[BobK]

Still another post implying only football counts. We have over 700 athletes playing for Stanford who aren’t playing football. Thank you dcohn
Plus I’m so tried of the term non revenue sports. I Have season tix to 4 paying $900 a year. And enjoying every dollar spent

[BobK]

Still another post implying only football counts. We have over 700 athletes playing for Stanford who aren’t playing football. Thank you dcohn
Plus I’m so tried of the term non revenue sports. I Have season tix to 4 paying $900 a year. And enjoying every dollar spent

[jacket3ree]

The revenue is the school's not yours, Bob. :)

Football pays the bills - we all know that, right?  Although apparently Nebraska volleyball brings in serious coin. I suppose when you can get 92,000 paying customers, which would never happen at Stanford, that makes sense. 

If there is an implication that Stanford is in the ACC only for the prestige of sports other than football and basketball, I, for one, have zero interest in a proxy football program that intentionally leaches off the conference to support Sport X, Y, and Z.  It may work out that way just because they are bad despite all good intentions, but that better not be intentional.

Does Stanford release revenue and expense by sport to the general public?  I can't find anything.

In the wake of the great 96-97 year, "Assistant Athletic Director Karen Recht calls football 'the engine that drives the train.' With no football team, Leland says, there's no program."  

-Stanford Today, Jan/Feb 1998.

In many ways, only football counts.  Sorry.

[jacket3ree]

The revenue is the school's not yours, Bob. :)

Football pays the bills - we all know that, right?  Although apparently Nebraska volleyball brings in serious coin. I suppose when you can get 92,000 paying customers, which would never happen at Stanford, that makes sense. 

If there is an implication that Stanford is in the ACC only for the prestige of sports other than football and basketball, I, for one, have zero interest in a proxy football program that intentionally leaches off the conference to support Sport X, Y, and Z.  It may work out that way just because they are bad despite all good intentions, but that better not be intentional.

Does Stanford release revenue and expense by sport to the general public?  I can't find anything.

In the wake of the great 96-97 year, "Assistant Athletic Director Karen Recht calls football 'the engine that drives the train.' With no football team, Leland says, there's no program."  

-Stanford Today, Jan/Feb 1998.

In many ways, only football counts.  Sorry.

[Mick]

Stanford simply has to be more flexible. It can't:

- Refuse JC transfers
- Limit itself to a few undergrad transfers (even Cal has like 27 transfers)*
- Require the highest admissions standards of everyone with whom it competes
- Require Grad School admission to stay for a 5th year and push guys to graduate in 4 years
- Look down on or not fully embrace NIL collectives, and paying players

A football-first school can't do those things.  Stanford should never become a football-first school.

Has there been any (good, non-self selecting) survey of football importance to the Stanford's 16,000+ students?

Outsider Fan and MT make excellent points.  What used to be is gone, most likely forever.  We have to learn to live with the new realities as outlined by OF.  Will Stanford change, maybe a little, but my guess we have pretty much changed as much as we are going to change in terms of transfers.  If we change we become more like Colorado and USC, which are academic institutions for the majority of their students but for athletes they are just a factory whose standards bear no resemblance to those of the parent institution.  Football is the one sport that suffers the most in the rules of the new world we are in.  It takes a LOT of players and a good number of very good players to be successful year in and year out. There will always be a few qualified players in the portal, but not USC or Colorado numbers. There may be a lot of 50/50 years coming up.
Stanford has always had challenging standards, it is partially what made it what it is. I don't see those standards changing much just to support athletics.

So why bend over backwards to get into the ACC and give up so much money to get your teeth kicked in? It makes absolutely zero sense. "We're going to make our players travel thousands of miles to be in a power conference for football, and give up tens of millions of dollars to do it, but we're not going to do what it takes to compete, are OK with being a punching bag, further de-valuing our brand, and when the next consolidation comes, we'll be OK being even more in the wilderness than we just were" is not a smart strategy.

