[Goose]

I think it is abundantly clear from the tone of the announcement that the young man wanted to demonstrate to himself and the world that he could get admitted to Stanford grad school on his own merits without even a hint of football "juice" being involved. Good for him. Consider the WVB player from UCLA who did the same. Who should we disparage for not recognizing her in advance and recruiting her?

[Goose]

I think it is abundantly clear from the tone of the announcement that the young man wanted to demonstrate to himself and the world that he could get admitted to Stanford grad school on his own merits without even a hint of football "juice" being involved. Good for him. Consider the WVB player from UCLA who did the same. Who should we disparage for not recognizing her in advance and recruiting her?

[old spanish trail]

Recruit of the year, imo. I watched alot of the OK bowl game and they couldn't stop gushing about him. My thought, I wonder if he was on Shaw's radar back when. I thought STM looked like a potential Sunday player in 2020, then he was injured this year. If he hasn't lost speed, he and Blu Kelly are an excellent tandem. Plus, McGill is solid and Wyrick an impressive frosh. Defensive backs looking good to me. I also thought the frosh safety from Hawaii looked promising.

[old spanish trail]

Recruit of the year, imo. I watched alot of the OK bowl game and they couldn't stop gushing about him. My thought, I wonder if he was on Shaw's radar back when. I thought STM looked like a potential Sunday player in 2020, then he was injured this year. If he hasn't lost speed, he and Blu Kelly are an excellent tandem. Plus, McGill is solid and Wyrick an impressive frosh. Defensive backs looking good to me. I also thought the frosh safety from Hawaii looked promising.

[teejers1]

I think it is abundantly clear from the tone of the announcement that the young man wanted to demonstrate to himself and the world that he could get admitted to Stanford grad school on his own merits without even a hint of football "juice" being involved. Good for him. Consider the WVB player from UCLA who did the same. Who should we disparage for not recognizing her in advance and recruiting her?

Was said volleyball player recruited by Stanford when she was in HS?
Did said volleyball player tell a VB coach that she was going to ultimately come to Stanford, as a grad transfer?

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

[teejers1]

I think it is abundantly clear from the tone of the announcement that the young man wanted to demonstrate to himself and the world that he could get admitted to Stanford grad school on his own merits without even a hint of football "juice" being involved. Good for him. Consider the WVB player from UCLA who did the same. Who should we disparage for not recognizing her in advance and recruiting her?

Was said volleyball player recruited by Stanford when she was in HS?
Did said volleyball player tell a VB coach that she was going to ultimately come to Stanford, as a grad transfer?

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

[BostonCard]

The story with Madeline Gates was very similar.  Gates transferred to Stanford unbeknownst to Hambly and contacted him after getting her admissions, asking if he’d be interested in having her join the team.

BC

[BostonCard]

The story with Madeline Gates was very similar.  Gates transferred to Stanford unbeknownst to Hambly and contacted him after getting her admissions, asking if he’d be interested in having her join the team.

BC

[yvonne]

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

Sears Sport (sic.)? You mean like football, which also contributes to the NACDA Learfield Directors Cup? There are other places that sneer at student athletes putting in 2-3 hours a day to compete in athletics for which they will unlikely earn any living on top of putting in a full academic load. This is not one of them.

[yvonne]

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

Sears Sport (sic.)? You mean like football, which also contributes to the NACDA Learfield Directors Cup? There are other places that sneer at student athletes putting in 2-3 hours a day to compete in athletics for which they will unlikely earn any living on top of putting in a full academic load. This is not one of them.

[BostonCard]

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

Sears Sport (sic.)? You mean like football, which also contributes to the NACDA Learfield Directors Cup? There are other places that sneer at student athletes putting in 2-3 hours a day to compete in athletics for which they will unlikely earn any living on top of putting in a full academic load. This is not one of them.

I don’t often miss the rating up/down votes, but this is one time.

BC

[BostonCard]

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

Sears Sport (sic.)? You mean like football, which also contributes to the NACDA Learfield Directors Cup? There are other places that sneer at student athletes putting in 2-3 hours a day to compete in athletics for which they will unlikely earn any living on top of putting in a full academic load. This is not one of them.

I don’t often miss the rating up/down votes, but this is one time.

BC

[Phogge]

Not an alum and could care less about the Ted Cup. But the overall Stanford athletic program and all the NC’s and All Americans is the greatest collegiate sports achievement off all time and it’s not close. More impressive than UCLA’s streak and the Okie 47 game winning streak under Coach Bud. Not to be laughed about or laughed off.

