[gailtate]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

It's a stark choice. University officials must bear-hug this quandary, figure it out, and then forge a way to succeed at the level that returns Stanford to the success it generated a decade ago. I would think that there are enough collective brains and determination to achieve this. If not, the future Stanford will be unrecognizable and diminished. A lesser institution, unknown to mankind. Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait.

I don’t think Stanford will ever get back to the success level of ‘10-16.  That was as unprecedented to begin with. It was inevitable thatbi5vwoukd end. Although not to this level

The portal was game changer one. There is nothing good about a one way door.  NIL was the second.  An even bigger problem.  The 40 year decision can’t compete with offering a guy a million bucks…

Getting back to teams that are In the 7-5 or 8-4 level is a possibility I think. But even that I think is somewhat of an uphill battle.

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.

[gailtate]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

It's a stark choice. University officials must bear-hug this quandary, figure it out, and then forge a way to succeed at the level that returns Stanford to the success it generated a decade ago. I would think that there are enough collective brains and determination to achieve this. If not, the future Stanford will be unrecognizable and diminished. A lesser institution, unknown to mankind. Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait.

I don’t think Stanford will ever get back to the success level of ‘10-16.  That was as unprecedented to begin with. It was inevitable thatbi5vwoukd end. Although not to this level

The portal was game changer one. There is nothing good about a one way door.  NIL was the second.  An even bigger problem.  The 40 year decision can’t compete with offering a guy a million bucks…

Getting back to teams that are In the 7-5 or 8-4 level is a possibility I think. But even that I think is somewhat of an uphill battle.

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.

[msqueri]

Shaw would like you to believe getting to 7-5 or 8-4 is an uphill battle. Don't believe it. Top 40 programs right now include Kansas State, UCLA, Iowa State, Oregon State, Iowa, Washington State, lllinois, Minnesota, NC State, Wake Forest, and Kansas. Stanford can compete on that level. Way too defeatist to think we can't. Oregon State already has six wins this year with four games left. We can't compete with Oregon State?

[msqueri]

Shaw would like you to believe getting to 7-5 or 8-4 is an uphill battle. Don't believe it. Top 40 programs right now include Kansas State, UCLA, Iowa State, Oregon State, Iowa, Washington State, lllinois, Minnesota, NC State, Wake Forest, and Kansas. Stanford can compete on that level. Way too defeatist to think we can't. Oregon State already has six wins this year with four games left. We can't compete with Oregon State?

[81alum]

I really have appreciated Msquery's thoughtful post-mortems.  I remember too well doing the same during Tara's "down year" 17-18.  Of course a down year for her was "only" winning 24 games.  But it is really difficult to dispassionately analyze losses and attempt to understand them, when you yourself are a fan who is also no doubt demoralized by the loss.  But Msquery has done this very well, and we all owe him our thanks.

I particularly liked Msquery's compassion for Shaw.  It is now obvious that Shaw is unable to return this team to its former levels of achievement--though we may disagree on the reasons why.  But however low we fall this year, we can still acknowledge that at one point in time he was the most admired head coach in the NCAA--for his ethics, his loyalty to his alma mater, his personal example as a role model to our students, and the fact that he not only did not immediately screw up the Harbaugh legacy--he became the winningest coach in Stanford history.  His teams provided us with so many enjoyable games, so many victories, and so much hope.  In fact, it is this earlier success and good will toward him that makes our current situation such a tragedy.  Other head coaches who lacked this lustrous reputation--Dowhower, Elway, Teevens, Harris, etc. etc. could depart without fans shedding a tear, but Shaw's departure, when it comes, will mark not only the departure of a coach but it will be final passing of our football version of Camelot--that one brief idealistic moment when it seemed as if an elite academic institution had solved the riddle on how to also be an elite football program.

As for the future of Stanford football--acknowledged in my mind to be in the post-Shaw era--I am not optimistic.  I am more in line with some of the remarks made by Treebound and Ruralfan.  If the current transfer rules and the NIL laissez-faire model continues, Stanford will continue to be unable to compete at a high level without changing its academic mission in ways that will be unacceptable to the university.  The most optimistic I can be is to hope that there are national reforms of these corrupting factors in the next few years, as their full and negative impacts are more broadly understood.  In order to take advantage of such reforms, Stanford will still need to have a football program, so it is worth doing the best we can to keep it afloat in the hopes that a better national environment may come about.

So how do we keep the program afloat in the meantime?  We do need a change in leadership, if nothing else to inject hope and optimism into the players, the fans, and the recruits.  I am doubtful that any new coaching staff will be able to swim upstream in the torrent of negative developments for Stanford--NIL, transfer rules, loss of UCLA and USC, etc.) but having something shiny and new will buy a little time.  Maybe a new coaching staff can have some success, but whether it does or doesn't people will give a new staff a little time to "rebuild."

However, there are also risks to this strategy.  The next coach is not only going to be judged on the basis of how many wins his team can put together, he will also be judged in comparison to Shaw's other qualities.  It could, in fact, get worse, if we get a new coaching staff that fails to improve on Shaw's recent wins record but that also undermines academic standards, gets on the wrong side of ethics,  leaves for the first alternative coaching gig that comes his way, etc.  Such a coach would inflame the notion that football needs to be entirely dropped.  We will be one scandal away from the end of Stanford football.  In short, the post-Shaw football program probably has only one more chance, unless the national climate changes.  There will never be a more important and consequential hire.  And our historical track record on good football hires is at best 50/50.

[81alum]

I really have appreciated Msquery's thoughtful post-mortems.  I remember too well doing the same during Tara's "down year" 17-18.  Of course a down year for her was "only" winning 24 games.  But it is really difficult to dispassionately analyze losses and attempt to understand them, when you yourself are a fan who is also no doubt demoralized by the loss.  But Msquery has done this very well, and we all owe him our thanks.

I particularly liked Msquery's compassion for Shaw.  It is now obvious that Shaw is unable to return this team to its former levels of achievement--though we may disagree on the reasons why.  But however low we fall this year, we can still acknowledge that at one point in time he was the most admired head coach in the NCAA--for his ethics, his loyalty to his alma mater, his personal example as a role model to our students, and the fact that he not only did not immediately screw up the Harbaugh legacy--he became the winningest coach in Stanford history.  His teams provided us with so many enjoyable games, so many victories, and so much hope.  In fact, it is this earlier success and good will toward him that makes our current situation such a tragedy.  Other head coaches who lacked this lustrous reputation--Dowhower, Elway, Teevens, Harris, etc. etc. could depart without fans shedding a tear, but Shaw's departure, when it comes, will mark not only the departure of a coach but it will be final passing of our football version of Camelot--that one brief idealistic moment when it seemed as if an elite academic institution had solved the riddle on how to also be an elite football program.