If the "surrender monkey" mentality is ultimately going to prevail, why not just stay in a watered down Pac? But I've got news for you. Even IF Stanford were to stay with The Cougs and Beavs, if it doesn't raise its football game by making the yes, COMPROMISES it takes to win, Stanford would get its brains beat in by new Pac teams too.

IOW, if you play football, make the investments and adapt institutionally to be competitive, or drop the sport. 

What is amazing to me is I see no evidence anywhere that any Stanford fans have a clue what Stanford's BOT thinks about the importance of being a legit football program, and the compromises and adaptations it will make to have one. All we have is the scramble to get in the ACC to show it does place importance on it, but is that just to be in a power conference or to be in it to win in one.

We also have no idea what the new Provost thinks, or how she may or may not allow Muir to be more empowered to make things better, or if he even knows how.

We bent over backwards to get into the ACC so sports like softball, my favorite Stanford sport, remain the national championship contenders they have been (e.g. in the case women's tennis, women's soccer etc.), or have become (in case of softball). We would have suffered a coach and player exodus, even in the Olympic sports, had we gone independent, MW, WCC etc.

Can't wait to see Stanford v. Clemson in softball... ;)

[Mick]

Stanford simply has to be more flexible. It can't:

- Refuse JC transfers
- Limit itself to a few undergrad transfers (even Cal has like 27 transfers)*
- Require the highest admissions standards of everyone with whom it competes
- Require Grad School admission to stay for a 5th year and push guys to graduate in 4 years
- Look down on or not fully embrace NIL collectives, and paying players

A football-first school can't do those things.  Stanford should never become a football-first school.

Has there been any (good, non-self selecting) survey of football importance to the Stanford's 16,000+ students?

Outsider Fan and MT make excellent points.  What used to be is gone, most likely forever.  We have to learn to live with the new realities as outlined by OF.  Will Stanford change, maybe a little, but my guess we have pretty much changed as much as we are going to change in terms of transfers.  If we change we become more like Colorado and USC, which are academic institutions for the majority of their students but for athletes they are just a factory whose standards bear no resemblance to those of the parent institution.  Football is the one sport that suffers the most in the rules of the new world we are in.  It takes a LOT of players and a good number of very good players to be successful year in and year out. There will always be a few qualified players in the portal, but not USC or Colorado numbers. There may be a lot of 50/50 years coming up.
Stanford has always had challenging standards, it is partially what made it what it is. I don't see those standards changing much just to support athletics.

So why bend over backwards to get into the ACC and give up so much money to get your teeth kicked in? It makes absolutely zero sense. "We're going to make our players travel thousands of miles to be in a power conference for football, and give up tens of millions of dollars to do it, but we're not going to do what it takes to compete, are OK with being a punching bag, further de-valuing our brand, and when the next consolidation comes, we'll be OK being even more in the wilderness than we just were" is not a smart strategy.

If the "surrender monkey" mentality is ultimately going to prevail, why not just stay in a watered down Pac? But I've got news for you. Even IF Stanford were to stay with The Cougs and Beavs, if it doesn't raise its football game by making the yes, COMPROMISES it takes to win, Stanford would get its brains beat in by new Pac teams too.

IOW, if you play football, make the investments and adapt institutionally to be competitive, or drop the sport. 

What is amazing to me is I see no evidence anywhere that any Stanford fans have a clue what Stanford's BOT thinks about the importance of being a legit football program, and the compromises and adaptations it will make to have one. All we have is the scramble to get in the ACC to show it does place importance on it, but is that just to be in a power conference or to be in it to win in one.

We also have no idea what the new Provost thinks, or how she may or may not allow Muir to be more empowered to make things better, or if he even knows how.

We bent over backwards to get into the ACC so sports like softball, my favorite Stanford sport, remain the national championship contenders they have been (e.g. in the case women's tennis, women's soccer etc.), or have become (in case of softball). We would have suffered a coach and player exodus, even in the Olympic sports, had we gone independent, MW, WCC etc.

