[gailtate]

If were subjected to the "other" fan bases, You can bet he'd be far hungrier than he apparently is on The Farm.

Your sure? I think self-motivated people, like most Stanford students are and certainly David Shaw is, do their best to ignore the noise around them and do what they believe will produce the best results. That can be maddening to those whose sky is falling, and it can be real bad if what the self-motivated person believes is actually wrong, but I think that is the situation.

I don't understand your response. My point is that Shaw's current record, in particular the trend-line, as HC would, at a number of the bluebloods for example, never have earned him the sacrosanct status he enjoys at Stanford where he is inviolable.

[gailtate]

If were subjected to the "other" fan bases, You can bet he'd be far hungrier than he apparently is on The Farm.

Your sure? I think self-motivated people, like most Stanford students are and certainly David Shaw is, do their best to ignore the noise around them and do what they believe will produce the best results. That can be maddening to those whose sky is falling, and it can be real bad if what the self-motivated person believes is actually wrong, but I think that is the situation.

I don't understand your response. My point is that Shaw's current record, in particular the trend-line, as HC would, at a number of the bluebloods for example, never have earned him the sacrosanct status he enjoys at Stanford where he is inviolable.

[DC 86]

If were subjected to the "other" fan bases, You can bet he'd be far hungrier than he apparently is on The Farm.

Your sure? I think self-motivated people, like most Stanford students are and certainly David Shaw is, do their best to ignore the noise around them and do what they believe will produce the best results. That can be maddening to those whose sky is falling, and it can be real bad if what the self-motivated person believes is actually wrong, but I think that is the situation.

I don't understand your response. My point is that Shaw's current record, in particular the trend-line, as HC would, at a number of the bluebloods for example, never have earned him the sacrosanct status he enjoys at Stanford where he is inviolable.

It's indisputable that at other schools he would receive more criticism and pressure from the fan base. But you wrote that it would make him "hungrier" which I take to mean "more motivated" or "harder working". I agree with Goose that he doesn't strike me as someone who responds to external pressure that way, particularly from the local media or from a fan base.

[DC 86]

If were subjected to the "other" fan bases, You can bet he'd be far hungrier than he apparently is on The Farm.

Your sure? I think self-motivated people, like most Stanford students are and certainly David Shaw is, do their best to ignore the noise around them and do what they believe will produce the best results. That can be maddening to those whose sky is falling, and it can be real bad if what the self-motivated person believes is actually wrong, but I think that is the situation.

I don't understand your response. My point is that Shaw's current record, in particular the trend-line, as HC would, at a number of the bluebloods for example, never have earned him the sacrosanct status he enjoys at Stanford where he is inviolable.

It's indisputable that at other schools he would receive more criticism and pressure from the fan base. But you wrote that it would make him "hungrier" which I take to mean "more motivated" or "harder working". I agree with Goose that he doesn't strike me as someone who responds to external pressure that way, particularly from the local media or from a fan base.

[Mick]

I think omitting Shaw from this list is lunacy.  Probably should have had Ralston (he juuuuust fit in.  If they can include Bear, they can include Ralston).  I think they should have had harbaugh, and probably Walsh.  

Some of the selections were nuts. Lance Leipold's, Howard Schnellenberger's and Bobby Ross's career W/L is barely over 50%.  Rich Brooks' career record is considerably under 50%.  Bruce Snyder had Denny Green's W/L rate without the admissions issues.  And if you're going to include RichRod, Dick MacPherson, Joe Tiller, Johnny Majors, hayden Fry, Bruce Snyder, Lance Leipold, Schnellenberger, Brooks, Ross, Moore and Wallace, then you should include Christiansen, Willingham and Green.

And I wouldn't have included any subdivision coaches.  Coach in D1 or it doesn't count.  Maybe eddie Robinson, that's it.  Bobby Wallace had an amazing record at North Alabama and West Alabama, but when coached his only D1 team (Temple) it went 19-71, then went independent when they promptly went 0-11.  Ditto Jerry Moore who won almost 90% of his D1AA games, but went 16-37-2 at Texas Tech

[Mick]

I think omitting Shaw from this list is lunacy.  Probably should have had Ralston (he juuuuust fit in.  If they can include Bear, they can include Ralston).  I think they should have had harbaugh, and probably Walsh.  

Some of the selections were nuts. Lance Leipold's, Howard Schnellenberger's and Bobby Ross's career W/L is barely over 50%.  Rich Brooks' career record is considerably under 50%.  Bruce Snyder had Denny Green's W/L rate without the admissions issues.  And if you're going to include RichRod, Dick MacPherson, Joe Tiller, Johnny Majors, hayden Fry, Bruce Snyder, Lance Leipold, Schnellenberger, Brooks, Ross, Moore and Wallace, then you should include Christiansen, Willingham and Green.

