[msqueri]

Many people have asked me to write an open letter on DSMG. I have mixed views on whether/how to go public on this but let my fingers do the walking to see what it would look like in print. Open to any thoughts:

OPEN LETTER ON THE FUTURE OF STANFORD FOOTBALL

The multi-year struggles of the Stanford football program and the depth to which the program has plunged make clear an uncomfortable truth: the school must move on from the most winning coach in its history if it hopes to field a product that benefits student-athletes, alumni, and the broader university community.

For the last 12 years, David Shaw led the program in a way that brought great credit to him and Stanford University. His association with Stanford football goes back even further, spanning his time as an assistant coach, player, and son of a coach. David Shaw was destined to be the consummate Stanford Man from his infancy, when his father joined the Stanford football staff. By the time he took the helm of the football program, few understood the unique potential, challenges, values, and place in the college football landscape Stanford represents. Coupling that pedigree with the newly dominant roster he inherited from Jim Harbaugh, Shaw achieved spectacular results. A program that had reached the pinnacle - the Rose Bowl, the Granddaddy of Them All - three times in 60 years found itself partying in Pasadena three times in a rapturous four year stretch. Alumni flocked from all corners of the globe to celebrate their alma mater, basking not only in the joy of watching one of the top football teams in America but in the pride that Stanford reached the top of the sport without compromising its principles. True student-athletes modeled the best of what Stanford University has to offer, led by a coach respected from coast-to-coast as a paragon of dignity and decency among the coaching fraternity. By the end of Shaw's eighth season as head coach, he had won 82 games, with football juggernauts Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State the only programs to win more in that span. For over half a decade, Stanford football had it all.

Sadly, it all came crashing down over the last four seasons. The losses of recent years go far beyond a reversion to the mean and instead reflect the darkest days the program has ever experienced. 2022 marks the third consecutive full season in which Stanford football finished in last place in its division, a multi-year level of losing unseen since 1960. Computer algorithms that account for the strength of a team's schedule, an important consideration as Stanford often plays one of the hardest schedules in the country, calculate that the 2019, 2021, and 2022 seasons all rank among the eight worst seasons of the last 60 years of Stanford football. The sole break from constant losing came in a pandemic-shortened 2020 season, a mediocre one in which Stanford won four games by a combined ten points and that aforementioned computer algorithms deemed worse than every season Shaw coached from 2011-2018. From 2019 to 2022, Stanford's 14-27 record makes it one of the worst football programs in the nation. In its own conference, Stanford is tied for tenth of 12 teams in wins in that span (the other two cellar dwellers, Colorado and Arizona, held their coaches accountable for the incompetence by firing them).

Those of us who love Stanford football can see with our own eyes what all this losing has wrought. Not long ago Stanford Stadium erupted in communal exultation when Tyler Gaffney ground undefeated Oregon into duck meat or Conrad Ukropina's last second field goal knocked Notre Dame out of playoff contention. In recent years it feels like a mausoleum. A beautiful stadium that regularly sold out now reports attendance figures around half the stadium's capacity, numbers that few who attend or watch on television believe. What had been idyllic fall Saturdays now bring little joy to fans, or even occasion protests from students that Stanford Hates Fun.

None of this can be fun for the players either. The blood, sweat, and tears Stanford's 105 players pour into this enterprise seldom gets rewarded with C-House chants anymore. Student-athletes who have excelled on the playing fields and in the classrooms their whole lives now experience week after week of grinding, unrelenting failure. At two different points in the last three years they went more than a calendar year without a single win over a Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as Division 1A) team. At best, the resilience and grit of the players demonstrates admirable effort that nonetheless produces generally non-competitive results. At worst, the misery becomes too much to bear and the players understandably lose the will to fight, as seen in the humiliating string of losses to end the 2021 season in which the Cardinal were outscored an astounding 173-46. Players increasingly vote with their feet, with record numbers declining to complete their eligibility at Stanford and some even transferring before completing their Stanford degrees.

It is time for a change. For all the attributes David Shaw brought to sustaining excellence, he is unsuited to turning around a flailing program, as each of the last two seasons resoundingly demonstrated. He is a model of steadiness and stability, not dynamism and drive. While Stanford football needed continuity 12 years ago, it now needs disruption. A program that hasn't been in the top half of Pac-12 scoring offenses or scoring defenses in any of the last four seasons needs fresh perspectives on both sides of the ball, as well as in the overall management of the program. It is rare in college football for any coach to maintain excellence for over a decade without becoming stale or burnt out. Shaw did not prove to be immune from the march of time.

[msqueri]

Many people have asked me to write an open letter on DSMG. I have mixed views on whether/how to go public on this but let my fingers do the walking to see what it would look like in print. Open to any thoughts:

OPEN LETTER ON THE FUTURE OF STANFORD FOOTBALL

The multi-year struggles of the Stanford football program and the depth to which the program has plunged make clear an uncomfortable truth: the school must move on from the most winning coach in its history if it hopes to field a product that benefits student-athletes, alumni, and the broader university community.