Can't wait to see Stanford v. Clemson in softball... ;)

[BobK]

Or Softball vs Florida State Mick.

Yes jacket3ree I know it just bugs me.

[BobK]

Or Softball vs Florida State Mick.

Yes jacket3ree I know it just bugs me.

[82lsju]

Does Stanford release revenue and expense by sport to the general public?  I can't find anything.

sort of, see the last AD annual report

https://gostanford.com/documents/2022/11..._FINAL.pdf

the rev buckets

- endowment payout $38m
- broadcast $28m
- NCAA/Pac-12 $11m
- University support for combined varsity sports and rec programs $11m
- Buck/Cardinal gifts $10m
- University support for varsity sport $10m
- football gate $8m
- corp partnerships $6m
- misc - $3m
- other gate $3m
- expendable gifts $2m
- golf course $1m

[82lsju]

Does Stanford release revenue and expense by sport to the general public?  I can't find anything.

sort of, see the last AD annual report

https://gostanford.com/documents/2022/11..._FINAL.pdf

the rev buckets

- endowment payout $38m
- broadcast $28m
- NCAA/Pac-12 $11m
- University support for combined varsity sports and rec programs $11m
- Buck/Cardinal gifts $10m
- University support for varsity sport $10m
- football gate $8m
- corp partnerships $6m
- misc - $3m
- other gate $3m
- expendable gifts $2m
- golf course $1m

[Duck Tears]

Still another post implying only football counts.  We have over 700 athletes playing for Stanford who aren’t playing football.  Thank you dcohn
Plus I’m so tried of the term non revenue sports. I Have season tix to 4 paying $900 a year.  And enjoying every dollar spent

Olympic sports typically spend more money than they produce in revenue, hence the term "non-revenue." They are "dependent sports." Guess which athletic program produces the revenue they need to operate?

Football DOES count the most: College football brings in average annual revenues of $32 million per-school—more than the next 35 sports combined. The second-biggest sport by revenue is basketball ($8 million per-school, per-year). 

In 2021, Stanford football attendance brought in more than $8 million. During the same academic year, Stanford's other sports earned $3 million at the gate combined.

[Duck Tears]

Still another post implying only football counts.  We have over 700 athletes playing for Stanford who aren’t playing football.  Thank you dcohn
Plus I’m so tried of the term non revenue sports. I Have season tix to 4 paying $900 a year.  And enjoying every dollar spent

Olympic sports typically spend more money than they produce in revenue, hence the term "non-revenue." They are "dependent sports." Guess which athletic program produces the revenue they need to operate?

Football DOES count the most: College football brings in average annual revenues of $32 million per-school—more than the next 35 sports combined. The second-biggest sport by revenue is basketball ($8 million per-school, per-year). 

In 2021, Stanford football attendance brought in more than $8 million. During the same academic year, Stanford's other sports earned $3 million at the gate combined.

[Jamesy]

Shannon Turley was let go from CU when Prime Time was hired there.  Any appetite in the athletic department to bring him back, or are we too good/proud to recapture some fundamentals?  Or is there another reason?

I don't know why we'd assume Turley is better than Deatrick. Turley had a great run at Stanford and then some subsequent aspects of his resume that are less sparkling. Deatrick has worked in effective synergy with a good chunk of our staff (Taylor, Agnew, Osborne, D'Onofrio, Williams, etc.) and most importantly was part of Taylor's secret sauce at Sacramento State. So far all indications from within the program are that we've experienced significant gains from the low point he inherited. Let's give him a chance. Very well may pay off.

And that's to say nothing of a) the difficulty of letting Turley back in this day and age when he departed under sexual harassment type of circumstances (even if many fans think it was overblown) and b) that Turley's prior spectacular successes very well may have been based on cheating. I mean, some of his top Stanford success stories were subsequently busted for PEDs.....