And I wouldn't have included any subdivision coaches.  Coach in D1 or it doesn't count.  Maybe eddie Robinson, that's it.  Bobby Wallace had an amazing record at North Alabama and West Alabama, but when coached his only D1 team (Temple) it went 19-71, then went independent when they promptly went 0-11.  Ditto Jerry Moore who won almost 90% of his D1AA games, but went 16-37-2 at Texas Tech

[lex24]

Shaw's issue right now is that his program is in years-long decline. His earlier achievements--the Rose Bowl, et. al. are indisputable and are rightly celebrated. Problem is that (1) he's in a Performance Now business, compounded by (2) the Harbaugh legacy that will nag him for as long as his teams remain middling. And he'd be the first one to make this declaration. What he doesn't have going in his favor, in terms of reputation as The All-Time Greats, ironically, is the nature of his employer. At many schools, such as the ones so many here look down their noses at, there would be no rest for the weary and no respite for Shaw. His job at this moment would probably not be in any jeopardy, but neither would he have anything close to the job security he enjoys now. If were subjected to the "other" fan bases, You can bet he'd be far hungrier than he apparently is on The Farm. Hey, good for him. Easier on the health.

Harbaugh is a turnaround artist. And the turnaround he performed at Stanford was  remarkable.  But he left. After one incredible year.  He never won anything while at Stanford. Even with Luck. 2010 was a fantastic team.  Maybe the best I have seen at Stanford. Although I’m still partial to 1970.  Had he stayed, who knows. But he didn’t.  I think some have never gotten over that.

Personally, I think had he stayed the crash and burn would have been fairly quick.

[lex24]

Shaw's issue right now is that his program is in years-long decline. His earlier achievements--the Rose Bowl, et. al. are indisputable and are rightly celebrated. Problem is that (1) he's in a Performance Now business, compounded by (2) the Harbaugh legacy that will nag him for as long as his teams remain middling. And he'd be the first one to make this declaration. What he doesn't have going in his favor, in terms of reputation as The All-Time Greats, ironically, is the nature of his employer. At many schools, such as the ones so many here look down their noses at, there would be no rest for the weary and no respite for Shaw. His job at this moment would probably not be in any jeopardy, but neither would he have anything close to the job security he enjoys now. If were subjected to the "other" fan bases, You can bet he'd be far hungrier than he apparently is on The Farm. Hey, good for him. Easier on the health.

Harbaugh is a turnaround artist. And the turnaround he performed at Stanford was  remarkable.  But he left. After one incredible year.  He never won anything while at Stanford. Even with Luck. 2010 was a fantastic team.  Maybe the best I have seen at Stanford. Although I’m still partial to 1970.  Had he stayed, who knows. But he didn’t.  I think some have never gotten over that.

Personally, I think had he stayed the crash and burn would have been fairly quick.

[gailtate]

Shaw's issue right now is that his program is in years-long decline. His earlier achievements--the Rose Bowl, et. al. are indisputable and are rightly celebrated. Problem is that (1) he's in a Performance Now business, compounded by (2) the Harbaugh legacy that will nag him for as long as his teams remain middling. And he'd be the first one to make this declaration. What he doesn't have going in his favor, in terms of reputation as The All-Time Greats, ironically, is the nature of his employer. At many schools, such as the ones so many here look down their noses at, there would be no rest for the weary and no respite for Shaw. His job at this moment would probably not be in any jeopardy, but neither would he have anything close to the job security he enjoys now. If were subjected to the "other" fan bases, You can bet he'd be far hungrier than he apparently is on The Farm. Hey, good for him. Easier on the health.

  He never won anything while at Stanford. nd burn would have been fairly quick.

He won an Orange Bowl. After raising Stanford from the dead. And, for some folks out there, that's all he needed to be etched indelibly into Stanford football lore.  As JFK said, life is unfair.

[gailtate]

Shaw's issue right now is that his program is in years-long decline. His earlier achievements--the Rose Bowl, et. al. are indisputable and are rightly celebrated. Problem is that (1) he's in a Performance Now business, compounded by (2) the Harbaugh legacy that will nag him for as long as his teams remain middling. And he'd be the first one to make this declaration. What he doesn't have going in his favor, in terms of reputation as The All-Time Greats, ironically, is the nature of his employer. At many schools, such as the ones so many here look down their noses at, there would be no rest for the weary and no respite for Shaw. His job at this moment would probably not be in any jeopardy, but neither would he have anything close to the job security he enjoys now. If were subjected to the "other" fan bases, You can bet he'd be far hungrier than he apparently is on The Farm. Hey, good for him. Easier on the health.