As for the future of Stanford football--acknowledged in my mind to be in the post-Shaw era--I am not optimistic.  I am more in line with some of the remarks made by Treebound and Ruralfan.  If the current transfer rules and the NIL laissez-faire model continues, Stanford will continue to be unable to compete at a high level without changing its academic mission in ways that will be unacceptable to the university.  The most optimistic I can be is to hope that there are national reforms of these corrupting factors in the next few years, as their full and negative impacts are more broadly understood.  In order to take advantage of such reforms, Stanford will still need to have a football program, so it is worth doing the best we can to keep it afloat in the hopes that a better national environment may come about.

So how do we keep the program afloat in the meantime?  We do need a change in leadership, if nothing else to inject hope and optimism into the players, the fans, and the recruits.  I am doubtful that any new coaching staff will be able to swim upstream in the torrent of negative developments for Stanford--NIL, transfer rules, loss of UCLA and USC, etc.) but having something shiny and new will buy a little time.  Maybe a new coaching staff can have some success, but whether it does or doesn't people will give a new staff a little time to "rebuild."

However, there are also risks to this strategy.  The next coach is not only going to be judged on the basis of how many wins his team can put together, he will also be judged in comparison to Shaw's other qualities.  It could, in fact, get worse, if we get a new coaching staff that fails to improve on Shaw's recent wins record but that also undermines academic standards, gets on the wrong side of ethics,  leaves for the first alternative coaching gig that comes his way, etc.  Such a coach would inflame the notion that football needs to be entirely dropped.  We will be one scandal away from the end of Stanford football.  In short, the post-Shaw football program probably has only one more chance, unless the national climate changes.  There will never be a more important and consequential hire.  And our historical track record on good football hires is at best 50/50.

[OutsiderFan]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

Texas pours more money into football than Stanford, and it struggles mightily. Texas A&M paid Jimbo Fisher $100M for 10 years and now has a 5-game losing streak, its worst since 1980 apparently.

This is what I mean by Stanford isn't some outlier in terms of being a difficult place to win. Stanford does have unique challenges others don't have, but even those that don't have them struggle to win consistently. Tennessee has been basically trying to get back to the top of the heap for 15 years with way more resources and priority on winning than Stanford.

It's hard to win everywhere if you do not have the most talented people at the helm and all relevant parties aligned from the top down. Stanford has shown it can be exceptionally relevant in football with the right people leading the operation. So I don't see how that makes Stanford uniquely different from anyone else, Stanford's self-imposed restrictions aside.

[OutsiderFan]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

Texas pours more money into football than Stanford, and it struggles mightily. Texas A&M paid Jimbo Fisher $100M for 10 years and now has a 5-game losing streak, its worst since 1980 apparently.

This is what I mean by Stanford isn't some outlier in terms of being a difficult place to win. Stanford does have unique challenges others don't have, but even those that don't have them struggle to win consistently. Tennessee has been basically trying to get back to the top of the heap for 15 years with way more resources and priority on winning than Stanford.

It's hard to win everywhere if you do not have the most talented people at the helm and all relevant parties aligned from the top down. Stanford has shown it can be exceptionally relevant in football with the right people leading the operation. So I don't see how that makes Stanford uniquely different from anyone else, Stanford's self-imposed restrictions aside.

[gailtate]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

Texas pours more money into football than Stanford, and it struggles mightily. Texas A&M paid Jimbo Fisher $100M for 10 years and now has a 5-game losing streak, its worst since 1980 apparently.

This is what I mean by Stanford isn't some outlier in terms of being a difficult place to win. Stanford does have unique challenges others don't have, but even those that don't have them struggle to win consistently. Tennessee has been basically trying to get back to the top of the heap for 15 years with way more resources and priority on winning than Stanford.

It's hard to win everywhere if you do not have the most talented people at the helm and all relevant parties aligned from the top down. Stanford has shown it can be exceptionally relevant in football with the right people leading the operation. So I don't see how that makes Stanford uniquely different from anyone else, Stanford's self-imposed restrictions aside.

My thoughts, exactly, and I have never grasped the defeatist refusal to recognize this.

[gailtate]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

Texas pours more money into football than Stanford, and it struggles mightily. Texas A&M paid Jimbo Fisher $100M for 10 years and now has a 5-game losing streak, its worst since 1980 apparently.

This is what I mean by Stanford isn't some outlier in terms of being a difficult place to win. Stanford does have unique challenges others don't have, but even those that don't have them struggle to win consistently. Tennessee has been basically trying to get back to the top of the heap for 15 years with way more resources and priority on winning than Stanford.

It's hard to win everywhere if you do not have the most talented people at the helm and all relevant parties aligned from the top down. Stanford has shown it can be exceptionally relevant in football with the right people leading the operation. So I don't see how that makes Stanford uniquely different from anyone else, Stanford's self-imposed restrictions aside.

My thoughts, exactly, and I have never grasped the defeatist refusal to recognize this.

[msqueri]

OutsiderFan and gailtate have it right.

81alum, Treebound, RuralFan, Lex, anybody else - can you provide evidence that NIL, transfers, etc. make it impossible to compete? I can't see any evidence for that view. There are many programs - I listed about ten competing at a quality level this year alone - that compete despite being relatively middling programs and/or relative losers in the new college football landscape. The fact is this is a competitive landscape, which means that when programs compete some will win and some will lose. In other words, USC benefiting tremendously from NIL and transfer portal hurts UCLA, or Ohio State and Alabama getting even more of the pie makes it even harder for Michigan State and Mississippi State. The mental model you appear to be bringing to this is that everybody else will get richer and Stanford poorer and how can you compete in that landscape. Let's put aside that this is far too defeatist even if taken on face value, for the reasons I, OutsiderFan, and gailtate have mentioned (in a nutshell, some have nots have always been able to compete and overcome headwinds). The right mental model is that the new landscape will shake up the power structure and change who's on top and/or produce even more stratification between the top and everybody else. Maybe this makes it harder for us to get to the Rose Bowl, but I don't see the logic in how it makes it more difficult to get to the Sun Bowl.

Again, why can't we compete with Oregon State?

[msqueri]

OutsiderFan and gailtate have it right.

