[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=10701.msg99696#msg99696 date=1412008186]
2. Both Davis and Wlat were good examples that fit matters... Neither were objectively terrible coaches overall

Idiotface was objectively a terrible coach.
[/quote]

Well, Pittsburgh was a far better team when he was there than before he came and was a worse team after he left (though Wannstedt eventually had two good years). His record there was 52-44, final five years were 7-5, 7-5, 9-4, 8-5, 8-4; finished ranked twice.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=10701.msg99696#msg99696 date=1412008186]
2. Both Davis and Wlat were good examples that fit matters... Neither were objectively terrible coaches overall

Idiotface was objectively a terrible coach.
[/quote]

Well, Pittsburgh was a far better team when he was there than before he came and was a worse team after he left (though Wannstedt eventually had two good years). His record there was 52-44, final five years were 7-5, 7-5, 9-4, 8-5, 8-4; finished ranked twice.

[97fan]

The "Just win baby" approach is a slope that plays toward lower standards for the program - not just the head coach.  If the only criteria we judge our head coach to is winning percentage and academic fit and adherence to Stanford's value system doesn't matter than why on earth would those things matter to the assistants he hires or the players he recruits?

Face it - These things matter to us.  There 's a reason we don't cheer for U$€ or Oklahoma.  Winning matters to us.  Winning the right way matters even more.

The reason I root for Stanford is that I attended Stanford. I think that's probably true for most of the posters here. I would undoubtedly root for Oklahoma if I were an Oklahoma alum.

I think it's reasonable for Stanford fans to take pride in the athletic department's solid record when it comes to ethics. But I also think that can quickly veer into self-righteousness. Jim Harbaugh did not represent the school as well as many other coaches we've had, and most of us didn't mind too much. We were too busy enjoying the hell out of his on-field accomplishments.

[97fan]

The "Just win baby" approach is a slope that plays toward lower standards for the program - not just the head coach.  If the only criteria we judge our head coach to is winning percentage and academic fit and adherence to Stanford's value system doesn't matter than why on earth would those things matter to the assistants he hires or the players he recruits?

Face it - These things matter to us.  There 's a reason we don't cheer for U$€ or Oklahoma.  Winning matters to us.  Winning the right way matters even more.

The reason I root for Stanford is that I attended Stanford. I think that's probably true for most of the posters here. I would undoubtedly root for Oklahoma if I were an Oklahoma alum.

I think it's reasonable for Stanford fans to take pride in the athletic department's solid record when it comes to ethics. But I also think that can quickly veer into self-righteousness. Jim Harbaugh did not represent the school as well as many other coaches we've had, and most of us didn't mind too much. We were too busy enjoying the hell out of his on-field accomplishments.

[jayasena]

The "Just win baby" approach is a slope that plays toward lower standards for the program - not just the head coach.  If the only criteria we judge our head coach to is winning percentage and academic fit and adherence to Stanford's value system doesn't matter than why on earth would those things matter to the assistants he hires or the players he recruits?

Face it - These things matter to us.  There 's a reason we don't cheer for U$€ or Oklahoma.  Winning matters to us.  Winning the right way matters even more.

Leftcoast, I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating the "just win baby" approach to the detriment of everything else.

One way to reconcile this apparent disagreement may be to point out that, at a university that seeks excellence in everything, success on the field is a mandatory aspect of a coach who represents the university well.

[jayasena]

The "Just win baby" approach is a slope that plays toward lower standards for the program - not just the head coach.  If the only criteria we judge our head coach to is winning percentage and academic fit and adherence to Stanford's value system doesn't matter than why on earth would those things matter to the assistants he hires or the players he recruits?

Face it - These things matter to us.  There 's a reason we don't cheer for U$€ or Oklahoma.  Winning matters to us.  Winning the right way matters even more.

Leftcoast, I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating the "just win baby" approach to the detriment of everything else.

One way to reconcile this apparent disagreement may be to point out that, at a university that seeks excellence in everything, success on the field is a mandatory aspect of a coach who represents the university well.

[Leftcoast]

Heavens - who said Harbaugh didn't represent the University well?!? 

I don't need a gentlemanly Wooden clone following Emily Post rules of etiquette in a vested suit.  Particularly if his teams top out with the dial hovering at  "Luke Warm/Mediocre". 

What I do want is a coach who doesn't publicly disavow our values (ala Davis), disparage our students (ala Walt) or fail to drive for excellence on and off the field (ala Teevens).  Graduating students matters.  Convincing parents their kids will excel and graduate when they work hard matters.  Rough edges don't matter.  Respect does.  The football guys I know loved Harbaugh because he didn't compromise.