Do you have article links about the Stanford players busted for PEDs? A quick google search only came up with articles from the 90s or rival message boards.

[Jamesy]

Shannon Turley was let go from CU when Prime Time was hired there.  Any appetite in the athletic department to bring him back, or are we too good/proud to recapture some fundamentals?  Or is there another reason?

I don't know why we'd assume Turley is better than Deatrick. Turley had a great run at Stanford and then some subsequent aspects of his resume that are less sparkling. Deatrick has worked in effective synergy with a good chunk of our staff (Taylor, Agnew, Osborne, D'Onofrio, Williams, etc.) and most importantly was part of Taylor's secret sauce at Sacramento State. So far all indications from within the program are that we've experienced significant gains from the low point he inherited. Let's give him a chance. Very well may pay off.

And that's to say nothing of a) the difficulty of letting Turley back in this day and age when he departed under sexual harassment type of circumstances (even if many fans think it was overblown) and b) that Turley's prior spectacular successes very well may have been based on cheating. I mean, some of his top Stanford success stories were subsequently busted for PEDs.....

Do you have article links about the Stanford players busted for PEDs? A quick google search only came up with articles from the 90s or rival message boards.

[msqueri]

1694491737[/url]']

1694467153[/url]']

1694466747[/url]']
Shannon Turley was let go from CU when Prime Time was hired there.  Any appetite in the athletic department to bring him back, or are we too good/proud to recapture some fundamentals?  Or is there another reason?

I don't know why we'd assume Turley is better than Deatrick. Turley had a great run at Stanford and then some subsequent aspects of his resume that are less sparkling. Deatrick has worked in effective synergy with a good chunk of our staff (Taylor, Agnew, Osborne, D'Onofrio, Williams, etc.) and most importantly was part of Taylor's secret sauce at Sacramento State. So far all indications from within the program are that we've experienced significant gains from the low point he inherited. Let's give him a chance. Very well may pay off.

And that's to say nothing of a) the difficulty of letting Turley back in this day and age when he departed under sexual harassment type of circumstances (even if many fans think it was overblown) and b) that Turley's prior spectacular successes very well may have been based on cheating. I mean, some of his top Stanford success stories were subsequently busted for PEDs.....

Do you have article links about the Stanford players busted for PEDs? A quick google search only came up with articles from the 90s or rival message boards.

Going to bed now but Trent Murphy, Josh Mauro, David Parry. Pretty good chunk of Party in the Backfield.

[msqueri]

1694491737[/url]']

1694467153[/url]']

1694466747[/url]']
Shannon Turley was let go from CU when Prime Time was hired there.  Any appetite in the athletic department to bring him back, or are we too good/proud to recapture some fundamentals?  Or is there another reason?

I don't know why we'd assume Turley is better than Deatrick. Turley had a great run at Stanford and then some subsequent aspects of his resume that are less sparkling. Deatrick has worked in effective synergy with a good chunk of our staff (Taylor, Agnew, Osborne, D'Onofrio, Williams, etc.) and most importantly was part of Taylor's secret sauce at Sacramento State. So far all indications from within the program are that we've experienced significant gains from the low point he inherited. Let's give him a chance. Very well may pay off.

And that's to say nothing of a) the difficulty of letting Turley back in this day and age when he departed under sexual harassment type of circumstances (even if many fans think it was overblown) and b) that Turley's prior spectacular successes very well may have been based on cheating. I mean, some of his top Stanford success stories were subsequently busted for PEDs.....

Do you have article links about the Stanford players busted for PEDs? A quick google search only came up with articles from the 90s or rival message boards.

Going to bed now but Trent Murphy, Josh Mauro, David Parry. Pretty good chunk of Party in the Backfield.

[fullmetal]

Trent Murphy was the only substantiated case I heard about.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2703...ped-policy

kal fans suspect another backfield partier who they claim gained a lot of muscle mass rather suddenly.  I'm not familiar with any other potential cases.