81alum, Treebound, RuralFan, Lex, anybody else - can you provide evidence that NIL, transfers, etc. make it impossible to compete? I can't see any evidence for that view. There are many programs - I listed about ten competing at a quality level this year alone - that compete despite being relatively middling programs and/or relative losers in the new college football landscape. The fact is this is a competitive landscape, which means that when programs compete some will win and some will lose. In other words, USC benefiting tremendously from NIL and transfer portal hurts UCLA, or Ohio State and Alabama getting even more of the pie makes it even harder for Michigan State and Mississippi State. The mental model you appear to be bringing to this is that everybody else will get richer and Stanford poorer and how can you compete in that landscape. Let's put aside that this is far too defeatist even if taken on face value, for the reasons I, OutsiderFan, and gailtate have mentioned (in a nutshell, some have nots have always been able to compete and overcome headwinds). The right mental model is that the new landscape will shake up the power structure and change who's on top and/or produce even more stratification between the top and everybody else. Maybe this makes it harder for us to get to the Rose Bowl, but I don't see the logic in how it makes it more difficult to get to the Sun Bowl.

Again, why can't we compete with Oregon State?

[skip75]

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.

Northwestern seems to be on a path to Stanford"s.  Following some success, starting in 2019, they have gone 3-9(including a loss to Stanford and wins against UNLV, UMass, & Illinois), 7-2, 3-9(wins against Indiana State, Ohio, & Rutgers) and 1-8 this season with losses to Southern Illinois and Miami of Ohio.  Wouldn't be surprised if they have some of the challenges with the transfer portal and NIL similar to ours.

[skip75]

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.

Northwestern seems to be on a path to Stanford"s.  Following some success, starting in 2019, they have gone 3-9(including a loss to Stanford and wins against UNLV, UMass, & Illinois), 7-2, 3-9(wins against Indiana State, Ohio, & Rutgers) and 1-8 this season with losses to Southern Illinois and Miami of Ohio.  Wouldn't be surprised if they have some of the challenges with the transfer portal and NIL similar to ours.

[slide]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

Texas pours more money into football than Stanford, and it struggles mightily. Texas A&M paid Jimbo Fisher $100M for 10 years and now has a 5-game losing streak, its worst since 1980 apparently.

This is what I mean by Stanford isn't some outlier in terms of being a difficult place to win. Stanford does have unique challenges others don't have, but even those that don't have them struggle to win consistently. Tennessee has been basically trying to get back to the top of the heap for 15 years with way more resources and priority on winning than Stanford.

It's hard to win everywhere if you do not have the most talented people at the helm and all relevant parties aligned from the top down. Stanford has shown it can be exceptionally relevant in football with the right people leading the operation. So I don't see how that makes Stanford uniquely different from anyone else, Stanford's self-imposed restrictions aside.

My thoughts, exactly, and I have never grasped the defeatist refusal to recognize this.

Stanford baseball model is one that can be replicated for football as well.  some of the most disappointing aspects of Shaw have been his poor track record of player development.  recruits in the top 25, develops in the bottom 25.

[slide]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

Texas pours more money into football than Stanford, and it struggles mightily. Texas A&M paid Jimbo Fisher $100M for 10 years and now has a 5-game losing streak, its worst since 1980 apparently.

This is what I mean by Stanford isn't some outlier in terms of being a difficult place to win. Stanford does have unique challenges others don't have, but even those that don't have them struggle to win consistently. Tennessee has been basically trying to get back to the top of the heap for 15 years with way more resources and priority on winning than Stanford.

It's hard to win everywhere if you do not have the most talented people at the helm and all relevant parties aligned from the top down. Stanford has shown it can be exceptionally relevant in football with the right people leading the operation. So I don't see how that makes Stanford uniquely different from anyone else, Stanford's self-imposed restrictions aside.

My thoughts, exactly, and I have never grasped the defeatist refusal to recognize this.

Stanford baseball model is one that can be replicated for football as well.  some of the most disappointing aspects of Shaw have been his poor track record of player development.  recruits in the top 25, develops in the bottom 25.

[msqueri]

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.



Northwestern seems to be on a path to Stanford"s.  Following some success, starting in 2019, they have gone 3-9(including a loss to Stanford and wins against UNLV, UMass, & Illinois), 7-2, 3-9(wins against Indiana State, Ohio, & Rutgers) and 1-8 this season with losses to Southern Illinois and Miami of Ohio.  Wouldn't be surprised if they have some of the challenges with the transfer portal and NIL similar to ours.

The main parallel between Stanford and Northwestern is smack-you-in-the-face obvious: head coaches who ascended to the head coach job at a very young age by virtue of being consummate Stanford/Northwestern Men and continuity figures at the times the programs had just achieved major success relative to their historical norms and thus wanted to stay within the family to maintain continuity, and proved well-suited to maintain and build on the successes but could not keep it going indefinitely. It's really, really hard for non-factory programs to win at best in program history levels for more than a few years. Honestly, can anybody think of any examples?

These coaches WANT us to believe that their declines are a result of changes in the college football landscape outside of their control and that but for NIL/transfers they'd still be on top. It's total bullshit. The reality is that they both were born and bred lifers at their institutions who found their bliss at way too young of an age and were in dream jobs they'd have to be pried away from. It's hard to think of very many people in the history of the sport who can be put in a job in their late 30s in Shaw's case and early 30s in Fitzgerald's, become the greatest success their institution has ever known, and then keep at it at the same levels into their late 40s. It's unnatural. The natural thing would have been to, as soon as either man intuited that they were getting stale or had personal life events that detracted from their edge/focus (in Shaw's case his brother's health situation marked a dividing point in his life) or he had peaked for whatever reason, cash in for a chance in the NFL or a factory job or step away for a chance to refresh personally (like Meyer, Petersen, and many others have done). But they were at their alma mater/Shangri-La. They were going down with the ship. And so they have.

Please please please do not buy into the idea our decline is irreversible and a factor of events out of our control. Schools like Stanford and Northwestern may be on the decline because institutions like those can't stay on top forever, but that doesn't mean they'll be on bottom forever either.

[msqueri]

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.



Northwestern seems to be on a path to Stanford"s.  Following some success, starting in 2019, they have gone 3-9(including a loss to Stanford and wins against UNLV, UMass, & Illinois), 7-2, 3-9(wins against Indiana State, Ohio, & Rutgers) and 1-8 this season with losses to Southern Illinois and Miami of Ohio.  Wouldn't be surprised if they have some of the challenges with the transfer portal and NIL similar to ours.

