[needle]

Not quite a bombshell, but a very bad look for TT as staffers complained about his temper and how he belittled women working as staff. TT cooperated and received a warning that he could be fired if the conduct continued.

What Stanford says now:

 "The University received complaints regarding Coach Taylor and a third party investigated the matter thoroughly. Last summer, the University took appropriate measures, Coach Taylor received coaching, and he has committed to nurturing the respectful working environment that is essential to the success of all our athletics programs."

The investigations:

The investigation reports obtained by ESPN are marked "privileged and confidential" and identify more than 20 former and current Stanford athletics staffers who cooperated with independent investigators.

The investigations began after multiple employees filed complaints against Taylor for what they called hostile and aggressive behavior, as well as personal attacks, the reports said. The school hired Kate Weaver Patterson, of KWP Consulting & Mediation, to investigate in spring 2023.

The second investigation cited evidence "that this is an ongoing pattern of concerning behavior by Coach Taylor." It was conducted last June and July by Timothy O'Brien, senior counsel for the Libby, O'Brien, Kingsley & Champion law firm in Maine. O'Brien, who has advised several Division I and Power 5 programs, said in his report that he has never encountered "this palpable level of animosity and disdain" for a university compliance office.

Best/worst part:

 One of the sources who spoke with ESPN on condition of anonymity said that, while Taylor is an "equal opportunity a-hole," his behavior more often targeted women.

O'Brien seemingly agreed with that assessment and noted in his report that "while being a head football coach is a stressful role, I do not find any excuse for Coach Taylor's treatment" of the women cited in the investigations.

Read the whole story:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-staffers

[needle]

Not quite a bombshell, but a very bad look for TT as staffers complained about his temper and how he belittled women working as staff. TT cooperated and received a warning that he could be fired if the conduct continued.

What Stanford says now:

 "The University received complaints regarding Coach Taylor and a third party investigated the matter thoroughly. Last summer, the University took appropriate measures, Coach Taylor received coaching, and he has committed to nurturing the respectful working environment that is essential to the success of all our athletics programs."

The investigations:

The investigation reports obtained by ESPN are marked "privileged and confidential" and identify more than 20 former and current Stanford athletics staffers who cooperated with independent investigators.

The investigations began after multiple employees filed complaints against Taylor for what they called hostile and aggressive behavior, as well as personal attacks, the reports said. The school hired Kate Weaver Patterson, of KWP Consulting & Mediation, to investigate in spring 2023.

The second investigation cited evidence "that this is an ongoing pattern of concerning behavior by Coach Taylor." It was conducted last June and July by Timothy O'Brien, senior counsel for the Libby, O'Brien, Kingsley & Champion law firm in Maine. O'Brien, who has advised several Division I and Power 5 programs, said in his report that he has never encountered "this palpable level of animosity and disdain" for a university compliance office.

Best/worst part:

 One of the sources who spoke with ESPN on condition of anonymity said that, while Taylor is an "equal opportunity a-hole," his behavior more often targeted women.

O'Brien seemingly agreed with that assessment and noted in his report that "while being a head football coach is a stressful role, I do not find any excuse for Coach Taylor's treatment" of the women cited in the investigations.

Read the whole story:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-staffers

[midnight21]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-staffers

The findings reported in this article are concerning, to say the least. Anyone have any more insight as to whether there has been any accountability for Coach Taylor, and whether there is any evidence these issues have been addressed? The most recent investigation is from July 2024.

[midnight21]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-staffers

The findings reported in this article are concerning, to say the least. Anyone have any more insight as to whether there has been any accountability for Coach Taylor, and whether there is any evidence these issues have been addressed? The most recent investigation is from July 2024.

[BobK]

Well the stories Sums it up except the hiring of Luck. Luck must be in position because of this.
I was a Taylor fan from afar. No more

[BobK]

Well the stories Sums it up except the hiring of Luck. Luck must be in position because of this.
I was a Taylor fan from afar. No more

[gailtate]

Hmm. As Dorothy Parker used to say, "What fresh hell is this?"

[gailtate]

Hmm. As Dorothy Parker used to say, "What fresh hell is this?"

[dabigv13]

Ignoring NCAA compliance rules is probably par for the course these days. But we're talking Walt Harris level performance from our football team. If he's a giant a**hole and a loser, why is he still employed at Stanford?

[dabigv13]

Ignoring NCAA compliance rules is probably par for the course these days. But we're talking Walt Harris level performance from our football team. If he's a giant a**hole and a loser, why is he still employed at Stanford?