Great post Yvonne.

[Phogge]

Not an alum and could care less about the Ted Cup. But the overall Stanford athletic program and all the NC’s and All Americans is the greatest collegiate sports achievement off all time and it’s not close. More impressive than UCLA’s streak and the Okie 47 game winning streak under Coach Bud. Not to be laughed about or laughed off.

Great post Yvonne.

[Goose]

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

Sears Sport (sic.)? You mean like football, which also contributes to the NACDA Learfield Directors Cup? There are other places that sneer at student athletes putting in 2-3 hours a day to compete in athletics for which they will unlikely earn any living on top of putting in a full academic load. This is not one of them.

I don’t often miss the rating up/down votes, but this is one time.

BC

+1 (virtually speaking)

[Goose]

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

Sears Sport (sic.)? You mean like football, which also contributes to the NACDA Learfield Directors Cup? There are other places that sneer at student athletes putting in 2-3 hours a day to compete in athletics for which they will unlikely earn any living on top of putting in a full academic load. This is not one of them.

I don’t often miss the rating up/down votes, but this is one time.

BC

+1 (virtually speaking)

[CompSci87]

The story with Madeline Gates was very similar.  Gates transferred to Stanford unbeknownst to Hambly and contacted him after getting her admissions, asking if he’d be interested in having her join the team.

BC

Also similar in that Gates had wanted to come as a freshman, but that didn't work out. In her case I think it was just because there wasn't room. She was the same entering year as Plummer, Gray, Hentz, Fitzmorris, and the Keefe sisters.

[CompSci87]

The story with Madeline Gates was very similar.  Gates transferred to Stanford unbeknownst to Hambly and contacted him after getting her admissions, asking if he’d be interested in having her join the team.

BC

Also similar in that Gates had wanted to come as a freshman, but that didn't work out. In her case I think it was just because there wasn't room. She was the same entering year as Plummer, Gray, Hentz, Fitzmorris, and the Keefe sisters.

[teejers1]

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

Sears Sport (sic.)? You mean like football, which also contributes to the NACDA Learfield Directors Cup? There are other places that sneer at student athletes putting in 2-3 hours a day to compete in athletics for which they will unlikely earn any living on top of putting in a full academic load. This is not one of them.

I don’t often miss the rating up/down votes, but this is one time.

BC

And just think:  I was going to say "country club sport" instead . . . but decided to soften it.
Still, the question remains:  what does recruiting in women's volleyball (or other non-revenue sports) have to do with how Stanford's head coach recruits for football?

[teejers1]

Regardless, what does Shaw's recruitment of "Stanford Men" - and all ramifications of same - have to do with Sears Cup sport like women's volleyball?

Sears Sport (sic.)? You mean like football, which also contributes to the NACDA Learfield Directors Cup? There are other places that sneer at student athletes putting in 2-3 hours a day to compete in athletics for which they will unlikely earn any living on top of putting in a full academic load. This is not one of them.

I don’t often miss the rating up/down votes, but this is one time.

BC

And just think:  I was going to say "country club sport" instead . . . but decided to soften it.
Still, the question remains:  what does recruiting in women's volleyball (or other non-revenue sports) have to do with how Stanford's head coach recruits for football?

[MV72018]

That is refreshingly wonderful news. Should strengthen our porous D considerably. Get the O back on the field more quickly. Give it a chance to do something if the playcalling is more imaginative and the O line is improved.

[MV72018]

That is refreshingly wonderful news. Should strengthen our porous D considerably. Get the O back on the field more quickly. Give it a chance to do something if the playcalling is more imaginative and the O line is improved.

[cardcrimson]

I saw that about an academic scholarship as well.  He will be a scholarship counter, regardless, assuming he plays.

Grad schools in STEM fields generally give scholarships for PhD students, but that includes having to TA and applying for federal (NSF, NIH, private) scholarships.  The institution also would have funding from federal agencies for scholarships.

In non-stem fields, and for masters degrees, I’m not sure how it works, but it is harder to get scholarships and lots of students graduate with a lot of debt.

BC

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

[cardcrimson]

I saw that about an academic scholarship as well.  He will be a scholarship counter, regardless, assuming he plays.

Grad schools in STEM fields generally give scholarships for PhD students, but that includes having to TA and applying for federal (NSF, NIH, private) scholarships.  The institution also would have funding from federal agencies for scholarships.

In non-stem fields, and for masters degrees, I’m not sure how it works, but it is harder to get scholarships and lots of students graduate with a lot of debt.