The main parallel between Stanford and Northwestern is smack-you-in-the-face obvious: head coaches who ascended to the head coach job at a very young age by virtue of being consummate Stanford/Northwestern Men and continuity figures at the times the programs had just achieved major success relative to their historical norms and thus wanted to stay within the family to maintain continuity, and proved well-suited to maintain and build on the successes but could not keep it going indefinitely. It's really, really hard for non-factory programs to win at best in program history levels for more than a few years. Honestly, can anybody think of any examples?

These coaches WANT us to believe that their declines are a result of changes in the college football landscape outside of their control and that but for NIL/transfers they'd still be on top. It's total bullshit. The reality is that they both were born and bred lifers at their institutions who found their bliss at way too young of an age and were in dream jobs they'd have to be pried away from. It's hard to think of very many people in the history of the sport who can be put in a job in their late 30s in Shaw's case and early 30s in Fitzgerald's, become the greatest success their institution has ever known, and then keep at it at the same levels into their late 40s. It's unnatural. The natural thing would have been to, as soon as either man intuited that they were getting stale or had personal life events that detracted from their edge/focus (in Shaw's case his brother's health situation marked a dividing point in his life) or he had peaked for whatever reason, cash in for a chance in the NFL or a factory job or step away for a chance to refresh personally (like Meyer, Petersen, and many others have done). But they were at their alma mater/Shangri-La. They were going down with the ship. And so they have.

Please please please do not buy into the idea our decline is irreversible and a factor of events out of our control. Schools like Stanford and Northwestern may be on the decline because institutions like those can't stay on top forever, but that doesn't mean they'll be on bottom forever either.

[Treebound]

I think OF and I are talking past each other - "Stanford's self imposed restrictions aside."  I was pointing to the reality of those self imposed restrictions.   I made the point in another thread that Monty was the first to show us a path to success in a major sport, despite the smaller recruiting pool/academic challenges.   Slide rightfully points out that Nine and now Esquer have done likewise with baseball.   Football is arguably harder given the number of student athletes needed to compete, but Harbaugh showed us a path to success that Shaw was able to ride.   

I'm not defeatist, but I do think that this new era of NIL and the "one way" transfer portal make it harder for Stanford to be a perennial top 20 power (as we were starting to become) .  That was my point in disagreeing with OF.  We have a smaller pool to begin with and now it's even harder to compete given an administration that will not enter this new arms race.     Should Stanford ever decide that we are going to build an NIL cooperative, we could likely raise more money than most any other university, but that would require a massive shift by the administration.  I don't see that happening and put more faith/hope in changes/improvements being made to govern NIL.   It was never meant to be a recruiting tool.   As for the transfer portal, a shift here would require a shift in academic standards that is highly unlikely.   The number of transfers into the university is small to begin with and the number of football players likely to make it over that academic hurdle is small.  

Matt, I agree that we should be able to compete with the likes of Oregon St, Minnesota, etc... with a reasonable top 50-60 team, but "Stanford's self imposed restrictions" (academics, no NIL coop and a one way portal) make it harder.   As for Shaw, I firmly believe he's not the answer or the leader we need to try and navigate this new era.

[Treebound]

I think OF and I are talking past each other - "Stanford's self imposed restrictions aside."  I was pointing to the reality of those self imposed restrictions.   I made the point in another thread that Monty was the first to show us a path to success in a major sport, despite the smaller recruiting pool/academic challenges.   Slide rightfully points out that Nine and now Esquer have done likewise with baseball.   Football is arguably harder given the number of student athletes needed to compete, but Harbaugh showed us a path to success that Shaw was able to ride.   

I'm not defeatist, but I do think that this new era of NIL and the "one way" transfer portal make it harder for Stanford to be a perennial top 20 power (as we were starting to become) .  That was my point in disagreeing with OF.  We have a smaller pool to begin with and now it's even harder to compete given an administration that will not enter this new arms race.     Should Stanford ever decide that we are going to build an NIL cooperative, we could likely raise more money than most any other university, but that would require a massive shift by the administration.  I don't see that happening and put more faith/hope in changes/improvements being made to govern NIL.   It was never meant to be a recruiting tool.   As for the transfer portal, a shift here would require a shift in academic standards that is highly unlikely.   The number of transfers into the university is small to begin with and the number of football players likely to make it over that academic hurdle is small.  

Matt, I agree that we should be able to compete with the likes of Oregon St, Minnesota, etc... with a reasonable top 50-60 team, but "Stanford's self imposed restrictions" (academics, no NIL coop and a one way portal) make it harder.   As for Shaw, I firmly believe he's not the answer or the leader we need to try and navigate this new era.

[needle]

The "reason" Stanford cannot compete with Minnesota and Oregon State is the disregard (bordering on disdain) most people at Stanford have for big-time college football.

It's a leadership problem that extends far beyond Shaw, imo.

[needle]

The "reason" Stanford cannot compete with Minnesota and Oregon State is the disregard (bordering on disdain) most people at Stanford have for big-time college football.

It's a leadership problem that extends far beyond Shaw, imo.

[msqueri]

The "reason" Stanford cannot compete with Minnesota and Oregon State is the disregard (bordering on disdain) most people at Stanford have for big-time college football.

It's a leadership problem that extends far beyond Shaw, imo.

And your argument is that this is qualitatively different than when our athletic director said "we're not Nebraska"? Perhaps. I could buy that. Even then, the answer is to say "F 'em" and hope that a new coach can go all Major League on their asses. All it takes is somebody competent. Minnesota and Oregon State have disadvantages we don't and limitations on how much can be invested in being big-time just like we do. With the right coach we can easily compete with them.

The real obstacle is that if the university's disdain for major college football extends to the point of wanting to keep Shaw in power precisely so we wouldn't have a chance of showing again that the Stanford model can compete in this brave new world. That would be insidious. Maybe it's the case. But if he ever departs Stanford and we continue to field a major college football team, an administration could have disdain for college football such that they force the athletic director to hire a coach on the cheap, and the athletic director could hire a Group of Five or FCS coach as a result, and that coach could succeed. That's not beyond us. Brent Brennan or Troy Taylor could be our Lou Brown.

[msqueri]

The "reason" Stanford cannot compete with Minnesota and Oregon State is the disregard (bordering on disdain) most people at Stanford have for big-time college football.

It's a leadership problem that extends far beyond Shaw, imo.

And your argument is that this is qualitatively different than when our athletic director said "we're not Nebraska"? Perhaps. I could buy that. Even then, the answer is to say "F 'em" and hope that a new coach can go all Major League on their asses. All it takes is somebody competent. Minnesota and Oregon State have disadvantages we don't and limitations on how much can be invested in being big-time just like we do. With the right coach we can easily compete with them.