I've seen what "Just win baby" can do.  I grew up in the Central Valley and was a hard-core Bulldog basketball fan growing up.  I dropped them when Tark came along with his NCAA appearances, high winning percentage and cheating ways.  So, no, I don't think I would root for USC were they my local team. 

For a football program, knowing who you are has its uses ESPECIALLY when you are different - And that doesn't make us self-righteous.

P.S.  Somnambule may have the right synthesis of your position and mine.  Seeking excellence in coaches inherently covers both winning and standards.

[Leftcoast]

Heavens - who said Harbaugh didn't represent the University well?!? 

I don't need a gentlemanly Wooden clone following Emily Post rules of etiquette in a vested suit.  Particularly if his teams top out with the dial hovering at  "Luke Warm/Mediocre". 

What I do want is a coach who doesn't publicly disavow our values (ala Davis), disparage our students (ala Walt) or fail to drive for excellence on and off the field (ala Teevens).  Graduating students matters.  Convincing parents their kids will excel and graduate when they work hard matters.  Rough edges don't matter.  Respect does.  The football guys I know loved Harbaugh because he didn't compromise.

I've seen what "Just win baby" can do.  I grew up in the Central Valley and was a hard-core Bulldog basketball fan growing up.  I dropped them when Tark came along with his NCAA appearances, high winning percentage and cheating ways.  So, no, I don't think I would root for USC were they my local team. 

For a football program, knowing who you are has its uses ESPECIALLY when you are different - And that doesn't make us self-righteous.

P.S.  Somnambule may have the right synthesis of your position and mine.  Seeking excellence in coaches inherently covers both winning and standards.

[Mick]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=10701.msg99696#msg99696 date=1412008186]
2. Both Davis and Wlat were good examples that fit matters... Neither were objectively terrible coaches overall

Idiotface was objectively a terrible coach.
[/quote]

I get that both H.arris and Davis were good coaches who were terrible fits at Stanford.  I just wonder though...is that their fault or more the fault of the AD who didn't vet them properly?  I wonder if either Harri.s or Davis thought they'd been sold a bill of goods.

[Mick]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=10701.msg99696#msg99696 date=1412008186]
2. Both Davis and Wlat were good examples that fit matters... Neither were objectively terrible coaches overall

Idiotface was objectively a terrible coach.
[/quote]

I get that both H.arris and Davis were good coaches who were terrible fits at Stanford.  I just wonder though...is that their fault or more the fault of the AD who didn't vet them properly?  I wonder if either Harri.s or Davis thought they'd been sold a bill of goods.

[yvonne]

Harris's situation is a little different than most. He was a good on-field coach at Pitt, but he wasn't getting the contract extension he wanted, and Pitt fans were coming here celebrating when it became apparent to them that he was coming here.

[yvonne]

Harris's situation is a little different than most. He was a good on-field coach at Pitt, but he wasn't getting the contract extension he wanted, and Pitt fans were coming here celebrating when it became apparent to them that he was coming here.

[Mick]

Harris's situation is a little different than most. He was a good on-field coach at Pitt, but he wasn't getting the contract extension he wanted, and Pitt fans were coming here celebrating when it became apparent to them that he was coming here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Pitt fans celebrating Harris' departure because they thought (unrealistically) they would return to the Tony Dorsett days?  Remember, when Harris took over, Johnny Majors II (like Walsh II) had come to a very unsatisfactory close, when Majors I had taken Pitt from a 1-win season to an undefeated season (Dorsett's last year), beating Penn State and a bunch of other good teams.  They went 12-0, Majors returned to Tennessee (his alma mater) and they still claim national championships from 1980 and 1981.  Hackett had two of three losing seasons from 1990 to 1992, then Majors returned and did poorly.  Pitt had only won 15 games in five seasons prior to Harris' arrival.  Harris did well (six bowl games in 8 years), but they were minor bowls, and his teams never lost fewer than four games per season.

Since Harris has been booted, they had a scandal with Wannstedt, and they only bettered Harris' record in one season, when they went 10-3 in 2009.

[Mick]

Harris's situation is a little different than most. He was a good on-field coach at Pitt, but he wasn't getting the contract extension he wanted, and Pitt fans were coming here celebrating when it became apparent to them that he was coming here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Pitt fans celebrating Harris' departure because they thought (unrealistically) they would return to the Tony Dorsett days?  Remember, when Harris took over, Johnny Majors II (like Walsh II) had come to a very unsatisfactory close, when Majors I had taken Pitt from a 1-win season to an undefeated season (Dorsett's last year), beating Penn State and a bunch of other good teams.  They went 12-0, Majors returned to Tennessee (his alma mater) and they still claim national championships from 1980 and 1981.  Hackett had two of three losing seasons from 1990 to 1992, then Majors returned and did poorly.  Pitt had only won 15 games in five seasons prior to Harris' arrival.  Harris did well (six bowl games in 8 years), but they were minor bowls, and his teams never lost fewer than four games per season.