For the last 12 years, David Shaw led the program in a way that brought great credit to him and Stanford University. His association with Stanford football goes back even further, spanning his time as an assistant coach, player, and son of a coach. David Shaw was destined to be the consummate Stanford Man from his infancy, when his father joined the Stanford football staff. By the time he took the helm of the football program, few understood the unique potential, challenges, values, and place in the college football landscape Stanford represents. Coupling that pedigree with the newly dominant roster he inherited from Jim Harbaugh, Shaw achieved spectacular results. A program that had reached the pinnacle - the Rose Bowl, the Granddaddy of Them All - three times in 60 years found itself partying in Pasadena three times in a rapturous four year stretch. Alumni flocked from all corners of the globe to celebrate their alma mater, basking not only in the joy of watching one of the top football teams in America but in the pride that Stanford reached the top of the sport without compromising its principles. True student-athletes modeled the best of what Stanford University has to offer, led by a coach respected from coast-to-coast as a paragon of dignity and decency among the coaching fraternity. By the end of Shaw's eighth season as head coach, he had won 82 games, with football juggernauts Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State the only programs to win more in that span. For over half a decade, Stanford football had it all.

Sadly, it all came crashing down over the last four seasons. The losses of recent years go far beyond a reversion to the mean and instead reflect the darkest days the program has ever experienced. 2022 marks the third consecutive full season in which Stanford football finished in last place in its division, a multi-year level of losing unseen since 1960. Computer algorithms that account for the strength of a team's schedule, an important consideration as Stanford often plays one of the hardest schedules in the country, calculate that the 2019, 2021, and 2022 seasons all rank among the eight worst seasons of the last 60 years of Stanford football. The sole break from constant losing came in a pandemic-shortened 2020 season, a mediocre one in which Stanford won four games by a combined ten points and that aforementioned computer algorithms deemed worse than every season Shaw coached from 2011-2018. From 2019 to 2022, Stanford's 14-27 record makes it one of the worst football programs in the nation. In its own conference, Stanford is tied for tenth of 12 teams in wins in that span (the other two cellar dwellers, Colorado and Arizona, held their coaches accountable for the incompetence by firing them).

Those of us who love Stanford football can see with our own eyes what all this losing has wrought. Not long ago Stanford Stadium erupted in communal exultation when Tyler Gaffney ground undefeated Oregon into duck meat or Conrad Ukropina's last second field goal knocked Notre Dame out of playoff contention. In recent years it feels like a mausoleum. A beautiful stadium that regularly sold out now reports attendance figures around half the stadium's capacity, numbers that few who attend or watch on television believe. What had been idyllic fall Saturdays now bring little joy to fans, or even occasion protests from students that Stanford Hates Fun.

None of this can be fun for the players either. The blood, sweat, and tears Stanford's 105 players pour into this enterprise seldom gets rewarded with C-House chants anymore. Student-athletes who have excelled on the playing fields and in the classrooms their whole lives now experience week after week of grinding, unrelenting failure. At two different points in the last three years they went more than a calendar year without a single win over a Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as Division 1A) team. At best, the resilience and grit of the players demonstrates admirable effort that nonetheless produces generally non-competitive results. At worst, the misery becomes too much to bear and the players understandably lose the will to fight, as seen in the humiliating string of losses to end the 2021 season in which the Cardinal were outscored an astounding 173-46. Players increasingly vote with their feet, with record numbers declining to complete their eligibility at Stanford and some even transferring before completing their Stanford degrees.

It is time for a change. For all the attributes David Shaw brought to sustaining excellence, he is unsuited to turning around a flailing program, as each of the last two seasons resoundingly demonstrated. He is a model of steadiness and stability, not dynamism and drive. While Stanford football needed continuity 12 years ago, it now needs disruption. A program that hasn't been in the top half of Pac-12 scoring offenses or scoring defenses in any of the last four seasons needs fresh perspectives on both sides of the ball, as well as in the overall management of the program. It is rare in college football for any coach to maintain excellence for over a decade without becoming stale or burnt out. Shaw did not prove to be immune from the march of time.

[msqueri]

The course of action that respects Shaw's legacy, strives for excellence in all things at Stanford University, and does right by the players, fans, and community Stanford football serves should be clear: thank Shaw for his service and turn the page to a new era. New leadership is needed to chart a course for Stanford football amidst an evolving college sports landscape. Some argue that Shaw remains the man for the job due to his connection to the university and record of past success. Unfortunately, the comprehensive, catastrophic failures of three of the last four seasons make clear that time has passed him by and he does not know how to fix what ails the program. Simply put, if he knew how Stanford could win in the new era of college football he would have done it by now.

Those who contend that a spate of bad injury luck in recent years explains the failure accurately recognize the high prevalence of injuries on Stanford's football team but reach the wrong conclusion. While it is true that injuries plagued many of Shaw's worst teams, performance shortcomings on Stanford's roster routinely occur at healthy and beleaguered positions alike. When injuries become a dominant part of the program's internal story of itself, it should consider whether the same circumstance year after year can credibly be attributed to "luck." In any case, empirical analysis of the effects of injuries on team performance in college football indicates that injury luck can swing outcomes by a few wins and losses per season. The depths of Stanford football's incompetence in recent years mean that even two additional wins per year would still render mediocre, non-winning teams in three of the last four seasons. Injuries may explain why Stanford has been one of the worst teams in the country but they can't explain why Stanford has failed.

Others argue that, given this new era of college football, nobody can succeed at Stanford. This is an argument that flies in the face of everything it means to be Stanford Cardinal. Stanford's 131 NCAA team champions and 177 Olympic medalists didn't reach the top because they took the easy route. As with all the elements of Stanford's well-earned reputation as a world-class institution, Stanford's place as the premier athletics institution stems from not just a willingness but an eagerness to take on the hard challenges and excel. It remains debatable how much the advent of the transfer portal and Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) regulations hamstring Stanford football. Other football programs, such as Michigan and Iowa, achieved far greater success than Stanford despite similarly lacking an influx of transfers. Yet even if the new features of the competitive landscape make Stanford's previous model antiquated, the response befitting Stanford's commitment to excellence must be to chart a new course in line with the Stanford way: adapting and innovating as necessary to show that world-class academics, research, athletics, and campus life can not only coexist but mutually reinforce one another to provide the best university experience and value proposition available anywhere in the world.