The real obstacle is that if the university's disdain for major college football extends to the point of wanting to keep Shaw in power precisely so we wouldn't have a chance of showing again that the Stanford model can compete in this brave new world. That would be insidious. Maybe it's the case. But if he ever departs Stanford and we continue to field a major college football team, an administration could have disdain for college football such that they force the athletic director to hire a coach on the cheap, and the athletic director could hire a Group of Five or FCS coach as a result, and that coach could succeed. That's not beyond us. Brent Brennan or Troy Taylor could be our Lou Brown.

[cardcrimson]

Stanford is a very unique place. Great academics, a great history of athletic success, tons of money, and a plethora of smart minds amongst the alumni, the faculty and the student body. It's also located in the heart of a community noted for innovation and strategic disruption.

I find it stunning that folks have given up because of the portal and NIL. A good organization would find a way to make it work. A great organization would find a way to turn NIL and the portal into a competitive advantage. With everything Stanford has to offer verses its competition, the project wouldn't even be a tough one for first year students at the GSB to figure out.

All that's missing is the will and the determination to plan and implement it.

[cardcrimson]

Stanford is a very unique place. Great academics, a great history of athletic success, tons of money, and a plethora of smart minds amongst the alumni, the faculty and the student body. It's also located in the heart of a community noted for innovation and strategic disruption.

I find it stunning that folks have given up because of the portal and NIL. A good organization would find a way to make it work. A great organization would find a way to turn NIL and the portal into a competitive advantage. With everything Stanford has to offer verses its competition, the project wouldn't even be a tough one for first year students at the GSB to figure out.

All that's missing is the will and the determination to plan and implement it.

[msqueri]

Stanford is a very unique place. Great academics, a great history of athletic success, tons of money, and a plethora of smart minds amongst the alumni, the faculty and the student body. It's also located in the heart of a community noted for innovation and strategic disruption.

I find it stunning that folks have given up because of the portal and NIL. A good organization would find a way to make it work. A great organization would find a way to turn NIL and the portal into a competitive advantage. With everything Stanford has to offer verses its competition, the project wouldn't even be a tough one for first year students at the GSB to figure out.

All that's missing is the will and the determination to plan and implement it.

Well said.

For what it's worth, among all the places I engage with compatriots about Stanford sports this is by far the most defeatist. I don't know if it's because of user base that is more inclined to the Stanford power-that-be mentality or a non-subscription site drawing fewer die hards (I don't think that's it as my interventions here generate as much quality/substantive/voluminous reaction as some of the other forums) or this site having more country club sports fans who would be less heartbroken about the demise of Stanford football and basketball (I definitely get this sense).

[msqueri]

Stanford is a very unique place. Great academics, a great history of athletic success, tons of money, and a plethora of smart minds amongst the alumni, the faculty and the student body. It's also located in the heart of a community noted for innovation and strategic disruption.

I find it stunning that folks have given up because of the portal and NIL. A good organization would find a way to make it work. A great organization would find a way to turn NIL and the portal into a competitive advantage. With everything Stanford has to offer verses its competition, the project wouldn't even be a tough one for first year students at the GSB to figure out.

All that's missing is the will and the determination to plan and implement it.

Well said.

For what it's worth, among all the places I engage with compatriots about Stanford sports this is by far the most defeatist. I don't know if it's because of user base that is more inclined to the Stanford power-that-be mentality or a non-subscription site drawing fewer die hards (I don't think that's it as my interventions here generate as much quality/substantive/voluminous reaction as some of the other forums) or this site having more country club sports fans who would be less heartbroken about the demise of Stanford football and basketball (I definitely get this sense).

[OutsiderFan]

Let's ask a very simple question: Would the Stanford starters in the 2016 Rose Bowl (2015 season) not enrolled at Stanford if NIL and the transfer portal were factors then? 

Keep in mind, Stanford was a Top 10 program when they were recruited to Stanford, and Stanford doesn't lose guys with eligibility to the transfer portal because a key reason they attend Stanford is for the Stanford degree. They leave as grad transfers after they can't get into a Stanford graduate school.

If the answer is no, which I suspect is the case,  NIL and the transfer portal aren't valid reasons Stanford can't compete in football at a high level. That 2015 Stanford team was better than the best the Pac-12 has to offer today, IMO, and today's teams have NIL and transfer portal rosters.

It would be easier for Stanford without its self-imposed restrictions, but the gap between being Georgia and just being able to compete on a level footing with Washington State in November is not a product of using NIL and the portal and not. it's way more fundamental than that.

[OutsiderFan]

Let's ask a very simple question: Would the Stanford starters in the 2016 Rose Bowl (2015 season) not enrolled at Stanford if NIL and the transfer portal were factors then? 

Keep in mind, Stanford was a Top 10 program when they were recruited to Stanford, and Stanford doesn't lose guys with eligibility to the transfer portal because a key reason they attend Stanford is for the Stanford degree. They leave as grad transfers after they can't get into a Stanford graduate school.

If the answer is no, which I suspect is the case,  NIL and the transfer portal aren't valid reasons Stanford can't compete in football at a high level. That 2015 Stanford team was better than the best the Pac-12 has to offer today, IMO, and today's teams have NIL and transfer portal rosters.

It would be easier for Stanford without its self-imposed restrictions, but the gap between being Georgia and just being able to compete on a level footing with Washington State in November is not a product of using NIL and the portal and not. it's way more fundamental than that.

[81alum]

Diagnosing the causes of a failing program once you get to the point that everything is failing is going to be difficult.  It is likely that there are multiple causes for our lack of success, some of which are internal (poor coaching, poor recruiting, etc.) and some of which are external (how the rules and traditions of college football restrain Stanford, how Stanford's self-imposed academic standards further restrain us, etc.

I can't prove that one factor is the dominant one, but I do think that when USC came to town with 26 transfers and we had 1, it was a major factor in outclassing our football talent on the field.  I think I remembered that Washington had 17.  I stopped keeping track after that.

Not every school is going to be able to skim the cream from lesser leagues as USC was able to, but many will.  In time we will see most of the football powerhouses using lesser FBS schools and FCS schools as minor league feeders--just as they also have frequently done with community college transfers in the past.  Those schools with elite football reputations will be able to afford to not rely so overwhelmingly on high school recruiting and player development, but can instead watch to see where the talent is developing in the college ranks and then simply take it.

Stanford will not be able to do that.  That is and will become a major structural barrier to our relative success vis a vis those schools that can.

It is likely that schools like Oregon State will have a much more limited pull for transfers than USC will.  They likely will have a net out-migration rather than in-migration of talent.  No reason we can't be competitive with them.  And in fact, this year, we were "competitive" with them.  We lost a tight game.