In my googling, I came across Isabel Gormley, a top-20 recruit swimmer who should be a senior by now but who accepted a USADA suspension her junior year for failing three Whereabout Failures within twelve months. Looks like she isn't swimming for Stanford anymore but is still a student. Alas.

https://swimswam.com/isabel-gormley-not-...uspension/

[fullmetal]

Trent Murphy was the only substantiated case I heard about.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2703...ped-policy

kal fans suspect another backfield partier who they claim gained a lot of muscle mass rather suddenly.  I'm not familiar with any other potential cases.

In my googling, I came across Isabel Gormley, a top-20 recruit swimmer who should be a senior by now but who accepted a USADA suspension her junior year for failing three Whereabout Failures within twelve months. Looks like she isn't swimming for Stanford anymore but is still a student. Alas.

https://swimswam.com/isabel-gormley-not-...uspension/

[norcard10]

1694491737[/url]']

1694467153[/url]']
[quote="fullmetal" pid='397674' dateline='1694466747']
Shannon Turley was let go from CU when Prime Time was hired there.  Any appetite in the athletic department to bring him back, or are we too good/proud to recapture some fundamentals?  Or is there another reason?

I don't know why we'd assume Turley is better than Deatrick. Turley had a great run at Stanford and then some subsequent aspects of his resume that are less sparkling. Deatrick has worked in effective synergy with a good chunk of our staff (Taylor, Agnew, Osborne, D'Onofrio, Williams, etc.) and most importantly was part of Taylor's secret sauce at Sacramento State. So far all indications from within the program are that we've experienced significant gains from the low point he inherited. Let's give him a chance. Very well may pay off.

And that's to say nothing of a) the difficulty of letting Turley back in this day and age when he departed under sexual harassment type of circumstances (even if many fans think it was overblown) and b) that Turley's prior spectacular successes very well may have been based on cheating. I mean, some of his top Stanford success stories were subsequently busted for PEDs.....

Do you have article links about the Stanford players busted for PEDs? A quick google search only came up with articles from the 90s or rival message boards.

Going to bed now but Trent Murphy, Josh Mauro, David Parry. Pretty good chunk of Party in the Backfield.
[/quote

wow. wtf indeed.

[norcard10]

1694491737[/url]']

1694467153[/url]']
[quote="fullmetal" pid='397674' dateline='1694466747']
Shannon Turley was let go from CU when Prime Time was hired there.  Any appetite in the athletic department to bring him back, or are we too good/proud to recapture some fundamentals?  Or is there another reason?

I don't know why we'd assume Turley is better than Deatrick. Turley had a great run at Stanford and then some subsequent aspects of his resume that are less sparkling. Deatrick has worked in effective synergy with a good chunk of our staff (Taylor, Agnew, Osborne, D'Onofrio, Williams, etc.) and most importantly was part of Taylor's secret sauce at Sacramento State. So far all indications from within the program are that we've experienced significant gains from the low point he inherited. Let's give him a chance. Very well may pay off.

And that's to say nothing of a) the difficulty of letting Turley back in this day and age when he departed under sexual harassment type of circumstances (even if many fans think it was overblown) and b) that Turley's prior spectacular successes very well may have been based on cheating. I mean, some of his top Stanford success stories were subsequently busted for PEDs.....

Do you have article links about the Stanford players busted for PEDs? A quick google search only came up with articles from the 90s or rival message boards.

Going to bed now but Trent Murphy, Josh Mauro, David Parry. Pretty good chunk of Party in the Backfield.
[/quote

wow. wtf indeed.

[SamuelMcF]

Trent Murphy was the only substantiated case I heard about.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2703...ped-policy

kal fans suspect another backfield partier who they claim gained a lot of muscle mass rather suddenly.  I'm not familiar with any other potential cases.