Since Harris has been booted, they had a scandal with Wannstedt, and they only bettered Harris' record in one season, when they went 10-3 in 2009.

[jayasena]

Wlat took Pitt to the Fiesta Bowl just before being fired. So they weren't all minor bowls. And, IIRC, at least some of the Pitt visitors seemed happy just to be rid of him. You have to admit it's rather odd for a coach to be fired immediately after taking his team to a  BCS bowl.

[jayasena]

Wlat took Pitt to the Fiesta Bowl just before being fired. So they weren't all minor bowls. And, IIRC, at least some of the Pitt visitors seemed happy just to be rid of him. You have to admit it's rather odd for a coach to be fired immediately after taking his team to a  BCS bowl.

[CTcard]

Wlat took Pitt to the Fiesta Bowl just before being fired. So they weren't all minor bowls. And, IIRC, at least some of the Pitt visitors seemed happy just to be rid of him. You have to admit it's rather odd for a coach to be fired immediately after taking his team to a  BCS bowl.

Harris was not fired at Pitt. We hired him away.  ... I think.

You do see articles about Harris that say something along the lines of "Harris was forced out". Here is one of them,
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/2008/...0809280217
There clearly was bad feeling at Pitt between Harris and the fan base and the administration. They may have made it clear that they would fire him, but I am fairly sure he never was actually fired. Anyway, the article linked above shows some nostalgia building at Pitt for their performances under Wlat.

-------
I think I started this latest drift of the thread with the comment that neither Tom Davis nor Wlat were objectively horrible coaches, but both seemed to do much worse at Stanford than elsewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that Wlat was a particularly good coach. Merely that his results at Stanford were considerably worse than his results elsewhere, i.e. Pitt (is that debatable?).

At least partially that reflects upon fit between an institution and a lead-employee. Things that were going to work at Pitt might not work at Stanford (his brand of discipline). Things that might be necessary at Pitt were going to be oddly out of place at Stanford (no guns in the locker room).

Buddy, for example, was a different kind of case. He lost at Tulane and hasn't exactly burned the house down at Dartmouth (58-80-2) - though that seems like a nice long term home for him. There didn't seem to be that much un-Stanford about him, he just wasn't very good at football.

[CTcard]

Wlat took Pitt to the Fiesta Bowl just before being fired. So they weren't all minor bowls. And, IIRC, at least some of the Pitt visitors seemed happy just to be rid of him. You have to admit it's rather odd for a coach to be fired immediately after taking his team to a  BCS bowl.

Harris was not fired at Pitt. We hired him away.  ... I think.

You do see articles about Harris that say something along the lines of "Harris was forced out". Here is one of them,
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/2008/...0809280217
There clearly was bad feeling at Pitt between Harris and the fan base and the administration. They may have made it clear that they would fire him, but I am fairly sure he never was actually fired. Anyway, the article linked above shows some nostalgia building at Pitt for their performances under Wlat.

-------
I think I started this latest drift of the thread with the comment that neither Tom Davis nor Wlat were objectively horrible coaches, but both seemed to do much worse at Stanford than elsewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that Wlat was a particularly good coach. Merely that his results at Stanford were considerably worse than his results elsewhere, i.e. Pitt (is that debatable?).

At least partially that reflects upon fit between an institution and a lead-employee. Things that were going to work at Pitt might not work at Stanford (his brand of discipline). Things that might be necessary at Pitt were going to be oddly out of place at Stanford (no guns in the locker room).

Buddy, for example, was a different kind of case. He lost at Tulane and hasn't exactly burned the house down at Dartmouth (58-80-2) - though that seems like a nice long term home for him. There didn't seem to be that much un-Stanford about him, he just wasn't very good at football.

[jayasena]

Harris was not fired at Pitt. We hired him away.  ... I think.

You are right, "fired" was perhaps too strong. But I clearly remember the prevailing consensus at the time being that Wlat was done at Pitt one way or another. We saved them the trouble of  having to fire him.

[jayasena]

Harris was not fired at Pitt. We hired him away.  ... I think.

You are right, "fired" was perhaps too strong. But I clearly remember the prevailing consensus at the time being that Wlat was done at Pitt one way or another. We saved them the trouble of  having to fire him.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=10701.msg99951#msg99951 date=1412103885]
Harris was not fired at Pitt. We hired him away.  ... I think.