The NIL stuff is more up in the air, I think.  If nothing changes I expect more and more programs to drift to the Texas A&M model that got Nick Saban so riled up.  I have a hard time believing Stanford would ever permit anything similar here, but such deals may become pretty much standard at most major programs.  If the trend toward organized payola continues, Stanford's own internal restrictions will put us at a competitive disadvantage.

[81alum]

Diagnosing the causes of a failing program once you get to the point that everything is failing is going to be difficult.  It is likely that there are multiple causes for our lack of success, some of which are internal (poor coaching, poor recruiting, etc.) and some of which are external (how the rules and traditions of college football restrain Stanford, how Stanford's self-imposed academic standards further restrain us, etc.

I can't prove that one factor is the dominant one, but I do think that when USC came to town with 26 transfers and we had 1, it was a major factor in outclassing our football talent on the field.  I think I remembered that Washington had 17.  I stopped keeping track after that.

Not every school is going to be able to skim the cream from lesser leagues as USC was able to, but many will.  In time we will see most of the football powerhouses using lesser FBS schools and FCS schools as minor league feeders--just as they also have frequently done with community college transfers in the past.  Those schools with elite football reputations will be able to afford to not rely so overwhelmingly on high school recruiting and player development, but can instead watch to see where the talent is developing in the college ranks and then simply take it.

Stanford will not be able to do that.  That is and will become a major structural barrier to our relative success vis a vis those schools that can.

It is likely that schools like Oregon State will have a much more limited pull for transfers than USC will.  They likely will have a net out-migration rather than in-migration of talent.  No reason we can't be competitive with them.  And in fact, this year, we were "competitive" with them.  We lost a tight game.

The NIL stuff is more up in the air, I think.  If nothing changes I expect more and more programs to drift to the Texas A&M model that got Nick Saban so riled up.  I have a hard time believing Stanford would ever permit anything similar here, but such deals may become pretty much standard at most major programs.  If the trend toward organized payola continues, Stanford's own internal restrictions will put us at a competitive disadvantage.

[SamuelMcF]

I can't prove that one factor is the dominant one, but I do think that when USC came to town with 26 transfers and we had 1, it was a major factor in outclassing our football talent on the field.  I think I remembered that Washington had 17.  I stopped keeping track after that.

I counted all the transfers in every Pac-12 school's 2-deep. The median is THIRTEEN.

Cal is the only other school besides us in the single digits, and they "only" have 8.

It is likely that schools like Oregon State will have a much more limited pull for transfers than USC will.  They likely will have a net out-migration rather than in-migration of talent.  No reason we can't be competitive with them.  And in fact, this year, we were "competitive" with them.  We lost a tight game.

Oregon State has TWENTY-TWO transfers in its 2-deep, which is actually more than USC (20).

[SamuelMcF]

I can't prove that one factor is the dominant one, but I do think that when USC came to town with 26 transfers and we had 1, it was a major factor in outclassing our football talent on the field.  I think I remembered that Washington had 17.  I stopped keeping track after that.

I counted all the transfers in every Pac-12 school's 2-deep. The median is THIRTEEN.

Cal is the only other school besides us in the single digits, and they "only" have 8.

It is likely that schools like Oregon State will have a much more limited pull for transfers than USC will.  They likely will have a net out-migration rather than in-migration of talent.  No reason we can't be competitive with them.  And in fact, this year, we were "competitive" with them.  We lost a tight game.

Oregon State has TWENTY-TWO transfers in its 2-deep, which is actually more than USC (20).

[gailtate]

Stanford is a very unique place. Great academics, a great history of athletic success, tons of money, and a plethora of smart minds amongst the alumni, the faculty and the student body. It's also located in the heart of a community noted for innovation and strategic disruption.

I find it stunning that folks have given up because of the portal and NIL. A good organization would find a way to make it work. A great organization would find a way to turn NIL and the portal into a competitive advantage. With everything Stanford has to offer verses its competition, the project wouldn't even be a tough one for first year students at the GSB to figure out.

All that's missing is the will and the determination to plan and implement it.

Well said.

For what it's worth, among all the places I engage with compatriots about Stanford sports this is by far the most defeatist. I don't know if it's because of user base that is more inclined to the Stanford power-that-be mentality or a non-subscription site drawing fewer die hards (I don't think that's it as my interventions here generate as much quality/substantive/voluminous reaction as some of the other forums) or this site having more country club sports fans who would be less heartbroken about the demise of Stanford football and basketball (I definitely get this sense).

As a former editor and associate publisher of the early Bootleg circa 1996, I would say that this site is more genteel by an order of magnitude. Its mild nature is a natural haven for defeatism. Far from the vision of Rutter and Ahlstrom. Kinda like a Safe Space where rough-edged debate threatens the sensibilities of certain mentalities. I was always (and still am) taken aback by this naivete whenever I peered into the offerings of other schools in other regions. The Cardboard is a bingo parlor in a world full of casinos. Quite Stanford, I'm afraid. Since the NIL/Portal era began, I've picked up more whiffs of this aroma. Like walking into a florist shop when the gardenias arrive. Or being told to sit down by the Statlers and Waldorfs in the row behind you.

[gailtate]

Stanford is a very unique place. Great academics, a great history of athletic success, tons of money, and a plethora of smart minds amongst the alumni, the faculty and the student body. It's also located in the heart of a community noted for innovation and strategic disruption.

I find it stunning that folks have given up because of the portal and NIL. A good organization would find a way to make it work. A great organization would find a way to turn NIL and the portal into a competitive advantage. With everything Stanford has to offer verses its competition, the project wouldn't even be a tough one for first year students at the GSB to figure out.

All that's missing is the will and the determination to plan and implement it.

Well said.

For what it's worth, among all the places I engage with compatriots about Stanford sports this is by far the most defeatist. I don't know if it's because of user base that is more inclined to the Stanford power-that-be mentality or a non-subscription site drawing fewer die hards (I don't think that's it as my interventions here generate as much quality/substantive/voluminous reaction as some of the other forums) or this site having more country club sports fans who would be less heartbroken about the demise of Stanford football and basketball (I definitely get this sense).

As a former editor and associate publisher of the early Bootleg circa 1996, I would say that this site is more genteel by an order of magnitude. Its mild nature is a natural haven for defeatism. Far from the vision of Rutter and Ahlstrom. Kinda like a Safe Space where rough-edged debate threatens the sensibilities of certain mentalities. I was always (and still am) taken aback by this naivete whenever I peered into the offerings of other schools in other regions. The Cardboard is a bingo parlor in a world full of casinos. Quite Stanford, I'm afraid. Since the NIL/Portal era began, I've picked up more whiffs of this aroma. Like walking into a florist shop when the gardenias arrive. Or being told to sit down by the Statlers and Waldorfs in the row behind you.