The sad reality is that the decline of the Stanford football program fails to live up to its end of that bargain. Stanford football no longer provides a good experience to student-athletes, builds bonds of attachment for alumni to the university, generates revenue needed to support other sports, or advances Stanford's reputation for excellence. In light of this lose-lose-lose-lose proposition, it is time for new leadership for Stanford football. David Shaw must go.

[msqueri]

The course of action that respects Shaw's legacy, strives for excellence in all things at Stanford University, and does right by the players, fans, and community Stanford football serves should be clear: thank Shaw for his service and turn the page to a new era. New leadership is needed to chart a course for Stanford football amidst an evolving college sports landscape. Some argue that Shaw remains the man for the job due to his connection to the university and record of past success. Unfortunately, the comprehensive, catastrophic failures of three of the last four seasons make clear that time has passed him by and he does not know how to fix what ails the program. Simply put, if he knew how Stanford could win in the new era of college football he would have done it by now.

Those who contend that a spate of bad injury luck in recent years explains the failure accurately recognize the high prevalence of injuries on Stanford's football team but reach the wrong conclusion. While it is true that injuries plagued many of Shaw's worst teams, performance shortcomings on Stanford's roster routinely occur at healthy and beleaguered positions alike. When injuries become a dominant part of the program's internal story of itself, it should consider whether the same circumstance year after year can credibly be attributed to "luck." In any case, empirical analysis of the effects of injuries on team performance in college football indicates that injury luck can swing outcomes by a few wins and losses per season. The depths of Stanford football's incompetence in recent years mean that even two additional wins per year would still render mediocre, non-winning teams in three of the last four seasons. Injuries may explain why Stanford has been one of the worst teams in the country but they can't explain why Stanford has failed.

Others argue that, given this new era of college football, nobody can succeed at Stanford. This is an argument that flies in the face of everything it means to be Stanford Cardinal. Stanford's 131 NCAA team champions and 177 Olympic medalists didn't reach the top because they took the easy route. As with all the elements of Stanford's well-earned reputation as a world-class institution, Stanford's place as the premier athletics institution stems from not just a willingness but an eagerness to take on the hard challenges and excel. It remains debatable how much the advent of the transfer portal and Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) regulations hamstring Stanford football. Other football programs, such as Michigan and Iowa, achieved far greater success than Stanford despite similarly lacking an influx of transfers. Yet even if the new features of the competitive landscape make Stanford's previous model antiquated, the response befitting Stanford's commitment to excellence must be to chart a new course in line with the Stanford way: adapting and innovating as necessary to show that world-class academics, research, athletics, and campus life can not only coexist but mutually reinforce one another to provide the best university experience and value proposition available anywhere in the world.

The sad reality is that the decline of the Stanford football program fails to live up to its end of that bargain. Stanford football no longer provides a good experience to student-athletes, builds bonds of attachment for alumni to the university, generates revenue needed to support other sports, or advances Stanford's reputation for excellence. In light of this lose-lose-lose-lose proposition, it is time for new leadership for Stanford football. David Shaw must go.

[French Rage]

Question that has probably been discussed and answered elsewhere, so I apologize: how much time is left on his current contract?  That is, what would the buyout hit be?

[French Rage]

Question that has probably been discussed and answered elsewhere, so I apologize: how much time is left on his current contract?  That is, what would the buyout hit be?

[Spiny_Norman]

Matt - one small typo - Conrad Ukropina, not Tyler.

And depending on the audience for this letter, I would make a small change at the end - "it is time for new leadership for Stanford football. Bernard Muir and David Shaw must go."

I think you also could expand your argument for change. Stanford Athletics is in dire financial straits because of the lack of football success. Let's look at the numbers.

Stanford annually reports athletic income and expense to the Department of Education for its Equity in Athletics project. It's the best publicly available data we have.

2014-2015 total revenue = $109,670,730
2014-2015 non-athletic expense = $51,021,677
2014-2015 athletic expense = $58,649,053

2020-2021 total revenue = $127,653,964
2020-2021 non-athletic expense = $50,084,261
2020-2021 athletic expense = $77,569,703

Stanford always reports a balanced budget to the DoE which we know is not an actual representation of their financial position. Stanford AD has a structural deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $10M per year. But as I said, it's the best data we have.

If we delve further into the sport by sport expense:
2014-2015 football expense = $19,912,411
2014-2015 men's basketball expense = $5,138,665
2014-2015 women's basketball expense = $3,977,604
2014-2015 expenses for all other sports = $29,618,448


2020-2021 football expense = $27,585,061
2020-2021 men's basketball expense = $6,660,155
2020-2021 women's basketball expense = $6,160,030
2020-2021 expenses for all other sports = $36,919,814

My interpretation - the AD invested heavily during the period 2015-2021 in football (and other sports as well). But in football particularly, it has not realized any kind of return on investment. In fact, football could be the anchor which will drag down the rest of the department if action is not taken immediately. Stanford does not have to be successful on the field, but it has to be competitive, entertaining and compelling enough for people to want to watch. For the last few years, it has not been competitive, entertaining or compelling (or very successful). It's an anemic brand that has been surpassed by just about all of its peers/competitors. Any responsible corporate Board of Directors would recognize this dire situation as a potential to sink the entire company. The administration has to act now.