  He never won anything while at Stanford. nd burn would have been fairly quick.

He won an Orange Bowl. After raising Stanford from the dead. And, for some folks out there, that's all he needed to be etched indelibly into Stanford football lore.  As JFK said, life is unfair.

[Phogge]

Harbaugh had EUTM. he never would have been satisfied with Orange and Rose Bowl wins. Shaw however is totally satisfied. I know you guys hated Harballs but I didn't. Without him Shaw might have coached at UN Reno but not anywhere big time.

[Phogge]

Harbaugh had EUTM. he never would have been satisfied with Orange and Rose Bowl wins. Shaw however is totally satisfied. I know you guys hated Harballs but I didn't. Without him Shaw might have coached at UN Reno but not anywhere big time.

[81alum]

This is a ridiculous list, and isn't worth the effort to critique it.  No Walsh?  No Shaw?  Ralston and Harbaugh should be contenders too.  And some of the names on the list are not exactly worthy.

[81alum]

This is a ridiculous list, and isn't worth the effort to critique it.  No Walsh?  No Shaw?  Ralston and Harbaugh should be contenders too.  And some of the names on the list are not exactly worthy.

[Mick]

Harbaugh had EUTM. he never would have been satisfied with Orange and Rose Bowl wins. Shaw however is totally satisfied. I know you guys hated Harballs but I didn't. Without him Shaw might have coached at UN Reno but not anywhere big time.

I'm guessing Harbaugh was much more satisfied with his Orange Bowl victory at Stanford along with a final #4 overall rating compared with his four consecutive UMichigan losses in the Orange Bowl, Outback Bowl, Peach Bowl and Citrus Bowl, all with final rankings of #10-#19...

[Mick]

Harbaugh had EUTM. he never would have been satisfied with Orange and Rose Bowl wins. Shaw however is totally satisfied. I know you guys hated Harballs but I didn't. Without him Shaw might have coached at UN Reno but not anywhere big time.

I'm guessing Harbaugh was much more satisfied with his Orange Bowl victory at Stanford along with a final #4 overall rating compared with his four consecutive UMichigan losses in the Orange Bowl, Outback Bowl, Peach Bowl and Citrus Bowl, all with final rankings of #10-#19...

[lex24]

Harbaugh had EUTM. he never would have been satisfied with Orange and Rose Bowl wins. Shaw however is totally satisfied. I know you guys hated Harballs but I didn't. Without him Shaw might have coached at UN Reno but not anywhere big time.

I don’t hate Harbaugh. And “satisfied “ is a loaded term.  He never got the chance to coach a Rose Bowl.  Still hasn’t. AnD I suspect if he isn’t their soon , he will be out at Michigan.  

As for me, I’m “satisfied” with PAC 12 Championships.  Like to see some more of them.

[lex24]

Harbaugh had EUTM. he never would have been satisfied with Orange and Rose Bowl wins. Shaw however is totally satisfied. I know you guys hated Harballs but I didn't. Without him Shaw might have coached at UN Reno but not anywhere big time.

I don’t hate Harbaugh. And “satisfied “ is a loaded term.  He never got the chance to coach a Rose Bowl.  Still hasn’t. AnD I suspect if he isn’t their soon , he will be out at Michigan.  

As for me, I’m “satisfied” with PAC 12 Championships.  Like to see some more of them.

[winflop]

Harbaugh had EUTM. he never would have been satisfied with Orange and Rose Bowl wins. Shaw however is totally satisfied. I know you guys hated Harballs but I didn't. Without him Shaw might have coached at UN Reno but not anywhere big time.

I don’t hate Harbaugh. And “satisfied “ is a loaded term.  He never got the chance to coach a Rose Bowl.  Still hasn’t. AnD I suspect if he isn’t their soon , he will be out at Michigan.  

As for me, I’m “satisfied” with PAC 12 Championships.  Like to see some more of them.

Harbaugh was the right hire for the right time, but Shaw is the best HC we've had in the last 50 years, probably longer (other than Pop Warner). But I'm not convinced he's among the 100 best coaches in college football

[winflop]

Harbaugh had EUTM. he never would have been satisfied with Orange and Rose Bowl wins. Shaw however is totally satisfied. I know you guys hated Harballs but I didn't. Without him Shaw might have coached at UN Reno but not anywhere big time.

I don’t hate Harbaugh. And “satisfied “ is a loaded term.  He never got the chance to coach a Rose Bowl.  Still hasn’t. AnD I suspect if he isn’t their soon , he will be out at Michigan.  

As for me, I’m “satisfied” with PAC 12 Championships.  Like to see some more of them.