In my googling, I came across Isabel Gormley, a top-20 recruit swimmer who should be a senior by now but who accepted a USADA suspension her junior year for failing three Whereabout Failures within twelve months. Looks like she isn't swimming for Stanford anymore but is still a student. Alas.

https://swimswam.com/isabel-gormley-not-...uspension/

Nobody remembers Josh Mauro being suspended TWICE in 3 years in the NFL for PEDs?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2971...games-peds

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2766...-violation

I mean come on...

[SamuelMcF]

Trent Murphy was the only substantiated case I heard about.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2703...ped-policy

kal fans suspect another backfield partier who they claim gained a lot of muscle mass rather suddenly.  I'm not familiar with any other potential cases.

In my googling, I came across Isabel Gormley, a top-20 recruit swimmer who should be a senior by now but who accepted a USADA suspension her junior year for failing three Whereabout Failures within twelve months. Looks like she isn't swimming for Stanford anymore but is still a student. Alas.

https://swimswam.com/isabel-gormley-not-...uspension/

Nobody remembers Josh Mauro being suspended TWICE in 3 years in the NFL for PEDs?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2971...games-peds

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2766...-violation

I mean come on...

[fullmetal]

Google didn't pop that up soon enough, I must have missed it buried in the fifth page or something.  Mea culpa.

[fullmetal]

Google didn't pop that up soon enough, I must have missed it buried in the fifth page or something.  Mea culpa.

[Sam Leopold]

Trent Murphy was the only substantiated case I heard about.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2703...ped-policy

kal fans suspect another backfield partier who they claim gained a lot of muscle mass rather suddenly.  I'm not familiar with any other potential cases.

In my googling, I came across Isabel Gormley, a top-20 recruit swimmer who should be a senior by now but who accepted a USADA suspension her junior year for failing three Whereabout Failures within twelve months. Looks like she isn't swimming for Stanford anymore but is still a student. Alas.

https://swimswam.com/isabel-gormley-not-...uspension/

Nobody remembers Josh Mauro being suspended TWICE in 3 years in the NFL for PEDs?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2971...games-peds

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2766...-violation

I mean come on...

I have a signal bin and a noise bin.  The character of the content output by Bleacher Report has earned them residence in my noise bin for pretty much all of their history.  What have they done recently that merits elevation to one's signal bin, in contrast to, say, Sports Illustrated?

[Sam Leopold]

Trent Murphy was the only substantiated case I heard about.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2703...ped-policy

kal fans suspect another backfield partier who they claim gained a lot of muscle mass rather suddenly.  I'm not familiar with any other potential cases.

In my googling, I came across Isabel Gormley, a top-20 recruit swimmer who should be a senior by now but who accepted a USADA suspension her junior year for failing three Whereabout Failures within twelve months. Looks like she isn't swimming for Stanford anymore but is still a student. Alas.

https://swimswam.com/isabel-gormley-not-...uspension/

Nobody remembers Josh Mauro being suspended TWICE in 3 years in the NFL for PEDs?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2971...games-peds

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2766...-violation

I mean come on...

I have a signal bin and a noise bin.  The character of the content output by Bleacher Report has earned them residence in my noise bin for pretty much all of their history.  What have they done recently that merits elevation to one's signal bin, in contrast to, say, Sports Illustrated?

[cardcrimson]

Amazing the twists a turns this thread has taken. I still stick to the title, that Saturday night was Shaw's and Muir's legacy. It was disgraceful Stanford football. The worst in nearly a generation, and that's on them. Yes, Shaw is the winningest coach in Stanford history, and got us to the Rose Bowl, but what he left is, well, pathetic. He wears that yoke. Muir too.

The nitpicking over the recruiting rankings from 18 years ago versus today is ridiculous. You all watched the talent on the field on Saturday. Seriously, is it better than what we saw during the 2000s? Methinks no, but I don't have the pedigree to judge players, especially recruits. 

I still have hope that TT can right the ship that Muir and Shaw put asunder. 

PSDs? Did they test positive at Stanford?