[Spiny_Norman]

Matt - one small typo - Conrad Ukropina, not Tyler.

And depending on the audience for this letter, I would make a small change at the end - "it is time for new leadership for Stanford football. Bernard Muir and David Shaw must go."

I think you also could expand your argument for change. Stanford Athletics is in dire financial straits because of the lack of football success. Let's look at the numbers.

Stanford annually reports athletic income and expense to the Department of Education for its Equity in Athletics project. It's the best publicly available data we have.

2014-2015 total revenue = $109,670,730
2014-2015 non-athletic expense = $51,021,677
2014-2015 athletic expense = $58,649,053

2020-2021 total revenue = $127,653,964
2020-2021 non-athletic expense = $50,084,261
2020-2021 athletic expense = $77,569,703

Stanford always reports a balanced budget to the DoE which we know is not an actual representation of their financial position. Stanford AD has a structural deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $10M per year. But as I said, it's the best data we have.

If we delve further into the sport by sport expense:
2014-2015 football expense = $19,912,411
2014-2015 men's basketball expense = $5,138,665
2014-2015 women's basketball expense = $3,977,604
2014-2015 expenses for all other sports = $29,618,448


2020-2021 football expense = $27,585,061
2020-2021 men's basketball expense = $6,660,155
2020-2021 women's basketball expense = $6,160,030
2020-2021 expenses for all other sports = $36,919,814

My interpretation - the AD invested heavily during the period 2015-2021 in football (and other sports as well). But in football particularly, it has not realized any kind of return on investment. In fact, football could be the anchor which will drag down the rest of the department if action is not taken immediately. Stanford does not have to be successful on the field, but it has to be competitive, entertaining and compelling enough for people to want to watch. For the last few years, it has not been competitive, entertaining or compelling (or very successful). It's an anemic brand that has been surpassed by just about all of its peers/competitors. Any responsible corporate Board of Directors would recognize this dire situation as a potential to sink the entire company. The administration has to act now.

[Nan3cy]

What I can’t see is how Stanford can achieve any level of football excellence in the current transfer-driven system. USC has 26 transfers on the team? (Seven starters on the defense, I think I heard.) You’re rooting for the uniform, not the players — how do you have time to get to know the players? At Stanford, it’s an accomplishment to get one transfer. I’m reminded of the fact that the University of Chicago used to be a football powerhouse…

[Nan3cy]

What I can’t see is how Stanford can achieve any level of football excellence in the current transfer-driven system. USC has 26 transfers on the team? (Seven starters on the defense, I think I heard.) You’re rooting for the uniform, not the players — how do you have time to get to know the players? At Stanford, it’s an accomplishment to get one transfer. I’m reminded of the fact that the University of Chicago used to be a football powerhouse…

[SamuelMcF]

What I can’t see is how Stanford can achieve any level of football excellence in the current transfer-driven system. USC has 26 transfers on the team? (Seven starters on the defense, I think I heard.) You’re rooting for the uniform, not the players — how do you have time to get to know the players? At Stanford, it’s an accomplishment to get one transfer. I’m reminded of the fact that the University of Chicago used to be a football powerhouse…

Michigan, Ohio State, Clemson, and Iowa are all doing so with very few or zero transfers. You can still achieve football excellence with excellent coaching, recruiting, development, and S&C. The first 3 have all four, and Iowa has three (their OC sucks and recruiting is good-not-great). We have 0.5 if you look at recruiting rankings and ignore the depth holes everywhere.


Copy-pasting my reply from when this question was posted a while ago:


"I agree with this. Even though transfer portal-mania and NIL likely put a ceiling on the program, it's a high ceiling. We could feasibly get back to consistent 8-10 win seasons here with some relatively simple changes. (I don't think 2010-15 was sustainable either.)

Here is what a new coach could do, perfectly legitimately, to keep the program competitive (as you can probably tell, I believe Shaw will not do any of this):


From a recruiting/roster management standpoint:

- Sign full 20+ classes every year that address every single position. The Stanford brand is enough to recruit top-25 classes on its own, and there are easily enough 4* or high 3* guys out there with the grades. (Not all will be interested, but TRY.)
     - As a subset of this, the trenches are the most important position on the field besides QB. Recruit 3-4 OL and 2-3 DL every single year. Period.
     - I do think the staff is starting to do this now.

- Actively pursue a handful of high-academic grad transfers every year at positions of need. The goal should be to sign 1-2 guys that can immediately contribute and address glaring depth issues we've continued to see. Leverage the Master of Liberal Arts program to get them in. (Tara did this with the Northwestern grad transfer.) Stop relying on non-mega-whale freshmen to be immediate depth. That's not how college football works.

- This one may be a bit controversial, but recruit players who are football first and happen to be smart. The team is currently full of guys who are primarily smart and happen to play football. We're seeing the difference.


From a coaching standpoint:

- Hire good coordinators and let them call everything. The best thing a CEO can do is adapt and adjust strategy to follow where the puck is going.

- Fire assistants who aren't recruiting P5-level guys or whose position rooms have horrifically underperformed (unless there's a good explanation/it's a one-year aberration type of thing). Replace them with hungry G5 coaches or NFL assistants with previous P5 experience who know how to recruit.

- As a corollary to the above two points: if you're the HC and you're making 6+M a year, and the AD won't give you a bigger assistant salary pool, take a pay cut to fund the above and attract great assistant and support staff. Making 5M a year for 10 years sounds way better than making 6+ for 4, but that's just me.

