocking given everything we've ever seen from Shawfense) a defense hovering around 100th in the country will preclude the possibility of the team being "very good." Can't get there without the front seven being much better than it seems like it will be.

In 2023, we need to be blessed by the player retention gods when it comes to the offense. If recent trend lines hold and we don't have multiple key guys return we'll suffer a double whammy of losing key talent at a time when recent offensive recruiting has not been up to par to replace that talent. This is arguably true at every position other than running back (where I'd expect 2023 to be better than 2022) and tight end (where Yurosek could potentially leave brobdingnagian shoes to fill but where the recruiting pipeline has experienced a recent uptick that could improve depth/help weather that storm). As a result, absolutely must have multiple among McKee, Rouse, Bragg, Nugent, Yurosek, Wilson, Tremayne, and Higgins decide to return in 2023. Otherwise, we will go into the crapper on offense just as the roster is set to experience an on-paper uptick on defense by virtue of recent recruiting.

In other words, I think we need surprising things to happen to avoid being in a whack-a-mole situation where just as we solve one problem an equally big problem emerges, and on and on it goes.

[msqueri]

My gut feeling says the program is in a very bad place fundamentally, with assistant coaches that are, in aggregate, out of their depth.  But it's very easy to feel good/self-righteous when criticizing the program, and I won't reiterate what those before me have so passionately said.

If the team plays healthy (relatively speaking), I think there's a chance we could be very good, and I fear that this might be our only window to excel before a lot of the team departs for the next level and the rebuild starts over again.

I see two things as most key to right the ship and avoid the trap you reference of having a small window before talent departs and we don't have the juice:

In 2022, we need the front seven to massively surprise to the upside. The biggest cause for optimism is that some combination of the scheme change (hopefully it's more than cosmetic and actually changes what's broken) and oft-referenced attitude change lead to a much more effective and disruptive front seven. Without the front seven being much, much better than seems likely (or even really all that possible to my eyes) we're in for one of the worst defenses in the country. No matter how healthy we are or what the offense does (unless it's like 40+ point per game dominance, which would be beyond shocking given everything we've ever seen from Shawfense) a defense hovering around 100th in the country will preclude the possibility of the team being "very good." Can't get there without the front seven being much better than it seems like it will be.

In 2023, we need to be blessed by the player retention gods when it comes to the offense. If recent trend lines hold and we don't have multiple key guys return we'll suffer a double whammy of losing key talent at a time when recent offensive recruiting has not been up to par to replace that talent. This is arguably true at every position other than running back (where I'd expect 2023 to be better than 2022) and tight end (where Yurosek could potentially leave brobdingnagian shoes to fill but where the recruiting pipeline has experienced a recent uptick that could improve depth/help weather that storm). As a result, absolutely must have multiple among McKee, Rouse, Bragg, Nugent, Yurosek, Wilson, Tremayne, and Higgins decide to return in 2023. Otherwise, we will go into the crapper on offense just as the roster is set to experience an on-paper uptick on defense by virtue of recent recruiting.

In other words, I think we need surprising things to happen to avoid being in a whack-a-mole situation where just as we solve one problem an equally big problem emerges, and on and on it goes.

[Beeg_Dawg]

Well, I renewed.  Thought about it.  Granddaughters are now old enough to enjoy the games.  Get'em a hot dog and let 'em watch the Tree.  I am waiting for inevitable question - Grandpa, why does Stanford always run on first down? 

Bottom line, if the kids were not living in the Bay Area, I wouldn't renew.  Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams. 

Just my two cents worth

[Beeg_Dawg]

Well, I renewed.  Thought about it.  Granddaughters are now old enough to enjoy the games.  Get'em a hot dog and let 'em watch the Tree.  I am waiting for inevitable question - Grandpa, why does Stanford always run on first down? 

Bottom line, if the kids were not living in the Bay Area, I wouldn't renew.  Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams. 

Just my two cents worth

[DC 86]

Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams.  

The current system is actually completely different from the system that was successful - it's been a few years since Stanford has employed "Intellectual Brutality" which was the foundation for Harbaugh and early Shaw.

[DC 86]

Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams.  

The current system is actually completely different from the system that was successful - it's been a few years since Stanford has employed "Intellectual Brutality" which was the foundation for Harbaugh and early Shaw.

[Phogge]

Just one question DC. Did you ever play OG or OT?

[Phogge]

Just one question DC. Did you ever play OG or OT?