[2006alum]

Merging the threads together. Yikes. Also uncertain why he's still in a job he doesn't do well and repeatedly creates HR scandals in.

[2006alum]

Merging the threads together. Yikes. Also uncertain why he's still in a job he doesn't do well and repeatedly creates HR scandals in.

[Giants]

Quite frankly, I’m surprised that Taylor still has a job.  

Regardless, I think Andrew Luck should sharpen his interviewing skills.  It won’t be too much longer before he will be putting them to use.

[Giants]

Quite frankly, I’m surprised that Taylor still has a job.  

Regardless, I think Andrew Luck should sharpen his interviewing skills.  It won’t be too much longer before he will be putting them to use.

[PalmTree]

Ignoring NCAA compliance rules is probably par for the course these days. But we're talking Walt Harris level performance from our football team. If he's a giant a**hole and a loser, why is he still employed at Stanford?

Exactly - CAN.HIS.A**.SUBITO....

Muir - you're next, unless Stanford was stupid enough to try and be nice and commit to retain you until the "end of the academic year" in writing.  FFS!

[PalmTree]

Ignoring NCAA compliance rules is probably par for the course these days. But we're talking Walt Harris level performance from our football team. If he's a giant a**hole and a loser, why is he still employed at Stanford?

Exactly - CAN.HIS.A**.SUBITO....

Muir - you're next, unless Stanford was stupid enough to try and be nice and commit to retain you until the "end of the academic year" in writing.  FFS!

[Goose]

Quite frankly, I’m surprised that Taylor still has a job.  

Regardless, I think Andrew Luck should sharpen his interviewing skills.  It won’t be too much longer before he will be putting them to use.

He also may need to sharpen his judgements. He was on the committee that selected TT.

It will be interesting to see what happens here. Stanford didn't dismiss the coach for cause because of these "bad conduct" behaviors. They easily could have. Stanford had to know this information would come out. I am sure Luck was told about it. For these reasons, I believe Stanford intends to "mokusatsu" this issue and retain TT. That may change if the "Stanford Community" raises major objections, but as of now, I expect no action.

[Goose]

Quite frankly, I’m surprised that Taylor still has a job.  

Regardless, I think Andrew Luck should sharpen his interviewing skills.  It won’t be too much longer before he will be putting them to use.

He also may need to sharpen his judgements. He was on the committee that selected TT.

It will be interesting to see what happens here. Stanford didn't dismiss the coach for cause because of these "bad conduct" behaviors. They easily could have. Stanford had to know this information would come out. I am sure Luck was told about it. For these reasons, I believe Stanford intends to "mokusatsu" this issue and retain TT. That may change if the "Stanford Community" raises major objections, but as of now, I expect no action.

[Gary86]

These investigations were leaked to ESPN, probably by someone unhappy that Taylor still has his job. I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor is out of a job soon. Stanford does not like this kind of embarrassment, and his win-loss record and poor attendance at the games are not going to help him.

[Gary86]

These investigations were leaked to ESPN, probably by someone unhappy that Taylor still has his job. I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor is out of a job soon. Stanford does not like this kind of embarrassment, and his win-loss record and poor attendance at the games are not going to help him.

[fullmetal]

Tough to blame this on the hiring committee.  I think Pitt sang Wlat Harr*s's praises just to get him out of there, no?  Maybe Sac State gave TT glowing references to do the same?

Whatever the case, this is disqualifying behavior for a person in a leadership and coaching position over students at Stanford.  Absolutely not a role model for young men.  I would expect the alumni community to demand change, and I will do the same.

[fullmetal]

Tough to blame this on the hiring committee.  I think Pitt sang Wlat Harr*s's praises just to get him out of there, no?  Maybe Sac State gave TT glowing references to do the same?

Whatever the case, this is disqualifying behavior for a person in a leadership and coaching position over students at Stanford.  Absolutely not a role model for young men.  I would expect the alumni community to demand change, and I will do the same.

[Canalejas]

Let's just move on from Taylor.

[Canalejas]

Let's just move on from Taylor.

[Maple Leaf]

This must being wonders for recruiting and fund raising.  Not to mention having some impact on the search for a new AD.

[Maple Leaf]

This must being wonders for recruiting and fund raising.  Not to mention having some impact on the search for a new AD.

[StanfordMatt]

As discussed previously, today’s report is not the least bit surprising to anyone involved in the industry. If Muir had exercised even an ounce of due diligence in the search process, he would have known that Taylor was “an equal opportunity a-hole.”