ACC? The last best (only) option for the non football sports. The Brothers Grimm relegated us to that last resort. It's their legacy, too.

[cardcrimson]

Amazing the twists a turns this thread has taken. I still stick to the title, that Saturday night was Shaw's and Muir's legacy. It was disgraceful Stanford football. The worst in nearly a generation, and that's on them. Yes, Shaw is the winningest coach in Stanford history, and got us to the Rose Bowl, but what he left is, well, pathetic. He wears that yoke. Muir too.

The nitpicking over the recruiting rankings from 18 years ago versus today is ridiculous. You all watched the talent on the field on Saturday. Seriously, is it better than what we saw during the 2000s? Methinks no, but I don't have the pedigree to judge players, especially recruits. 

I still have hope that TT can right the ship that Muir and Shaw put asunder. 

PSDs? Did they test positive at Stanford?

ACC? The last best (only) option for the non football sports. The Brothers Grimm relegated us to that last resort. It's their legacy, too.

[fullmetal]

You're not wrong.  Beating that drum is only half productive as half the Brothers Grimm are still around...and we have no leverage.  In retrospect, no one should give an unduly long leash to a coach who isn't following good quality control and management practices.  Evidence of player development and execution should be paramount.  Good results should follow from that.

[fullmetal]

You're not wrong.  Beating that drum is only half productive as half the Brothers Grimm are still around...and we have no leverage.  In retrospect, no one should give an unduly long leash to a coach who isn't following good quality control and management practices.  Evidence of player development and execution should be paramount.  Good results should follow from that.

[StanfordMatt]

So is Shaw still responsible when defensive players stand and watch Caleb Williams do the macarena as he traipses through our secondary en route to the end zone?

[StanfordMatt]

So is Shaw still responsible when defensive players stand and watch Caleb Williams do the macarena as he traipses through our secondary en route to the end zone?

[msqueri]

1694622761[/url]']
So is Shaw still responsible when defensive players stand and watch Caleb Williams do the macarena as he traipses through our secondary en route to the end zone?

Actually, a very insightful and respected former Cardinal Sports Report administrator made a very good case for why this sort of is the case. I’m not sure what I think. Pretty awful look for April that so many guys were loafing even before we fell behind. 

It’s really hard to overstate how much Shaw killed morale and competitiveness. Nobody likes to say it but our players are losers. It takes time to repair that and to some extent (and maybe even the predominant extent) it simply means we need new players. (But that some of our most talented second year players were among the loafers is really disturbing)

[msqueri]

1694622761[/url]']
So is Shaw still responsible when defensive players stand and watch Caleb Williams do the macarena as he traipses through our secondary en route to the end zone?

Actually, a very insightful and respected former Cardinal Sports Report administrator made a very good case for why this sort of is the case. I’m not sure what I think. Pretty awful look for April that so many guys were loafing even before we fell behind. 

It’s really hard to overstate how much Shaw killed morale and competitiveness. Nobody likes to say it but our players are losers. It takes time to repair that and to some extent (and maybe even the predominant extent) it simply means we need new players. (But that some of our most talented second year players were among the loafers is really disturbing)

[OutsiderFan]

1694622761[/url]']
So is Shaw still responsible when defensive players stand and watch Caleb Williams do the macarena as he traipses through our secondary en route to the end zone?

Actually, a very insightful and respected former Cardinal Sports Report administrator made a very good case for why this sort of is the case. I’m not sure what I think. Pretty awful look for April that so many guys were loafing even before we fell behind. 

It’s really hard to overstate how much Shaw killed morale and competitiveness. Nobody likes to say it but our players are losers. It takes time to repair that and to some extent (and maybe even the predominant extent) it simply means we need new players. (But that some of our most talented second year players were among the loafers is really disturbing)

Did anyone ask Taylor about the "loafing" seen on video that contradicted his "effort" assertions, in his Tuesday presser?