[McKenwood]

In my view, Shaw's main issue is that he probably never fully understood why he was on the mountain to begin with.  If you truly understand why you are succeeding, then it stands to reason that you can take corrective action when things are sliding south.  Did he fully grasp what he inherited from Harbaugh and why the program was in such monumentally good shape when the 2011 season kicked off?  He probably understood some of the key elements, but certainly not all of them.  

Over the years, we have watched:

1) an erosion of the coaching staff.  
2) a decline in player development.
3) an increase in susceptibility to injury.
4) a decay in football fundamentals. 
5) an overall down-tick in the quality of recruiting.
6) a deterioration in toughness.
7) the loss of a clear football identity.  

Somehow, Shaw must have been observing and registering all this, but he stayed the course.  He kept the same staff, tweaked it when there was attrition and had the audacity at the start of the season to claim that his team was a "snake in the grass".  And that after a 3-9 season in 2021 and seven straight losses to end the campaign.  Really? 

That's why my empathy for him is not sizable.  He inherited everything a coach could hope for, made good use of it for a number of years and then haplessly stood by watching while it crumbled around him.  He must have believed that his infallible leadership was the secret sauce to success, that he could hire any warm bodies on the coaching staff and that the result would be multiple 10-win seasons.  And that indicates that he never really understood why he was so massively successful in 2011-2015.  I will always be grateful for those seasons; but Shaw clearly did not understand how to sustain that success, which means he never fully grasped the particulars that led to all those wins and bowl games and conference titles.  Ultimately, success (or failure) stems from the people you surround yourself with and your ability to lead them. And the downfall of Stanford football is a simple failure of leadership.

This is the best summary of what ails Stanford football relative to the 2010- 2015 results that I have seen. Well done.

As I believed was mentioned elsewhere 2018 was the year things really went off the rails for Shaw and his program. He was coming off a 2017 season that included a Pac-12 championship appearance. He has an exceptional recruiting 2017 recruiting class that had three five stars and three other future NFL players.

In 2018 Shaw had a difficult personal situation where he was needed as a donor for his brother's life threatening disease. Instead of taking a leave of absence he continued coaching and overseeing the program. Mike Bloomgren who had been looking for his next step for quite some time finally found it. In the meantime he left the OL pipeline in terrible shape as the 2018 recruiting class had only one OL, who later retired. 2018 was the year that Stanford whiffed big time on its QB recruit (West) and had several other placeholders who didn't last four years. This class was much worse than the previous ones and was an indicator of Shaw's loss of focus and unwillingness to adapt his approach.

Bloomgren's departure presented an opportunity for Shaw to bring a highly competent OC and/or line coach. He might have gotten the line coach right but depth/injury issues torpedoed Carberry's first year. The 2022 Rams have the same issues btw. But at OC Shaw fell back to the easy and available. TP was not and is probably still not qualified to be an OC. And Shaw proably wouldn't defer even to the best and brightest in the business.

Meanwhile the defense, which started sliding when Lance Anderson took over from Derek Mason, could never find its footing. Part of this is mediocre assistants (Reynolds, Hansen, maybe Sanders) but the talent level was way below Stanford's offensive talent. Shaw has never focused on this side of the ball and Anderson has continued to struggle.

The S&C debacle is well documented here. I would say that the decline started even before Turley left. In 2014 Turley was appointed to head S&C for all Stanford sports not just football. I'm sure this was Stanford's attempt to get him more money but it backfired. This broader responsibility set meant that his focus was diverted elsewhere and the injuries started coming in waves.  

Shaw cannot right Stanford's program. He doesn't have the fortitude to completely overhaul his coaching and S&C staff and hire people smarter than him. He won't change his lackadasical appraoch to recruiting (telling Troy Clardy he wanted his coaches to rest during the bye week becuase the season is long is all you need to know). 

Shaw provided some the highlights of fifty four years of Stanford football fandom. The Iowa Rose Bowl with one of my daughters was the best road trip ever. I will forwever be grateful. But he has to leave as he has left an extraordinary mess for someone else to clean up. This is on the same level as Harris's teams but at least Shaw doesn't abuse his players.

[McKenwood]

In my view, Shaw's main issue is that he probably never fully understood why he was on the mountain to begin with.  If you truly understand why you are succeeding, then it stands to reason that you can take corrective action when things are sliding south.  Did he fully grasp what he inherited from Harbaugh and why the program was in such monumentally good shape when the 2011 season kicked off?  He probably understood some of the key elements, but certainly not all of them.  

Over the years, we have watched:

1) an erosion of the coaching staff.  
2) a decline in player development.
3) an increase in susceptibility to injury.
4) a decay in football fundamentals. 
5) an overall down-tick in the quality of recruiting.
6) a deterioration in toughness.
7) the loss of a clear football identity.  

Somehow, Shaw must have been observing and registering all this, but he stayed the course.  He kept the same staff, tweaked it when there was attrition and had the audacity at the start of the season to claim that his team was a "snake in the grass".  And that after a 3-9 season in 2021 and seven straight losses to end the campaign.  Really? 

That's why my empathy for him is not sizable.  He inherited everything a coach could hope for, made good use of it for a number of years and then haplessly stood by watching while it crumbled around him.  He must have believed that his infallible leadership was the secret sauce to success, that he could hire any warm bodies on the coaching staff and that the result would be multiple 10-win seasons.  And that indicates that he never really understood why he was so massively successful in 2011-2015.  I will always be grateful for those seasons; but Shaw clearly did not understand how to sustain that success, which means he never fully grasped the particulars that led to all those wins and bowl games and conference titles.  Ultimately, success (or failure) stems from the people you surround yourself with and your ability to lead them. And the downfall of Stanford football is a simple failure of leadership.

This is the best summary of what ails Stanford football relative to the 2010- 2015 results that I have seen. Well done.

As I believed was mentioned elsewhere 2018 was the year things really went off the rails for Shaw and his program. He was coming off a 2017 season that included a Pac-12 championship appearance. He has an exceptional recruiting 2017 recruiting class that had three five stars and three other future NFL players.