[StanfordMatt]

As discussed previously, today’s report is not the least bit surprising to anyone involved in the industry. If Muir had exercised even an ounce of due diligence in the search process, he would have known that Taylor was “an equal opportunity a-hole.”

[JJJ]

This is the same guy who said he would base his philosophy on love, right? (Eye roll)

[JJJ]

This is the same guy who said he would base his philosophy on love, right? (Eye roll)

[needle]

I am sure Luck was told about it.

Is this everyone's consensus?

[needle]

I am sure Luck was told about it.

Is this everyone's consensus?

[Goose]

Tough to blame this on the hiring committee.  I think Pitt sang Wlat Harr*s's praises just to get him out of there, no?  Maybe Sac State gave TT glowing references to do the same?

Strongly doubt Sac State wanted to get rid of TT. He was winning for them and that generally trumps being an a**hole, especially for football coaches. There are several things a hiring committee should always strive to do. One of them is to search out information about a potential candidate from people who are possibly NOT on his reference list. I wonder what Kyle Whittingham might have said about him? Ditto some former Utah players. Another one is to get a sense of who the candidate actually "is".
 
This latter thing is difficult to do. Lots of candidates can put up a very effective facade and always give the "PC answer". Figuring out if that is "for real" is often difficult. However, IMO it is quite important. I have been saved from a few bad hires by others who were much better at that than I am. It is IMO a critical skill for a search committee to have.

Whatever the case, this is disqualifying behavior for a person in a leadership and coaching position over students at Stanford.  Absolutely not a role model for young men.  I would expect the alumni community to demand change, and I will do the same.

I am not quite sure I would agree. It was undoubtedly a stupid thing to do, and it makes one wonder about his fitness for the job on that basis alone. Angering the compliance officer is never a good idea :-). That said, he supposedly did "repent". Considering the conduct of some other Stanford faculty I would argue they are not good role models either. Yet they still have their positions. I wonder how people would be reacting if TT  was 18-6 instead of 6-18? Given what we now know, is Jim Harbaugh a good role model for young men? To be clear, this is not intended to be a strictly rhetorical question. I would say no, but there seem to be quite a few others on this board who do not agree.

[Goose]

Tough to blame this on the hiring committee.  I think Pitt sang Wlat Harr*s's praises just to get him out of there, no?  Maybe Sac State gave TT glowing references to do the same?

Strongly doubt Sac State wanted to get rid of TT. He was winning for them and that generally trumps being an a**hole, especially for football coaches. There are several things a hiring committee should always strive to do. One of them is to search out information about a potential candidate from people who are possibly NOT on his reference list. I wonder what Kyle Whittingham might have said about him? Ditto some former Utah players. Another one is to get a sense of who the candidate actually "is".
 
This latter thing is difficult to do. Lots of candidates can put up a very effective facade and always give the "PC answer". Figuring out if that is "for real" is often difficult. However, IMO it is quite important. I have been saved from a few bad hires by others who were much better at that than I am. It is IMO a critical skill for a search committee to have.

Whatever the case, this is disqualifying behavior for a person in a leadership and coaching position over students at Stanford.  Absolutely not a role model for young men.  I would expect the alumni community to demand change, and I will do the same.

I am not quite sure I would agree. It was undoubtedly a stupid thing to do, and it makes one wonder about his fitness for the job on that basis alone. Angering the compliance officer is never a good idea :-). That said, he supposedly did "repent". Considering the conduct of some other Stanford faculty I would argue they are not good role models either. Yet they still have their positions. I wonder how people would be reacting if TT  was 18-6 instead of 6-18? Given what we now know, is Jim Harbaugh a good role model for young men? To be clear, this is not intended to be a strictly rhetorical question. I would say no, but there seem to be quite a few others on this board who do not agree.

[paloalto]

As discussed previously, today’s report is not the least bit surprising to anyone involved in the industry. If Muir had exercised even an ounce of due diligence in the search process, he would have known that Taylor was “an equal opportunity a-hole.”

Maybe not to those in the industry, but it seems like it's a big surprise to Cardboarders who follow football closely.  With all the criticism posted toward Troy on football threads, I don't recall a single post referencing any investigations of him.

[paloalto]

As discussed previously, today’s report is not the least bit surprising to anyone involved in the industry. If Muir had exercised even an ounce of due diligence in the search process, he would have known that Taylor was “an equal opportunity a-hole.”