Harbaugh was the right hire for the right time, but Shaw is the best HC we've had in the last 50 years, probably longer (other than Pop Warner). But I'm not convinced he's among the 100 best coaches in college football

[BostonCard]

Harbaugh was the right hire for the right time, but Shaw is the best HC we've had in the last 50 years, probably longer (other than Pop Warner). But I'm not convinced he's among the 100 best coaches in college football

Agree.  I will never have a bad word to say about Harbaugh as a football coach, given what he inherited and what he left.  You can even argue that Harbaugh did us a final favor by leaving at the right time (that sounds like a backhanded compliment, but it is not).  People underestimate just how bad the state of the football program was at the time, and as much as we complain about what's happening now, it is still nothing like it was under Wlat.

I'm not sure where Shaw sits on the list or even if he belongs in the top 100.  But I do think he is a better coach than many who are on the list.

BC

[BostonCard]

Harbaugh was the right hire for the right time, but Shaw is the best HC we've had in the last 50 years, probably longer (other than Pop Warner). But I'm not convinced he's among the 100 best coaches in college football

Agree.  I will never have a bad word to say about Harbaugh as a football coach, given what he inherited and what he left.  You can even argue that Harbaugh did us a final favor by leaving at the right time (that sounds like a backhanded compliment, but it is not).  People underestimate just how bad the state of the football program was at the time, and as much as we complain about what's happening now, it is still nothing like it was under Wlat.

I'm not sure where Shaw sits on the list or even if he belongs in the top 100.  But I do think he is a better coach than many who are on the list.

BC

[Papa John]

Hogan was identified, recruited, and offered by Harbaugh. My friends and I sat next to his mother at the Orange Bowl as he was weighing his decision and she asked us a lot of questions.

I'm a bit late to the party, but...

The Orange Bowl was played on January 3, 2011. According to 247sports.com, Kevin Hogan committed to Stanford on June 25, 2010. There's a Washington Post story dated the same covering Hogan's commitment. Harbaugh didn't leave for the 49ers until 4 days after the Orange Bowl, so I'm not sure what other decisions Kevin Hogan and his mother were weighing?

In any case, according to the SJMN, it was Pep Hamilton who "discovered" Hogan at Gonzaga Prep. And yes, Hogan later camped at Stanford and thought he would be playing for Harbaugh when he committed. But David Shaw became head coach of Stanford on January 13, 2011 and Hogan signed his letter of intent on February 2.

I know that some folks are adamant that Hogan was Harbaugh's recruit, but he was 100% Shaw's player. And two of the players you mentioned earlier, Kevin Anderson and Ronnie Harris, committed to Stanford after Shaw had become head coach! (The other two, Devon Cajuste and Remound Wright did commit, like Hogan, in summer 2010.)

Look, I get that the Fiesta Bowl team with Luck was still mostly Harbaugh's team. But to call the 2015 Rose Bowl team anything but Shaw's team is just plain silly, in my opinion. As far as I know, every single starter, with the exception of Brennan Scarlett, had played his entire college career under David Shaw.

And for any best coaches list... I dare anyone to list 100 coaches over the past 50 years who would have done a better job at Stanford than David Shaw has done from 2011 to the present.

[Papa John]

Hogan was identified, recruited, and offered by Harbaugh. My friends and I sat next to his mother at the Orange Bowl as he was weighing his decision and she asked us a lot of questions.

I'm a bit late to the party, but...

The Orange Bowl was played on January 3, 2011. According to 247sports.com, Kevin Hogan committed to Stanford on June 25, 2010. There's a Washington Post story dated the same covering Hogan's commitment. Harbaugh didn't leave for the 49ers until 4 days after the Orange Bowl, so I'm not sure what other decisions Kevin Hogan and his mother were weighing?

In any case, according to the SJMN, it was Pep Hamilton who "discovered" Hogan at Gonzaga Prep. And yes, Hogan later camped at Stanford and thought he would be playing for Harbaugh when he committed. But David Shaw became head coach of Stanford on January 13, 2011 and Hogan signed his letter of intent on February 2.

I know that some folks are adamant that Hogan was Harbaugh's recruit, but he was 100% Shaw's player. And two of the players you mentioned earlier, Kevin Anderson and Ronnie Harris, committed to Stanford after Shaw had become head coach! (The other two, Devon Cajuste and Remound Wright did commit, like Hogan, in summer 2010.)

Look, I get that the Fiesta Bowl team with Luck was still mostly Harbaugh's team. But to call the 2015 Rose Bowl team anything but Shaw's team is just plain silly, in my opinion. As far as I know, every single starter, with the exception of Brennan Scarlett, had played his entire college career under David Shaw.

