(01-16-2015, 12:17 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:A casual fan was probably very happy with the team's 8-4 performance in the '99-'00 season, but the coaches weren't getting market-level compensation, the facilities were outdated, and there was no expectation that Stanford was going to remain a football powerhouse on a consistent basis. In fact, Stanford won a total of 8 games combined in the seasons preceding and following the Rose Bowl appearance, and no one was particularly surprised by the inconsistency. In contrast to the situation 15 years ago, people now are expecting Stanford's future teams to outperform last year's 8-5 record.
As JPRI mentioned, Stanford was coming off a Rose Bowl 15 years ago, and there was optimism about the future, but the program was facing some major structural and institutional challenges. Since then, Stanford has addressed pretty much all of those structural issues, including the following. (This is a copy of a post I made last week on the Bootleg.)
1.
The Stadium. Stanford was playing in a crumbling old stadium with many deficiencies. The stadium avoided condemnation solely through the grace of the county. The President at that time, Gerhard Casper, had refused to do anything about it, saying he would not spend many millions on a building that was used just seven times a year. John Hennessy replaced Casper in 2000. In June 2005, on Ted Leland's watch, the trustees approved the new stadium project.
2.
Admissions. Robin Mamlet became the dean of admissions in 2000. Mamlet's tenure in admissions was, shall we say, difficult for Stanford football. In June 2005, Richard Shaw became director of admissions, which brought better relations with the admissions office. Having Lance Anderson as the liaison with admissions since 2007 has been helpful.
3.
Head coach salaries. IRS Form 990 requires non-profits to disclose the five highest paid employees who are not officers, directors, or key employees. Stanford's top five are mostly doctors at the medical center. For a long time, the university did not want athletic coaches to be listed on this form. That imposed a de facto cap on coaches' salaries, which became a problem as the market price for a good coach took off. This issue was fixed on Bowlsby's watch. Stanford was allowed to pay market rates even if it would put a coach on the Form 990. Harbaugh and Shaw have been listed on the Form 990 in recent years. The world didn't end.
4.
Assistant coach housing. Bay Area housing costs long have been a problem in hiring and retaining assistant coaches. The trustees approved the Olmsted housing project in December 2008, on Bowlsby's watch. Now, we often hear stories from assistant coaches' families about how much they like living on campus. A liability has been turned into an asset.
5.
Support facilities. Stanford long needed to upgrade its outdated, inadequate support facilities. Ted Leland started the ball rolling in 2002 with an upgrade to the weight room and locker rooms. The artificial practice field was installed in 2009. The pressing problem of the head coach's private bathroom was addressed the same year. Last year, Stanford opened the new football wing of the athletic department, with offices, meeting rooms, auditorium, weight room, and so forth. This year, the locker rooms at the stadium are being rebuilt into a new field house.
6.
Summer school. Fifteen years ago, Stanford didn't offer summer school for most players. None of the incoming freshman players could come to Stanford early for summer school. Now, the summer school program has expanded, and incoming freshmen participate.
7.
Assistant coach salaries. I think Stanford is still in the process of catching up to the escalation of assistant coach salaries. Last week's events apparently indicate that Stanford was willing to step up and pay enough to keep two key assistants, Anderson and Turley. That's encouraging.
8.
Lack of continuity. Stanford has suffered from a continuity problem for many years. Every time we began to achieve some success, we lost our coach to a higher profile, better paying job -- Ralston, Walsh, Green. Fifteen years ago, we didn't realize it, but the pattern was about to be repeated with Willing.ham. Every time we lost a successful coach, the next coach failed to maintain the program's momentum, dropping back into mediocrity or worse. We were not able to build any momentum as a program. It always was a pattern of "up and down," with more "down" than "up," it seemed. Harbaugh followed the familiar pattern. As soon as he achieved some success, he jumped to a new job. But this time, we didn't drop back to mediocrity. Since he left, we've had four straight seasons of 8+ wins, three seasons of 11+ wins and BCS bowls, and two conference titles. The jury is still out; we could be in the process of regressing. But for the first time since the 1930s, Stanford has managed to maintain some success for several years after losing a successful coach. Obviously, the next step is to retain a successful coach instead of losing him after a couple good years. I am hopeful that we now have the institutional support to pay what it takes to keep a coach who wins consistently.
Overall, I think it's pretty encouraging to look at our structural and institutional situation now compared to fifteen years ago.