- Seniority should mean nothing in a position battle, unless knowledge of playbook/scheme legitimately moves the needle between two guys who are neck and neck. (And that second younger guy should still see some backup snaps and breathe down the older guy's neck. If he makes more plays in fewer snaps, guess who's gonna get more snaps?) Every position battle should be a real battle. Every season.


From a broader NIL and campus/community standpoint:

- Give free tickets to surrounding high schools. Get butts in seats. It's not like they're filling up anyways (and obviously winning would help in the first place).

- Leverage Stanford's Silicon Valley connections to create a relatively small NIL fund for players. A few grand here and there to promote an alum VC's portfolio startups, for example. Have Chris Marinelli sponsor the Tunnel Worker's Union. We don't need to be throwing Miami $$$ around, IMO (and really shouldn't, though our alums probably could if they wanted), and it's more of a nice to have since the guys coming here aren't coming for the NIL in the first place.


Of course, all the above relies on having an AD who actually gives a shit about on-field performance, which we don't have either."


A couple of the above are happening, but most are not.

[SamuelMcF]

What I can’t see is how Stanford can achieve any level of football excellence in the current transfer-driven system. USC has 26 transfers on the team? (Seven starters on the defense, I think I heard.) You’re rooting for the uniform, not the players — how do you have time to get to know the players? At Stanford, it’s an accomplishment to get one transfer. I’m reminded of the fact that the University of Chicago used to be a football powerhouse…

Michigan, Ohio State, Clemson, and Iowa are all doing so with very few or zero transfers. You can still achieve football excellence with excellent coaching, recruiting, development, and S&C. The first 3 have all four, and Iowa has three (their OC sucks and recruiting is good-not-great). We have 0.5 if you look at recruiting rankings and ignore the depth holes everywhere.


Copy-pasting my reply from when this question was posted a while ago:


"I agree with this. Even though transfer portal-mania and NIL likely put a ceiling on the program, it's a high ceiling. We could feasibly get back to consistent 8-10 win seasons here with some relatively simple changes. (I don't think 2010-15 was sustainable either.)

Here is what a new coach could do, perfectly legitimately, to keep the program competitive (as you can probably tell, I believe Shaw will not do any of this):


From a recruiting/roster management standpoint:

- Sign full 20+ classes every year that address every single position. The Stanford brand is enough to recruit top-25 classes on its own, and there are easily enough 4* or high 3* guys out there with the grades. (Not all will be interested, but TRY.)
     - As a subset of this, the trenches are the most important position on the field besides QB. Recruit 3-4 OL and 2-3 DL every single year. Period.
     - I do think the staff is starting to do this now.

- Actively pursue a handful of high-academic grad transfers every year at positions of need. The goal should be to sign 1-2 guys that can immediately contribute and address glaring depth issues we've continued to see. Leverage the Master of Liberal Arts program to get them in. (Tara did this with the Northwestern grad transfer.) Stop relying on non-mega-whale freshmen to be immediate depth. That's not how college football works.

- This one may be a bit controversial, but recruit players who are football first and happen to be smart. The team is currently full of guys who are primarily smart and happen to play football. We're seeing the difference.


From a coaching standpoint:

- Hire good coordinators and let them call everything. The best thing a CEO can do is adapt and adjust strategy to follow where the puck is going.

- Fire assistants who aren't recruiting P5-level guys or whose position rooms have horrifically underperformed (unless there's a good explanation/it's a one-year aberration type of thing). Replace them with hungry G5 coaches or NFL assistants with previous P5 experience who know how to recruit.

- As a corollary to the above two points: if you're the HC and you're making 6+M a year, and the AD won't give you a bigger assistant salary pool, take a pay cut to fund the above and attract great assistant and support staff. Making 5M a year for 10 years sounds way better than making 6+ for 4, but that's just me.

- Seniority should mean nothing in a position battle, unless knowledge of playbook/scheme legitimately moves the needle between two guys who are neck and neck. (And that second younger guy should still see some backup snaps and breathe down the older guy's neck. If he makes more plays in fewer snaps, guess who's gonna get more snaps?) Every position battle should be a real battle. Every season.


From a broader NIL and campus/community standpoint:

- Give free tickets to surrounding high schools. Get butts in seats. It's not like they're filling up anyways (and obviously winning would help in the first place).

- Leverage Stanford's Silicon Valley connections to create a relatively small NIL fund for players. A few grand here and there to promote an alum VC's portfolio startups, for example. Have Chris Marinelli sponsor the Tunnel Worker's Union. We don't need to be throwing Miami $$$ around, IMO (and really shouldn't, though our alums probably could if they wanted), and it's more of a nice to have since the guys coming here aren't coming for the NIL in the first place.


Of course, all the above relies on having an AD who actually gives a shit about on-field performance, which we don't have either."


A couple of the above are happening, but most are not.

[qwerty49]

Do MTL or PD even know what the C-House chant is? For that matter, has either of them ever attended a tailgate, let alone a game?

I think the point about sustaining the legacy of overall excellence in all endeavors could be more at the forefront of the discussion. You go to great pains to praise Shaw, but he still remains the heart of your argument and the lack of systemic commitment must also be stressed IMHO.

If this were made available in some kind of alumni media for signature, I would sign it.  Or fan media.

[qwerty49]

Do MTL or PD even know what the C-House chant is? For that matter, has either of them ever attended a tailgate, let alone a game?