And for any best coaches list... I dare anyone to list 100 coaches over the past 50 years who would have done a better job at Stanford than David Shaw has done from 2011 to the present.

[Phogge]

Lex, do you believe that Harbaugh wouldn't have coached Stanford to any Rose Bowls? Do you think Shaw could have brought the program back from rock bottom all the way to a #4 ranking? I think that the job was something like raising Lazarus and I don't think Shaw on his own could have gotten close.

[Phogge]

Lex, do you believe that Harbaugh wouldn't have coached Stanford to any Rose Bowls? Do you think Shaw could have brought the program back from rock bottom all the way to a #4 ranking? I think that the job was something like raising Lazarus and I don't think Shaw on his own could have gotten close.

[Mick]

And for any best coaches list... I dare anyone to list 100 coaches over the past 50 years who would have done a better job at Stanford than David Shaw has done from 2011 to the present.

Best point of all.  Makes you wonder what Shaw could have done at a football factory.  Or any SEC team.

[Mick]

And for any best coaches list... I dare anyone to list 100 coaches over the past 50 years who would have done a better job at Stanford than David Shaw has done from 2011 to the present.

Best point of all.  Makes you wonder what Shaw could have done at a football factory.  Or any SEC team.

[Goose]

And for any best coaches list... I dare anyone to list 100 coaches over the past 50 years who would have done a better job at Stanford than David Shaw has done from 2011 to the present.

Best point of all.  Makes you wonder what Shaw could have done at a football factory.  Or any SEC team.

One does wonder, but I for one expect that Shaw wouldn't do so well in the SEC. Being a head coach isn't really about just football. It is about a lot of management issues. How you must manage an SEC team is much different because the institutions are much different. Shaw wouldn't want to endure the tasks that come from leading a team in the SEC. It isn't a fit. Fortunately, he is a fit at Stanford. Nick Saban probably wouldn't do well at Stanford, and Ed Ogeron certainly wouldn't. It is just a different situation.
I also think that coaches get too much credit and too much blame for their relative performances. The same is said about QBs, but at least QBs are on the field and can directly effect what happens. Coaches have to work through a bunch of immature kids who may or may not listen to what the coach says. Teaching is both about the teacher and the student. While coaches recruit, they can't just pick out the team they want. If you are at e.g. Rice, you aren't going to have much luck recruiting guys that Alabama wants. The coach can change that (maybe) by winning a lot over a period of say 10 years, but he probably won't last that long, no matter how "good" he really is. It is just a fact.

[Goose]

And for any best coaches list... I dare anyone to list 100 coaches over the past 50 years who would have done a better job at Stanford than David Shaw has done from 2011 to the present.

Best point of all.  Makes you wonder what Shaw could have done at a football factory.  Or any SEC team.

One does wonder, but I for one expect that Shaw wouldn't do so well in the SEC. Being a head coach isn't really about just football. It is about a lot of management issues. How you must manage an SEC team is much different because the institutions are much different. Shaw wouldn't want to endure the tasks that come from leading a team in the SEC. It isn't a fit. Fortunately, he is a fit at Stanford. Nick Saban probably wouldn't do well at Stanford, and Ed Ogeron certainly wouldn't. It is just a different situation.
I also think that coaches get too much credit and too much blame for their relative performances. The same is said about QBs, but at least QBs are on the field and can directly effect what happens. Coaches have to work through a bunch of immature kids who may or may not listen to what the coach says. Teaching is both about the teacher and the student. While coaches recruit, they can't just pick out the team they want. If you are at e.g. Rice, you aren't going to have much luck recruiting guys that Alabama wants. The coach can change that (maybe) by winning a lot over a period of say 10 years, but he probably won't last that long, no matter how "good" he really is. It is just a fact.

[Papa John]

I'm with Mick and Goose. And, weird as it sounds, Harbaugh was the perfect fit at Stanford 2007-11 and, apparently, is not the best fit at his alma mater. He's a poster child for why the "Top 100 Coaches" lists really miss the point with all of the apples-to-oranges comparisons. Based solely on what he did at Stanford, Harbaugh would be in the top 10, IMO.

[Papa John]

I'm with Mick and Goose. And, weird as it sounds, Harbaugh was the perfect fit at Stanford 2007-11 and, apparently, is not the best fit at his alma mater. He's a poster child for why the "Top 100 Coaches" lists really miss the point with all of the apples-to-oranges comparisons. Based solely on what he did at Stanford, Harbaugh would be in the top 10, IMO.