BC

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

[BostonCard]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

[BostonCard]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

[lex24]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

I like your resolution.  But it’s no match for the Shawbash Cannonball ™.

[lex24]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

I like your resolution.  But it’s no match for the Shawbash Cannonball ™.

[teejers1]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

I can't help you if you are in denial re: players with eligibility remaining departing being a net bad thing for Stanford - at least as it pertains to players projected to get meaningful PT.  And it's not just Reid, as someone (SaMcF?) pointed out.  But let's take Reid - if Stanford had a snowball's chance of going to the Rose Bowl (or better) next season, do you think Reid and his young wife decide on Utah?

Fields is a net good for Stanford, and I could be wrong re: transfer portal and timing/contact re: same. So my bad.

But my observation was that Fields epitomized recruiting under Shaw - the self-selecting Stanford Man.  You are the one concluding that was a dig at Shaw.  Why did you draw that conclusion?  (And be honest - don't cop out with "because you were the poster").

[teejers1]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

I can't help you if you are in denial re: players with eligibility remaining departing being a net bad thing for Stanford - at least as it pertains to players projected to get meaningful PT.  And it's not just Reid, as someone (SaMcF?) pointed out.  But let's take Reid - if Stanford had a snowball's chance of going to the Rose Bowl (or better) next season, do you think Reid and his young wife decide on Utah?

Fields is a net good for Stanford, and I could be wrong re: transfer portal and timing/contact re: same. So my bad.

But my observation was that Fields epitomized recruiting under Shaw - the self-selecting Stanford Man.  You are the one concluding that was a dig at Shaw.  Why did you draw that conclusion?  (And be honest - don't cop out with "because you were the poster").

[gailtate]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

And here is where you+your cohort of "Ax" grinders (deliberate pun, however bad) part company with me and the Teejers Wing hereabouts. The "referendum on Shaw" as you describe it is nothing more or less than fair comment on a public forum. I've never seen anything close to character defamation or personal swipes in this context, as is so prevalent in other boards around the country. And, as long as Multiple-Million$ Shaw continues to reveal his inadequacies for being the one-and-only one with the chops and gumption to right the ship that he continues to run aground, he will be nothing more or less than fair game for the slings and arrows that accompany life at the top. If I can understand this, anybody can. BTW, slings and arrows on a Stanford fan board are the verbal equivalent of wet noodles and a feather duster.

[gailtate]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

And here is where you+your cohort of "Ax" grinders (deliberate pun, however bad) part company with me and the Teejers Wing hereabouts. The "referendum on Shaw" as you describe it is nothing more or less than fair comment on a public forum. I've never seen anything close to character defamation or personal swipes in this context, as is so prevalent in other boards around the country. And, as long as Multiple-Million$ Shaw continues to reveal his inadequacies for being the one-and-only one with the chops and gumption to right the ship that he continues to run aground, he will be nothing more or less than fair game for the slings and arrows that accompany life at the top. If I can understand this, anybody can. BTW, slings and arrows on a Stanford fan board are the verbal equivalent of wet noodles and a feather duster.

[CompSci87]

I'm just tired of hearing it in every thread, The Shaw bashers have made their point a million times over. Why take more swipes at him in every thread about every piece of news, good bad or indifferent?

[CompSci87]

I'm just tired of hearing it in every thread, The Shaw bashers have made their point a million times over. Why take more swipes at him in every thread about every piece of news, good bad or indifferent?

[81alum]

I'm just tired of hearing it in every thread, The Shaw bashers have made their point a million times over. Why take more swipes at him in every thread about every piece of news, good bad or indifferent?

I agree and thank you for saying it.

[81alum]

I'm just tired of hearing it in every thread, The Shaw bashers have made their point a million times over. Why take more swipes at him in every thread about every piece of news, good bad or indifferent?

I agree and thank you for saying it.

[gailtate]

Why??  Because he DRAWS this commentary. Like metal shavings to a magnet. And, BTW why do you feel the need to perpetually ask why?  Why ask why anyone voices an opinion about anything? Who's keeping score, BTW, and who is arbitrating frequency? Does each poster have a limit or quota or ration of subjects/opinions? When did this become an affiliate of GoStanford.com?

[gailtate]

Why??  Because he DRAWS this commentary. Like metal shavings to a magnet. And, BTW why do you feel the need to perpetually ask why?  Why ask why anyone voices an opinion about anything? Who's keeping score, BTW, and who is arbitrating frequency? Does each poster have a limit or quota or ration of subjects/opinions? When did this become an affiliate of GoStanford.com?