[OutsiderFan]

1694622761[/url]']
So is Shaw still responsible when defensive players stand and watch Caleb Williams do the macarena as he traipses through our secondary en route to the end zone?

Actually, a very insightful and respected former Cardinal Sports Report administrator made a very good case for why this sort of is the case. I’m not sure what I think. Pretty awful look for April that so many guys were loafing even before we fell behind. 

It’s really hard to overstate how much Shaw killed morale and competitiveness. Nobody likes to say it but our players are losers. It takes time to repair that and to some extent (and maybe even the predominant extent) it simply means we need new players. (But that some of our most talented second year players were among the loafers is really disturbing)

Did anyone ask Taylor about the "loafing" seen on video that contradicted his "effort" assertions, in his Tuesday presser?

[msqueri]

Not really. Ben Parker asked the question that prompted the answer and asked it specifically because of the clearly poor effort documented on numerous clips but Ben is polite and ended up asking the question as blandly and neutrally as possible in terms of what Taylor thought of defensive execution and effort. Taylor, predictably, didn't offer anything cutting.

I will have many more press conference thoughts later but just generally I think Taylor knows we really, really suck and is not going to be likely at any point this season to have a negative/perfectionist kind of tone. It's all going to be "we did some good things and we have a lot to improve on, just need to improve each week." Abject lack of effort and pursuit is a bit different because it goes directly to team competitiveness, buy-in, and mentality, but between Taylor putting forward a positive face, knowing we suck, and wanting to defer to April on all things defense, I don't expect to hear much defensive criticism from Taylor. April probably the best person to ask why his players were loafing it.

[msqueri]

Not really. Ben Parker asked the question that prompted the answer and asked it specifically because of the clearly poor effort documented on numerous clips but Ben is polite and ended up asking the question as blandly and neutrally as possible in terms of what Taylor thought of defensive execution and effort. Taylor, predictably, didn't offer anything cutting.

I will have many more press conference thoughts later but just generally I think Taylor knows we really, really suck and is not going to be likely at any point this season to have a negative/perfectionist kind of tone. It's all going to be "we did some good things and we have a lot to improve on, just need to improve each week." Abject lack of effort and pursuit is a bit different because it goes directly to team competitiveness, buy-in, and mentality, but between Taylor putting forward a positive face, knowing we suck, and wanting to defer to April on all things defense, I don't expect to hear much defensive criticism from Taylor. April probably the best person to ask why his players were loafing it.

[Mick]

Taylor's not really the EUTM type. And this is a team that needs someone who coaches like his hair is on fire. This is an urgent / emergent situation. And it's too bad we started against USC, but we can right the ship against Sacramento State.

The big game will actually be Arizona. That will tell whether this team is irreparably broken or not. Arizona and Stanford are #88 and #89 in RPI rankings. BTW, half of the conference is ranked in the top 17 in this (more or less) objective ranking and eight are in the Top 31. And my guess is that #31 will keep climbing. The remaining four -- Arizona, Stanford, Cal and Arizona State -- are #88, #89, #94 and #100, respectively. Arizona and Cal are on the schedule. Who knows? Maybe 4-8 is possible.
 
RealTimeRPI.com College Football

[Mick]

Taylor's not really the EUTM type. And this is a team that needs someone who coaches like his hair is on fire. This is an urgent / emergent situation. And it's too bad we started against USC, but we can right the ship against Sacramento State.

The big game will actually be Arizona. That will tell whether this team is irreparably broken or not. Arizona and Stanford are #88 and #89 in RPI rankings. BTW, half of the conference is ranked in the top 17 in this (more or less) objective ranking and eight are in the Top 31. And my guess is that #31 will keep climbing. The remaining four -- Arizona, Stanford, Cal and Arizona State -- are #88, #89, #94 and #100, respectively. Arizona and Cal are on the schedule. Who knows? Maybe 4-8 is possible.
 
RealTimeRPI.com College Football