[BostonCard]

I agree with those above me, and would add that so much about coaching is about fit, which changes both in place and time.  Harbaugh was a perfect fit for Stanford in 2007; by the time he left, less so.  Shaw has been a perfect fit for Stanford over the last decade, but I'm not sure he would be a great fit elsewhere (look at what happened when Willingham went to Notre Dame and later Washington), and I'm not sure how effectvie he would have been coming in after Teevens or Harris.

Also, TBD how Shaw will do from here.  I'm more optimistic than most long term, though in the short term I see a bumpy ride.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree with those above me, and would add that so much about coaching is about fit, which changes both in place and time.  Harbaugh was a perfect fit for Stanford in 2007; by the time he left, less so.  Shaw has been a perfect fit for Stanford over the last decade, but I'm not sure he would be a great fit elsewhere (look at what happened when Willingham went to Notre Dame and later Washington), and I'm not sure how effectvie he would have been coming in after Teevens or Harris.

Also, TBD how Shaw will do from here.  I'm more optimistic than most long term, though in the short term I see a bumpy ride.

BC

[teejers1]

I agree with those above me, and would add that so much about coaching is about fit, which changes both in place and time.  Harbaugh was a perfect fit for Stanford in 2007; by the time he left, less so.  Shaw has been a perfect fit for Stanford over the last decade, but I'm not sure he would be a great fit elsewhere (look at what happened when Willingham went to Notre Dame and later Washington), and I'm not sure how effectvie he would have been coming in after Teevens or Harris.

Also, TBD how Shaw will do from here.  I'm more optimistic than most long term, though in the short term I see a bumpy ride.

BC

Guys, can we just be frank here:  Shaw would NOT be a good coach anywhere else.  Could you imagine his recruiting practices "working" anywhere else?  He relies so much on the institutional draw of Stanford and recruiting "Stanford men" - at least that's my impression - that it would be a thud elsewhere.

Also, a good Xs and Os coach at School A, or a good motivating coach at School B, or a good player development coach at School C should all be able to succeed when coming to Stanford, largely because those attributes should play well to the school's natural draw.  I mean, Harbaugh succeeded here, as did Willingham, Green, and Walsh.  Not all of them succeeded elsewhere in college (though Harbs has been pretty good wherever).  

Having said that, I agree that Shaw is a good fit at Stanford (could be much better with a couple changes) - better than many other coaches we've seen in the ranks (including Coach O, Wlat, and others).

[teejers1]

I agree with those above me, and would add that so much about coaching is about fit, which changes both in place and time.  Harbaugh was a perfect fit for Stanford in 2007; by the time he left, less so.  Shaw has been a perfect fit for Stanford over the last decade, but I'm not sure he would be a great fit elsewhere (look at what happened when Willingham went to Notre Dame and later Washington), and I'm not sure how effectvie he would have been coming in after Teevens or Harris.

Also, TBD how Shaw will do from here.  I'm more optimistic than most long term, though in the short term I see a bumpy ride.

BC

Guys, can we just be frank here:  Shaw would NOT be a good coach anywhere else.  Could you imagine his recruiting practices "working" anywhere else?  He relies so much on the institutional draw of Stanford and recruiting "Stanford men" - at least that's my impression - that it would be a thud elsewhere.

Also, a good Xs and Os coach at School A, or a good motivating coach at School B, or a good player development coach at School C should all be able to succeed when coming to Stanford, largely because those attributes should play well to the school's natural draw.  I mean, Harbaugh succeeded here, as did Willingham, Green, and Walsh.  Not all of them succeeded elsewhere in college (though Harbs has been pretty good wherever).  

Having said that, I agree that Shaw is a good fit at Stanford (could be much better with a couple changes) - better than many other coaches we've seen in the ranks (including Coach O, Wlat, and others).

[murky]

I agree with those above me, and would add that so much about coaching is about fit, which changes both in place and time.  Harbaugh was a perfect fit for Stanford in 2007; by the time he left, less so.  Shaw has been a perfect fit for Stanford over the last decade, but I'm not sure he would be a great fit elsewhere (look at what happened when Willingham went to Notre Dame and later Washington), and I'm not sure how effectvie he would have been coming in after Teevens or Harris.

Also, TBD how Shaw will do from here.  I'm more optimistic than most long term, though in the short term I see a bumpy ride.

BC

Guys, can we just be frank here:  Shaw would NOT be a good coach anywhere else.  Could you imagine his recruiting practices "working" anywhere else?  He relies so much on the institutional draw of Stanford and recruiting "Stanford men" - at least that's my impression - that it would be a thud elsewhere.

Also, a good Xs and Os coach at School A, or a good motivating coach at School B, or a good player development coach at School C should all be able to succeed when coming to Stanford, largely because those attributes should play well to the school's natural draw.  I mean, Harbaugh succeeded here, as did Willingham, Green, and Walsh.  Not all of them succeeded elsewhere in college (though Harbs has been pretty good wherever).  