I think the point about sustaining the legacy of overall excellence in all endeavors could be more at the forefront of the discussion. You go to great pains to praise Shaw, but he still remains the heart of your argument and the lack of systemic commitment must also be stressed IMHO.

If this were made available in some kind of alumni media for signature, I would sign it.  Or fan media.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't see how lack of transfers is the big problem with Stanford Football.  Recruit the right players, develop them, coach them up, and play an entertaining style of football that prepares players for the next level and you need not worry about transfers in or out of the program.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't see how lack of transfers is the big problem with Stanford Football.  Recruit the right players, develop them, coach them up, and play an entertaining style of football that prepares players for the next level and you need not worry about transfers in or out of the program.

[lex24]

I don't see how lack of transfers is the big problem with Stanford Football.  Recruit the right players, develop them, coach them up, and play an entertaining style of football that prepares players for the next level and you need not worry about transfers in or out of the program.

I truly don’t see how anyone can look at this PAC 12 season and not get the importance of the portal and NIL.  Lincoln Riley is a good coach.  No question.  But he didn’t take over SC and turn them around with the old roster.  He used the portal and NIL to poach perhaps the best QB in college football, the Biletnikoff winner and, I think, a mere 17 others. 

Good programs lose players to the portal. For a host of reasons.  Those programs, however, can also get players through the portal. And with the help of NIL in some cases marquis players.

To only have a one way door is a significant disadvantage.  To deny that is to deny reality.

[lex24]

I don't see how lack of transfers is the big problem with Stanford Football.  Recruit the right players, develop them, coach them up, and play an entertaining style of football that prepares players for the next level and you need not worry about transfers in or out of the program.

I truly don’t see how anyone can look at this PAC 12 season and not get the importance of the portal and NIL.  Lincoln Riley is a good coach.  No question.  But he didn’t take over SC and turn them around with the old roster.  He used the portal and NIL to poach perhaps the best QB in college football, the Biletnikoff winner and, I think, a mere 17 others. 

Good programs lose players to the portal. For a host of reasons.  Those programs, however, can also get players through the portal. And with the help of NIL in some cases marquis players.

To only have a one way door is a significant disadvantage.  To deny that is to deny reality.

[qwerty49]

It occurs to me that this is exactly the message that should be presented to the powers-that-be….by a competent AD. It could be supplemented by numbers showing the impact/revenue loss of wallowing in mediocrity, and how the Olympic and country club sports we are so proud of are thus endangered. But that firing Shaw is not the simple answer, and that action needs to be taken to address transfer/NIL and other issues (like “Chipotle gate”) as well.

But Bernie’s an expensive placeholder. Not hard to see.

[qwerty49]

It occurs to me that this is exactly the message that should be presented to the powers-that-be….by a competent AD. It could be supplemented by numbers showing the impact/revenue loss of wallowing in mediocrity, and how the Olympic and country club sports we are so proud of are thus endangered. But that firing Shaw is not the simple answer, and that action needs to be taken to address transfer/NIL and other issues (like “Chipotle gate”) as well.

But Bernie’s an expensive placeholder. Not hard to see.

[gailtate]

Tad Taube and/or Condie Rice would be ideal "test readers", Condie must be assured of anonymity of course. Taube not so much. I don't have a pipe to either one, but someone here might...or know someone who does.

[gailtate]

Tad Taube and/or Condie Rice would be ideal "test readers", Condie must be assured of anonymity of course. Taube not so much. I don't have a pipe to either one, but someone here might...or know someone who does.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't see how lack of transfers is the big problem with Stanford Football.  Recruit the right players, develop them, coach them up, and play an entertaining style of football that prepares players for the next level and you need not worry about transfers in or out of the program.

I truly don’t see how anyone can look at this PAC 12 season and not get the importance of the portal and NIL.  Lincoln Riley is a good coach.  No question.  But he didn’t take over SC and turn them around with the old roster.  He used the portal and NIL to poach perhaps the best QB in college football, the Biletnikoff winner and, I think, a mere 17 others. 

Good programs lose players to the portal. For a host of reasons.  Those programs, however, can also get players through the portal. And with the help of NIL in some cases marquis players.

To only have a one way door is a significant disadvantage.  To deny that is to deny reality.

Stanford also has an advantage no other school has - the ability to confer a Stanford degree. I don't buy that Stanford grads are the end all be all, but the preponderance of people out there making hiring and investment decisions do.

As a result, Stanford transfer attrition will be exceptionally low. Grad transfers are a different story. IMO, Stanford would get more value out of making it easier for graduated players to stick around as 4th or 5th year Seniors than it makes sense to keep up with the Joneses on transfer and NIL money. Stanford needs to emphasize what differentiates it and what it does better than others as much as it can, and limit how many "me too" things it tries to compete with others as much as possible.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't see how lack of transfers is the big problem with Stanford Football.  Recruit the right players, develop them, coach them up, and play an entertaining style of football that prepares players for the next level and you need not worry about transfers in or out of the program.

I truly don’t see how anyone can look at this PAC 12 season and not get the importance of the portal and NIL.  Lincoln Riley is a good coach.  No question.  But he didn’t take over SC and turn them around with the old roster.  He used the portal and NIL to poach perhaps the best QB in college football, the Biletnikoff winner and, I think, a mere 17 others. 

Good programs lose players to the portal. For a host of reasons.  Those programs, however, can also get players through the portal. And with the help of NIL in some cases marquis players.

To only have a one way door is a significant disadvantage.  To deny that is to deny reality.

Stanford also has an advantage no other school has - the ability to confer a Stanford degree. I don't buy that Stanford grads are the end all be all, but the preponderance of people out there making hiring and investment decisions do.