You are right, "fired" was perhaps too strong. But I clearly remember the prevailing consensus at the time being that Wlat was done at Pitt one way or another. We saved them the trouble of  having to fire him.
[/quote]

That's how I remember it.  And boy, did we pay for our mistake.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=10701.msg99951#msg99951 date=1412103885]
Harris was not fired at Pitt. We hired him away.  ... I think.

You are right, "fired" was perhaps too strong. But I clearly remember the prevailing consensus at the time being that Wlat was done at Pitt one way or another. We saved them the trouble of  having to fire him.
[/quote]

That's how I remember it.  And boy, did we pay for our mistake.

[76lsjumb]

I've got nothing substantive to add to this string right now, but I just wanted to bump it up on the main page so that "Dawkins" would be right next to "lifetime deal" in the other new thread, and I could listen for garvin's head exploding...  ;D

[76lsjumb]

I've got nothing substantive to add to this string right now, but I just wanted to bump it up on the main page so that "Dawkins" would be right next to "lifetime deal" in the other new thread, and I could listen for garvin's head exploding...  ;D

[washingtonismoney]

Rumor had it that, ah, Walt Harris brought guns to the locker room with a donor's wife while at Pitt.

[washingtonismoney]

Rumor had it that, ah, Walt Harris brought guns to the locker room with a donor's wife while at Pitt.

[yvonne]

Nah, he was just happy to see her.

[yvonne]

Nah, he was just happy to see her.

[teejers1]

Yvonne, that was WIM's point (and a rumor I had heard, too).

[teejers1]

Yvonne, that was WIM's point (and a rumor I had heard, too).

[dabigv13]

That is literally unbelievable. There is no way Walt Harris has game; every time I've heard him speak, I've gotten the impression that the lightbulb is pretty damn dim.

[dabigv13]

That is literally unbelievable. There is no way Walt Harris has game; every time I've heard him speak, I've gotten the impression that the lightbulb is pretty damn dim.

[Mick]

If Harris were a good coach who was just tricked by Ted Leland, don't you think somebody else would have picked him up? He had a year as a position coach at Akron, another year doing the same at 59er U of Pennsylvania, and now appears to be out of coaching.

So he's a bad coach who went to six bowl games in eight years in a major conference?  What does that make Bill Walsh who went to three bowls in five years?  Walsh was league coach of the year once, Harris was coach of the year twice.  Both coaches reached high PA rankings; Walsh hit #8, Harris hit #9. 

I'm not saying Harris was a great coach for Stanford, clearly he wasn't.  I met him shortly after he accepted the job, he struck me as being a first class d-bag, no question.  But I don't think I would flat out say he was a bad coach overall.  He was a bad coach for us.

[Mick]

If Harris were a good coach who was just tricked by Ted Leland, don't you think somebody else would have picked him up? He had a year as a position coach at Akron, another year doing the same at 59er U of Pennsylvania, and now appears to be out of coaching.

So he's a bad coach who went to six bowl games in eight years in a major conference?  What does that make Bill Walsh who went to three bowls in five years?  Walsh was league coach of the year once, Harris was coach of the year twice.  Both coaches reached high PA rankings; Walsh hit #8, Harris hit #9. 

I'm not saying Harris was a great coach for Stanford, clearly he wasn't.  I met him shortly after he accepted the job, he struck me as being a first class d-bag, no question.  But I don't think I would flat out say he was a bad coach overall.  He was a bad coach for us.

[needle]

To be fair, Teevens has led Dartmouth to winning seasons three out of the last four years. That's more success than I would have guessed ever possible.

[needle]

To be fair, Teevens has led Dartmouth to winning seasons three out of the last four years. That's more success than I would have guessed ever possible.

[JohnR34231]

To be fair, Teevens has led Dartmouth to winning seasons three out of the last four years. That's more success than I would have guessed ever possible.

I think Teevens is probably a decent coach at an Ivy League level of play. It's just when he gets up at an FBS level he's out of his league.

Speaking of Ivy League, did anyone notice that Yale put up 49 against the Army defense last week?

[JohnR34231]

To be fair, Teevens has led Dartmouth to winning seasons three out of the last four years. That's more success than I would have guessed ever possible.

I think Teevens is probably a decent coach at an Ivy League level of play. It's just when he gets up at an FBS level he's out of his league.

Speaking of Ivy League, did anyone notice that Yale put up 49 against the Army defense last week?

[washingtonismoney]

Army fans must have brobdingnagian whiplash. Nearly beat Wake Forest the week before.

[washingtonismoney]

Army fans must have brobdingnagian whiplash. Nearly beat Wake Forest the week before.