Having said that, I agree that Shaw is a good fit at Stanford (could be much better with a couple changes) - better than many other coaches we've seen in the ranks (including Coach O, Wlat, and others).

We can't assume that Shaw would use the same approach and tactics he uses here, if confronted with different challenges elsewhere.  

Shaw recognizes the power of Stanford's institutional draw, and exploits it to Stanford Football advantage.  If you have the tool, use it.  Doesn't mean he'd be dependent that tool where not available.

[murky]

I agree with those above me, and would add that so much about coaching is about fit, which changes both in place and time.  Harbaugh was a perfect fit for Stanford in 2007; by the time he left, less so.  Shaw has been a perfect fit for Stanford over the last decade, but I'm not sure he would be a great fit elsewhere (look at what happened when Willingham went to Notre Dame and later Washington), and I'm not sure how effectvie he would have been coming in after Teevens or Harris.

Also, TBD how Shaw will do from here.  I'm more optimistic than most long term, though in the short term I see a bumpy ride.

BC

Guys, can we just be frank here:  Shaw would NOT be a good coach anywhere else.  Could you imagine his recruiting practices "working" anywhere else?  He relies so much on the institutional draw of Stanford and recruiting "Stanford men" - at least that's my impression - that it would be a thud elsewhere.

Also, a good Xs and Os coach at School A, or a good motivating coach at School B, or a good player development coach at School C should all be able to succeed when coming to Stanford, largely because those attributes should play well to the school's natural draw.  I mean, Harbaugh succeeded here, as did Willingham, Green, and Walsh.  Not all of them succeeded elsewhere in college (though Harbs has been pretty good wherever).  

Having said that, I agree that Shaw is a good fit at Stanford (could be much better with a couple changes) - better than many other coaches we've seen in the ranks (including Coach O, Wlat, and others).

We can't assume that Shaw would use the same approach and tactics he uses here, if confronted with different challenges elsewhere.  

Shaw recognizes the power of Stanford's institutional draw, and exploits it to Stanford Football advantage.  If you have the tool, use it.  Doesn't mean he'd be dependent that tool where not available.

[BostonCard]

Guys, can we just be frank here:  Shaw would NOT be a good coach anywhere else.  Could you imagine his recruiting practices "working" anywhere else?  He relies so much on the institutional draw of Stanford and recruiting "Stanford men" - at least that's my impression - that it would be a thud elsewhere.



Also, a good Xs and Os coach at School A, or a good motivating coach at School B, or a good player development coach at School C should all be able to succeed when coming to Stanford, largely because those attributes should play well to the school's natural draw.  I mean, Harbaugh succeeded here, as did Willingham, Green, and Walsh.  Not all of them succeeded elsewhere in college (though Harbs has been pretty good wherever).  



Having said that, I agree that Shaw is a good fit at Stanford (could be much better with a couple changes) - better than many other coaches we've seen in the ranks (including Coach O, Wlat, and others).

Wlat's approach cratered at Stanford, even though he was pretty successful at Pitt.  You might have thought that Teevens, who had been successful at Dartmouth, but not in D1 (Tulane) might have been able to leveraged Stanford's "institutional draw" just as much as Shaw has, but alas he wasn't.  Even Walsh cratered in his second go around.

Willingham, who you define as "successful" at Stanford (and I would be inclined to agree) had a career 44-36-1 record at Stanford.  That's a 55% winning percentage.  He had 4 winning seasons in 7, and never won more than 9 games; he won the conference once.  In contrast, in 10 seasons, Shaw has exactly the same number of losses as Willingham did, and more than twice as many wins (90-36), a 71% winning percentage.  He's had 9 winning seasons in 10 and won double digit games 5 times (to be fair, the number of regular season games has gone from 11 to 12, and Shaw made it to a conference championship 4 times, winning 3).  He won the conference three times (despite it being a larger conference).  I don't see how you can define Willingham as "successful" and be non-plussed by Shaw's record.

My first year at Stanford was 1993.  Here's the record of coaches since I've been a fan:
David Shaw 90-36 (71%) [9 winning seasons in 10 years, 3 conference titles]
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58%) [2 winning seasons in 4 years, 0 conference titles]
Wlat Harris 6-17 (26%) [0 winning seasons in 2 years, 0 conference titles]
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30%) [0 winning seasons in 3 years, 0 conference titles]
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (55%) [4 winning seasons in 7 years, 1 conference title]
Bill Walsh* 7-14-1 (33%) [0 winning seasons in 2 years, 0 conference titles]

With that as my reference, of the six guys who have coached since I enrolled at Stanford, 3 were failures, with a losing record and 0 winning seasons between them, three were moderately successful, winning more than 50% of their games and having winning seasons just over half the time, and one coach has been wildly successful.