As a result, Stanford transfer attrition will be exceptionally low. Grad transfers are a different story. IMO, Stanford would get more value out of making it easier for graduated players to stick around as 4th or 5th year Seniors than it makes sense to keep up with the Joneses on transfer and NIL money. Stanford needs to emphasize what differentiates it and what it does better than others as much as it can, and limit how many "me too" things it tries to compete with others as much as possible.

[Phogge]

The only thing a fan can do is not to contribute and let them know it. Get organized into a committee. Universities love committees but make sure that they don't love one pledged to withhold contributions. You all must know influential alumni. Email the crap out of them that you're not going to let shit football ruin the entire sports program.

You can sit back and take it and post your asses off. Nothing written here will foster change. Act like the Teamsters and hit em where it hurts.

We have a cabal of alumni baseball players at a local State school. By god, we are trying to resurrect a once great program. Our administration doesn't care much either but we are trying hard. Takes work pals.

[Phogge]

The only thing a fan can do is not to contribute and let them know it. Get organized into a committee. Universities love committees but make sure that they don't love one pledged to withhold contributions. You all must know influential alumni. Email the crap out of them that you're not going to let shit football ruin the entire sports program.

You can sit back and take it and post your asses off. Nothing written here will foster change. Act like the Teamsters and hit em where it hurts.

We have a cabal of alumni baseball players at a local State school. By god, we are trying to resurrect a once great program. Our administration doesn't care much either but we are trying hard. Takes work pals.

[TrumpCard]

Interesting you say over the last 4 years. You expressed big concerns before the W/L supported your position. In retrospect, the W/L was a lagging indicator and it might make sense to include facts further back in time.

[TrumpCard]

Interesting you say over the last 4 years. You expressed big concerns before the W/L supported your position. In retrospect, the W/L was a lagging indicator and it might make sense to include facts further back in time.

[msqueri]

Interesting you say over the last 4 years. You expressed big concerns before the W/L supported your position. In retrospect, the W/L was a lagging indicator and it might make sense to include facts further back in time.

I’d rather be persuasive than right in this case. For those uninitiated to the PhD level analysis of Stanford football we seem like lunatics complaining about 9 win seasons. That’s also why I didn’t make the argument that signs of incompetence were there from the start. That won’t resonate with anybody but the most obsessive, who are not who need to get off the dime here.

[msqueri]

Interesting you say over the last 4 years. You expressed big concerns before the W/L supported your position. In retrospect, the W/L was a lagging indicator and it might make sense to include facts further back in time.

I’d rather be persuasive than right in this case. For those uninitiated to the PhD level analysis of Stanford football we seem like lunatics complaining about 9 win seasons. That’s also why I didn’t make the argument that signs of incompetence were there from the start. That won’t resonate with anybody but the most obsessive, who are not who need to get off the dime here.

[SamuelMcF]

As a result, Stanford transfer attrition will be exceptionally low. Grad transfers are a different story.

I would, again, hold that thought.

[SamuelMcF]

As a result, Stanford transfer attrition will be exceptionally low. Grad transfers are a different story.

I would, again, hold that thought.

[TrumpCard]

As a result, Stanford transfer attrition will be exceptionally low. Grad transfers are a different story.

I would, again, hold that thought.

Boo!  But predictable.  Among those who have a choice and who care about football on par with education, who would choose Stanford's program right now?

[TrumpCard]

As a result, Stanford transfer attrition will be exceptionally low. Grad transfers are a different story.

I would, again, hold that thought.

Boo!  But predictable.  Among those who have a choice and who care about football on par with education, who would choose Stanford's program right now?

[lex24]

I don't see how lack of transfers is the big problem with Stanford Football.  Recruit the right players, develop them, coach them up, and play an entertaining style of football that prepares players for the next level and you need not worry about transfers in or out of the program.

I truly don’t see how anyone can look at this PAC 12 season and not get the importance of the portal and NIL.  Lincoln Riley is a good coach.  No question.  But he didn’t take over SC and turn them around with the old roster.  He used the portal and NIL to poach perhaps the best QB in college football, the Biletnikoff winner and, I think, a mere 17 others. 

Good programs lose players to the portal. For a host of reasons.  Those programs, however, can also get players through the portal. And with the help of NIL in some cases marquis players.

To only have a one way door is a significant disadvantage.  To deny that is to deny reality.

Stanford also has an advantage no other school has - the ability to confer a Stanford degree. I don't buy that Stanford grads are the end all be all, but the preponderance of people out there making hiring and investment decisions do.

As a result, Stanford transfer attrition will be exceptionally low. Grad transfers are a different story. IMO, Stanford would get more value out of making it easier for graduated players to stick around as 4th or 5th year Seniors than it makes sense to keep up with the Joneses on transfer and NIL money. Stanford needs to emphasize what differentiates it and what it does better than others as much as it can, and limit how many "me too" things it tries to compete with others as much as possible.

So, here is the recruiting pitch to a 17-18 year old.  Stanford :  “40 year decision”. Other:  “ We can get you $100,000 in NIL.

Who wins? And remember, a lot of these kids come from low income families. 

Transfer portal raises different issues. Kids may transfer for a slew of reasons. You are going to lose some. Nice to have the ability to add back. 

Sorry, I know you all talk about the “40 year decision “.  And that will still resonate with a few.  Especially those with families that aren’t poor.  But as the old saying goes “money talks”.  Further, a lot of these schools, including USC aren’t chopped liver. And have alumni bases that take care of their own. Ask Caleb Williams….