In 2018 Shaw had a difficult personal situation where he was needed as a donor for his brother's life threatening disease. Instead of taking a leave of absence he continued coaching and overseeing the program. Mike Bloomgren who had been looking for his next step for quite some time finally found it. In the meantime he left the OL pipeline in terrible shape as the 2018 recruiting class had only one OL, who later retired. 2018 was the year that Stanford whiffed big time on its QB recruit (West) and had several other placeholders who didn't last four years. This class was much worse than the previous ones and was an indicator of Shaw's loss of focus and unwillingness to adapt his approach.

Bloomgren's departure presented an opportunity for Shaw to bring a highly competent OC and/or line coach. He might have gotten the line coach right but depth/injury issues torpedoed Carberry's first year. The 2022 Rams have the same issues btw. But at OC Shaw fell back to the easy and available. TP was not and is probably still not qualified to be an OC. And Shaw proably wouldn't defer even to the best and brightest in the business.

Meanwhile the defense, which started sliding when Lance Anderson took over from Derek Mason, could never find its footing. Part of this is mediocre assistants (Reynolds, Hansen, maybe Sanders) but the talent level was way below Stanford's offensive talent. Shaw has never focused on this side of the ball and Anderson has continued to struggle.

The S&C debacle is well documented here. I would say that the decline started even before Turley left. In 2014 Turley was appointed to head S&C for all Stanford sports not just football. I'm sure this was Stanford's attempt to get him more money but it backfired. This broader responsibility set meant that his focus was diverted elsewhere and the injuries started coming in waves.  

Shaw cannot right Stanford's program. He doesn't have the fortitude to completely overhaul his coaching and S&C staff and hire people smarter than him. He won't change his lackadasical appraoch to recruiting (telling Troy Clardy he wanted his coaches to rest during the bye week becuase the season is long is all you need to know). 

Shaw provided some the highlights of fifty four years of Stanford football fandom. The Iowa Rose Bowl with one of my daughters was the best road trip ever. I will forwever be grateful. But he has to leave as he has left an extraordinary mess for someone else to clean up. This is on the same level as Harris's teams but at least Shaw doesn't abuse his players.

[skip75]

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.



Northwestern seems to be on a path to Stanford"s.  Following some success, starting in 2019, they have gone 3-9(including a loss to Stanford and wins against UNLV, UMass, & Illinois), 7-2, 3-9(wins against Indiana State, Ohio, & Rutgers) and 1-8 this season with losses to Southern Illinois and Miami of Ohio.  Wouldn't be surprised if they have some of the challenges with the transfer portal and NIL similar to ours.

The main parallel between Stanford and Northwestern is smack-you-in-the-face obvious: head coaches who ascended to the head coach job at a very young age by virtue of being consummate Stanford/Northwestern Men and continuity figures at the times the programs had just achieved major success relative to their historical norms and thus wanted to stay within the family to maintain continuity, and proved well-suited to maintain and build on the successes but could not keep it going indefinitely. It's really, really hard for non-factory programs to win at best in program history levels for more than a few years. Honestly, can anybody think of any examples?

These coaches WANT us to believe that their declines are a result of changes in the college football landscape outside of their control and that but for NIL/transfers they'd still be on top. It's total bullshit. The reality is that they both were born and bred lifers at their institutions who found their bliss at way too young of an age and were in dream jobs they'd have to be pried away from. It's hard to think of very many people in the history of the sport who can be put in a job in their late 30s in Shaw's case and early 30s in Fitzgerald's, become the greatest success their institution has ever known, and then keep at it at the same levels into their late 40s. It's unnatural. The natural thing would have been to, as soon as either man intuited that they were getting stale or had personal life events that detracted from their edge/focus (in Shaw's case his brother's health situation marked a dividing point in his life) or he had peaked for whatever reason, cash in for a chance in the NFL or a factory job or step away for a chance to refresh personally (like Meyer, Petersen, and many others have done). But they were at their alma mater/Shangri-La. They were going down with the ship. And so they have.

Please please please do not buy into the idea our decline is irreversible and a factor of events out of our control. Schools like Stanford and Northwestern may be on the decline because institutions like those can't stay on top forever, but that doesn't mean they'll be on bottom forever either.

No substantial disagreement.  As a Stanford fan for 50+ years I've certainly seen plenty of ups and downs, and did not mean to imply that there is no escape from the current quagmire.  I was just responding to the idea presented earlier in the thread that Northwestern was a counterexample to our current failures  As usual, you made that case better than I did.

[skip75]

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.



Northwestern seems to be on a path to Stanford"s.  Following some success, starting in 2019, they have gone 3-9(including a loss to Stanford and wins against UNLV, UMass, & Illinois), 7-2, 3-9(wins against Indiana State, Ohio, & Rutgers) and 1-8 this season with losses to Southern Illinois and Miami of Ohio.  Wouldn't be surprised if they have some of the challenges with the transfer portal and NIL similar to ours.

The main parallel between Stanford and Northwestern is smack-you-in-the-face obvious: head coaches who ascended to the head coach job at a very young age by virtue of being consummate Stanford/Northwestern Men and continuity figures at the times the programs had just achieved major success relative to their historical norms and thus wanted to stay within the family to maintain continuity, and proved well-suited to maintain and build on the successes but could not keep it going indefinitely. It's really, really hard for non-factory programs to win at best in program history levels for more than a few years. Honestly, can anybody think of any examples?

These coaches WANT us to believe that their declines are a result of changes in the college football landscape outside of their control and that but for NIL/transfers they'd still be on top. It's total bullshit. The reality is that they both were born and bred lifers at their institutions who found their bliss at way too young of an age and were in dream jobs they'd have to be pried away from. It's hard to think of very many people in the history of the sport who can be put in a job in their late 30s in Shaw's case and early 30s in Fitzgerald's, become the greatest success their institution has ever known, and then keep at it at the same levels into their late 40s. It's unnatural. The natural thing would have been to, as soon as either man intuited that they were getting stale or had personal life events that detracted from their edge/focus (in Shaw's case his brother's health situation marked a dividing point in his life) or he had peaked for whatever reason, cash in for a chance in the NFL or a factory job or step away for a chance to refresh personally (like Meyer, Petersen, and many others have done). But they were at their alma mater/Shangri-La. They were going down with the ship. And so they have.

Please please please do not buy into the idea our decline is irreversible and a factor of events out of our control. Schools like Stanford and Northwestern may be on the decline because institutions like those can't stay on top forever, but that doesn't mean they'll be on bottom forever either.

No substantial disagreement.  As a Stanford fan for 50+ years I've certainly seen plenty of ups and downs, and did not mean to imply that there is no escape from the current quagmire.  I was just responding to the idea presented earlier in the thread that Northwestern was a counterexample to our current failures  As usual, you made that case better than I did.