Note, since I started Stanford in the second year of Walsh II, I only ever witnessed Walsh' last two years, both of them losing seasons.  If you look at all of Walsh 2 you get 17-17-1 record, 50% winning percentage, 1 winning season, and 0 conference titles; if you look at both Walsh stints, you get 34-24-1 59%, with three winning seasons in 5 years, and no conference titles.

Another way to look at it would be to look at Shaw's last five years, when he was all on his own without any of Harbaugh's recruits.
36-22, 62% winning percentage, 4 winning seasons in 5 years, 0 conference titles.  In other words, Shaw's five worst years, the ones that everyone cites as evidence of the irrevocable decline of Stanford football, have produced a better winning percentage than any other coach since I've been a fan (including three that you cite as "successful") and it's produced as many winning seasons as Willingham, and more than Harbaugh or Walsh.

Yes, but "delays of game", am I right?

BC

[BostonCard]

Guys, can we just be frank here:  Shaw would NOT be a good coach anywhere else.  Could you imagine his recruiting practices "working" anywhere else?  He relies so much on the institutional draw of Stanford and recruiting "Stanford men" - at least that's my impression - that it would be a thud elsewhere.



Also, a good Xs and Os coach at School A, or a good motivating coach at School B, or a good player development coach at School C should all be able to succeed when coming to Stanford, largely because those attributes should play well to the school's natural draw.  I mean, Harbaugh succeeded here, as did Willingham, Green, and Walsh.  Not all of them succeeded elsewhere in college (though Harbs has been pretty good wherever).  



Having said that, I agree that Shaw is a good fit at Stanford (could be much better with a couple changes) - better than many other coaches we've seen in the ranks (including Coach O, Wlat, and others).

Wlat's approach cratered at Stanford, even though he was pretty successful at Pitt.  You might have thought that Teevens, who had been successful at Dartmouth, but not in D1 (Tulane) might have been able to leveraged Stanford's "institutional draw" just as much as Shaw has, but alas he wasn't.  Even Walsh cratered in his second go around.

Willingham, who you define as "successful" at Stanford (and I would be inclined to agree) had a career 44-36-1 record at Stanford.  That's a 55% winning percentage.  He had 4 winning seasons in 7, and never won more than 9 games; he won the conference once.  In contrast, in 10 seasons, Shaw has exactly the same number of losses as Willingham did, and more than twice as many wins (90-36), a 71% winning percentage.  He's had 9 winning seasons in 10 and won double digit games 5 times (to be fair, the number of regular season games has gone from 11 to 12, and Shaw made it to a conference championship 4 times, winning 3).  He won the conference three times (despite it being a larger conference).  I don't see how you can define Willingham as "successful" and be non-plussed by Shaw's record.

My first year at Stanford was 1993.  Here's the record of coaches since I've been a fan:
David Shaw 90-36 (71%) [9 winning seasons in 10 years, 3 conference titles]
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58%) [2 winning seasons in 4 years, 0 conference titles]
Wlat Harris 6-17 (26%) [0 winning seasons in 2 years, 0 conference titles]
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30%) [0 winning seasons in 3 years, 0 conference titles]
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (55%) [4 winning seasons in 7 years, 1 conference title]
Bill Walsh* 7-14-1 (33%) [0 winning seasons in 2 years, 0 conference titles]

With that as my reference, of the six guys who have coached since I enrolled at Stanford, 3 were failures, with a losing record and 0 winning seasons between them, three were moderately successful, winning more than 50% of their games and having winning seasons just over half the time, and one coach has been wildly successful.

Note, since I started Stanford in the second year of Walsh II, I only ever witnessed Walsh' last two years, both of them losing seasons.  If you look at all of Walsh 2 you get 17-17-1 record, 50% winning percentage, 1 winning season, and 0 conference titles; if you look at both Walsh stints, you get 34-24-1 59%, with three winning seasons in 5 years, and no conference titles.

Another way to look at it would be to look at Shaw's last five years, when he was all on his own without any of Harbaugh's recruits.
36-22, 62% winning percentage, 4 winning seasons in 5 years, 0 conference titles.  In other words, Shaw's five worst years, the ones that everyone cites as evidence of the irrevocable decline of Stanford football, have produced a better winning percentage than any other coach since I've been a fan (including three that you cite as "successful") and it's produced as many winning seasons as Willingham, and more than Harbaugh or Walsh.

Yes, but "delays of game", am I right?

BC