The Stanford degree has always been the one advantage amongst the disadvantages. I don’t think it is a big an advantage as it was prior to the changes that lead to the current landscape. As with so many other things, you adjust with the times, or you wither away.

And please, one doesn’t have to go to Stanford to get a good job…..

[lex24]

I don't see how lack of transfers is the big problem with Stanford Football.  Recruit the right players, develop them, coach them up, and play an entertaining style of football that prepares players for the next level and you need not worry about transfers in or out of the program.

I truly don’t see how anyone can look at this PAC 12 season and not get the importance of the portal and NIL.  Lincoln Riley is a good coach.  No question.  But he didn’t take over SC and turn them around with the old roster.  He used the portal and NIL to poach perhaps the best QB in college football, the Biletnikoff winner and, I think, a mere 17 others. 

Good programs lose players to the portal. For a host of reasons.  Those programs, however, can also get players through the portal. And with the help of NIL in some cases marquis players.

To only have a one way door is a significant disadvantage.  To deny that is to deny reality.

Stanford also has an advantage no other school has - the ability to confer a Stanford degree. I don't buy that Stanford grads are the end all be all, but the preponderance of people out there making hiring and investment decisions do.

As a result, Stanford transfer attrition will be exceptionally low. Grad transfers are a different story. IMO, Stanford would get more value out of making it easier for graduated players to stick around as 4th or 5th year Seniors than it makes sense to keep up with the Joneses on transfer and NIL money. Stanford needs to emphasize what differentiates it and what it does better than others as much as it can, and limit how many "me too" things it tries to compete with others as much as possible.

So, here is the recruiting pitch to a 17-18 year old.  Stanford :  “40 year decision”. Other:  “ We can get you $100,000 in NIL.

Who wins? And remember, a lot of these kids come from low income families. 

Transfer portal raises different issues. Kids may transfer for a slew of reasons. You are going to lose some. Nice to have the ability to add back. 

Sorry, I know you all talk about the “40 year decision “.  And that will still resonate with a few.  Especially those with families that aren’t poor.  But as the old saying goes “money talks”.  Further, a lot of these schools, including USC aren’t chopped liver. And have alumni bases that take care of their own. Ask Caleb Williams….

The Stanford degree has always been the one advantage amongst the disadvantages. I don’t think it is a big an advantage as it was prior to the changes that lead to the current landscape. As with so many other things, you adjust with the times, or you wither away.

And please, one doesn’t have to go to Stanford to get a good job…..

[BostonCard]

Hi Matt,

It's a nice letter, and I think you are likely to get further with it than some others that I have seen that have come across as unhinged.  I'm not too sanguine that it will make a difference; I'm not certain anything will (which is why I read the comment in your review of Big Game with a bit of disappointment, as I don't think the administration is at the point of wanting to justify anything, so no amount of on-the-field futility will move the needle much.  My sense is that the modal outcome for next year is that Shaw is our head coach, and there is an even chance that it will be with a substantially similar staff as this year.  I'd probably peg it at about a 5% chance that Shaw leaves on his own volition, maybe a 5% chance that he is outright fired, and (my best hope) is that there might be 15% chance that Shaw and Muir sit down and come to a mutual agreement that it would be best if Shaw resigned. I could be wrong, and maybe your letter, joined by others, plus some movement by the BoD and connected alums will help move, and what sounds like the impending opening of the outbound portal floodgates will alert the powers that be that they ought to do something.  But I don't know that Dr. Drell wakes up every day and thinks "the football team is 3-8 and we should try to fix that".  I think she cares about as much about the 3-8 football team as she cares about the results of my rec volleyball team (equally bad, but our coach doesn't make $6 million).

BC

[BostonCard]

Hi Matt,

It's a nice letter, and I think you are likely to get further with it than some others that I have seen that have come across as unhinged.  I'm not too sanguine that it will make a difference; I'm not certain anything will (which is why I read the comment in your review of Big Game with a bit of disappointment, as I don't think the administration is at the point of wanting to justify anything, so no amount of on-the-field futility will move the needle much.  My sense is that the modal outcome for next year is that Shaw is our head coach, and there is an even chance that it will be with a substantially similar staff as this year.  I'd probably peg it at about a 5% chance that Shaw leaves on his own volition, maybe a 5% chance that he is outright fired, and (my best hope) is that there might be 15% chance that Shaw and Muir sit down and come to a mutual agreement that it would be best if Shaw resigned. I could be wrong, and maybe your letter, joined by others, plus some movement by the BoD and connected alums will help move, and what sounds like the impending opening of the outbound portal floodgates will alert the powers that be that they ought to do something.  But I don't know that Dr. Drell wakes up every day and thinks "the football team is 3-8 and we should try to fix that".  I think she cares about as much about the 3-8 football team as she cares about the results of my rec volleyball team (equally bad, but our coach doesn't make $6 million).

BC

[chrisk]

MTL can talk with Michael Schill, a former fellow president in the Pac-12 who recently moved from Oregon (which has been doing quite well in football) to Northwestern (where the football program is in worse shape than Stanford). Schill is going to be dealing with a lot of the same issues as Stanford now that he is no longer at Oregon.

[chrisk]

MTL can talk with Michael Schill, a former fellow president in the Pac-12 who recently moved from Oregon (which has been doing quite well in football) to Northwestern (where the football program is in worse shape than Stanford). Schill is going to be dealing with a lot of the same issues as Stanford now that he is no longer at Oregon.