Maybe not to those in the industry, but it seems like it's a big surprise to Cardboarders who follow football closely.  With all the criticism posted toward Troy on football threads, I don't recall a single post referencing any investigations of him.

[Farm93]

So many elements.

It is almost good that Taylor has not been winning a lot.   If he was winning a bunch then the narrative would become Stanford accepted this behavior because the football coach was winning games, selling tickets, etc.   To stay with a losing coach makes it seem like the retention path was independent of the win-loss record and/or football ticket sales.

This is a disaster for recruiting.   I can't imagine this story impresses the Stanford mom types that usually are essential to landing top recruits.   Sounds like Taylor does not treat everyone well and is likely not the role model (second dad) that the Stanford mom types expect.

It is also a disaster for current players seeking coaching stability.   It was already hard to imagine Taylor would be the Stanford coach for 4-5 more years.   Now, I am wondering if he will be the coach in April.   I can only imagine that the best Stanford players are already getting fresh reminders about their NIL potential at other places.

I always understood that the coach after Shaw would likely be a step down.   That first coach after Shaw would have to endure a wave of talent jumping to portal that happens at every school AND would not really get to use the portal to bring in players.   Therefore it would take years to get back to the 2017-2020 level of Stanford football even if the new coach could instantly master the complexities of Stanford recruiting.   Not much in the first two years gave me a lot of confidence we would see that 2017-2020 level anytime soon, and we would not see that 2011-2015 level under Taylor.   We are unlikely to ever see that 2011-2015 level again, but that's a different story.

While some on this board don't see Shaw as a coaching legend, the numbers (winningest coach in school history, multiple Pac-12 coach of the year awards, first African American to win a BCS bowl, multiple conference titles) suggest he was legendary by Stanford football standards.    The conventional wisdom is that you should not be the first coach after a legend leaves.   Better to be the second coach. 

I am now expecting Stanford will have that second coach after the legend before August 2025 and that Luck will be responsible for that hiring effort since Muir agreed to this awful Taylor retention plan and is leaving soon.

[Farm93]

So many elements.

It is almost good that Taylor has not been winning a lot.   If he was winning a bunch then the narrative would become Stanford accepted this behavior because the football coach was winning games, selling tickets, etc.   To stay with a losing coach makes it seem like the retention path was independent of the win-loss record and/or football ticket sales.

This is a disaster for recruiting.   I can't imagine this story impresses the Stanford mom types that usually are essential to landing top recruits.   Sounds like Taylor does not treat everyone well and is likely not the role model (second dad) that the Stanford mom types expect.

It is also a disaster for current players seeking coaching stability.   It was already hard to imagine Taylor would be the Stanford coach for 4-5 more years.   Now, I am wondering if he will be the coach in April.   I can only imagine that the best Stanford players are already getting fresh reminders about their NIL potential at other places.

I always understood that the coach after Shaw would likely be a step down.   That first coach after Shaw would have to endure a wave of talent jumping to portal that happens at every school AND would not really get to use the portal to bring in players.   Therefore it would take years to get back to the 2017-2020 level of Stanford football even if the new coach could instantly master the complexities of Stanford recruiting.   Not much in the first two years gave me a lot of confidence we would see that 2017-2020 level anytime soon, and we would not see that 2011-2015 level under Taylor.   We are unlikely to ever see that 2011-2015 level again, but that's a different story.

While some on this board don't see Shaw as a coaching legend, the numbers (winningest coach in school history, multiple Pac-12 coach of the year awards, first African American to win a BCS bowl, multiple conference titles) suggest he was legendary by Stanford football standards.    The conventional wisdom is that you should not be the first coach after a legend leaves.   Better to be the second coach. 

I am now expecting Stanford will have that second coach after the legend before August 2025 and that Luck will be responsible for that hiring effort since Muir agreed to this awful Taylor retention plan and is leaving soon.

[cardcrimson]

Been hanging on to TT with the promise that things are turning around. If any of the allegations are true (and I assume they are, because he said he needs to change his ways), he needs to go immediately. Muir too. Just an awful stain on the University, especially in light of Katie Meyer; we have to have no room for complacency. None.

[cardcrimson]

Been hanging on to TT with the promise that things are turning around. If any of the allegations are true (and I assume they are, because he said he needs to change his ways), he needs to go immediately. Muir too. Just an awful stain on the University, especially in light of Katie Meyer; we have to have no room for complacency. None.