[BostonCard]

And here is where you+your cohort of "Ax" grinders (deliberate pun, however bad) part company with me and the Teejers Wing hereabouts. The "referendum on Shaw" as you describe it is nothing more or less than fair comment on a public forum. I've never seen anything close to character defamation or personal swipes in this context, as is so prevalent in other boards around the country. And, as long as Multiple-Million$ Shaw continues to reveal his inadequacies for being the one-and-only one with the chops and gumption to right the ship that he continues to run aground, he will be nothing more or less than fair game for the slings and arrows that accompany life at the top. If I can understand this, anybody can. BTW, slings and arrows on a Stanford fan board are the verbal equivalent of wet noodles and a feather duster.

Although some of the posts do sometimes border on the personal (for example, saying “Shaw is/is not” rather than “Shaw does/does not”) I agree he is fair game. I’m not advocating for a board rule censoring criticism of Shaw, nor do I contend that he is above criticism.  But I have found that a lot of those criticizing Shaw never miss an opportunity to do so, regardless of whether the thread is about Shaw or not.  Mills is named a starter in Houston?  That shows what a bad coach Shaw is.  We get an all-conference transfer from Oklahoma?  That’s a reason to take a dig at Shaw for not initiating contact with Fields (Teejers, that was my take from this statement “it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men”; putting “recruiting prowess” in quotes suggests you were using it ironically, and that this was a criticism for not proactively contacting Fields, even though, as I noted, it would have run afoul of NCAA rules, since Fields was not in the transfer portal).  Thread drift is a fact of life on this board; I get that. But that is why I suggested it as a New Year’s resolution. Maybe when a thread is not initially about Shaw, we can all ask ourselves whether it is worth turning this thread into a thread about Shaw, with all the rehashing of arguments and dead horse-kicking that would entail, and whether that will make the experience of people looking to talk about something else better or worse.

If your expectations for the team in the fall, which, while pessimistic, don’t seem entirely unreasonable to me, prove even remotely accurate, there should be no shortage of chances for deserved criticism in the fall. Ultimately, his record, and not whether Mills is a starter at Houston, Reid transfers to Utah, or Fields transfers to Stanford, will be the strongest anti-Shaw ammunition.

BC

[BostonCard]

And here is where you+your cohort of "Ax" grinders (deliberate pun, however bad) part company with me and the Teejers Wing hereabouts. The "referendum on Shaw" as you describe it is nothing more or less than fair comment on a public forum. I've never seen anything close to character defamation or personal swipes in this context, as is so prevalent in other boards around the country. And, as long as Multiple-Million$ Shaw continues to reveal his inadequacies for being the one-and-only one with the chops and gumption to right the ship that he continues to run aground, he will be nothing more or less than fair game for the slings and arrows that accompany life at the top. If I can understand this, anybody can. BTW, slings and arrows on a Stanford fan board are the verbal equivalent of wet noodles and a feather duster.

Although some of the posts do sometimes border on the personal (for example, saying “Shaw is/is not” rather than “Shaw does/does not”) I agree he is fair game. I’m not advocating for a board rule censoring criticism of Shaw, nor do I contend that he is above criticism.  But I have found that a lot of those criticizing Shaw never miss an opportunity to do so, regardless of whether the thread is about Shaw or not.  Mills is named a starter in Houston?  That shows what a bad coach Shaw is.  We get an all-conference transfer from Oklahoma?  That’s a reason to take a dig at Shaw for not initiating contact with Fields (Teejers, that was my take from this statement “it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men”; putting “recruiting prowess” in quotes suggests you were using it ironically, and that this was a criticism for not proactively contacting Fields, even though, as I noted, it would have run afoul of NCAA rules, since Fields was not in the transfer portal).  Thread drift is a fact of life on this board; I get that. But that is why I suggested it as a New Year’s resolution. Maybe when a thread is not initially about Shaw, we can all ask ourselves whether it is worth turning this thread into a thread about Shaw, with all the rehashing of arguments and dead horse-kicking that would entail, and whether that will make the experience of people looking to talk about something else better or worse.

If your expectations for the team in the fall, which, while pessimistic, don’t seem entirely unreasonable to me, prove even remotely accurate, there should be no shortage of chances for deserved criticism in the fall. Ultimately, his record, and not whether Mills is a starter at Houston, Reid transfers to Utah, or Fields transfers to Stanford, will be the strongest anti-Shaw ammunition.

BC