[msqueri]

My take on the original post (transfers): Probably can't hurt. Keep in mind that Shaw and Muir excavated a ditch deep and wide wherein TT finds himself right now. It's gonna take 3-5 years, luck and very smart maneuvering to reclaim this program. Not sure very many here are fully cognizant of this. As for pressers? Walsh I is still the standard. Followed by Harbaugh for comic relief.

I don't minimize the depth or width of the ditch, but if Taylor is the right man he could have us out of the hole (e.g., 6-6) in year two or three. Expecting a bowl by 2025 doesn't strike me as unrealistic. That would put us on timelines like what Harbaugh, Campbell, and Clawson managed. A realistic path is that our 2023 is about the same quality as our 2022 team, 2024 is decidedly better but still not good (like Teevens 2004 or Harbaugh 2008), and then 2025 turns a corner. That should be manageable if he's a good coach.

[msqueri]

My take on the original post (transfers): Probably can't hurt. Keep in mind that Shaw and Muir excavated a ditch deep and wide wherein TT finds himself right now. It's gonna take 3-5 years, luck and very smart maneuvering to reclaim this program. Not sure very many here are fully cognizant of this. As for pressers? Walsh I is still the standard. Followed by Harbaugh for comic relief.

I don't minimize the depth or width of the ditch, but if Taylor is the right man he could have us out of the hole (e.g., 6-6) in year two or three. Expecting a bowl by 2025 doesn't strike me as unrealistic. That would put us on timelines like what Harbaugh, Campbell, and Clawson managed. A realistic path is that our 2023 is about the same quality as our 2022 team, 2024 is decidedly better but still not good (like Teevens 2004 or Harbaugh 2008), and then 2025 turns a corner. That should be manageable if he's a good coach.

[Beeg_Dawg]

My take on the original post (transfers): Probably can't hurt. Keep in mind that Shaw and Muir excavated a ditch deep and wide wherein TT finds himself right now. It's gonna take 3-5 years, luck and very smart maneuvering to reclaim this program. Not sure very many here are fully cognizant of this. As for pressers? Walsh I is still the standard. Followed by Harbaugh for comic relief.

I don't minimize the depth or width of the ditch, but if Taylor is the right man he could have us out of the hole (e.g., 6-6) in year two or three. Expecting a bowl by 2025 doesn't strike me as unrealistic. That would put us on timelines like what Harbaugh, Campbell, and Clawson managed. A realistic path is that our 2023 is about the same quality as our 2022 team, 2024 is decidedly better but still not good (like Teevens 2004 or Harbaugh 2008), and then 2025 turns a corner. That should be manageable if he's a good coach.

A bowl in 2025 is it not only realistic, it should be a milepost for an improving program.  If we get a bump similar to Harbaugh's, then it's possible we could get a bowl invite this year.  I have to assume Taylor is inheriting a program in better shape than the one handed to Harbaugh.

[Beeg_Dawg]

My take on the original post (transfers): Probably can't hurt. Keep in mind that Shaw and Muir excavated a ditch deep and wide wherein TT finds himself right now. It's gonna take 3-5 years, luck and very smart maneuvering to reclaim this program. Not sure very many here are fully cognizant of this. As for pressers? Walsh I is still the standard. Followed by Harbaugh for comic relief.

I don't minimize the depth or width of the ditch, but if Taylor is the right man he could have us out of the hole (e.g., 6-6) in year two or three. Expecting a bowl by 2025 doesn't strike me as unrealistic. That would put us on timelines like what Harbaugh, Campbell, and Clawson managed. A realistic path is that our 2023 is about the same quality as our 2022 team, 2024 is decidedly better but still not good (like Teevens 2004 or Harbaugh 2008), and then 2025 turns a corner. That should be manageable if he's a good coach.

A bowl in 2025 is it not only realistic, it should be a milepost for an improving program.  If we get a bump similar to Harbaugh's, then it's possible we could get a bowl invite this year.  I have to assume Taylor is inheriting a program in better shape than the one handed to Harbaugh.

[SamuelMcF]

A bowl in 2025 is it not only realistic, it should be a milepost for an improving program.  If we get a bump similar to Harbaugh's, then it's possible we could get a bowl invite this year.  I have to assume Taylor is inheriting a program in better shape than the one handed to Harbaugh.

Not a chance in hell and it's in maybe marginally better shape. Shaw left a disaster in his wake.

If we make a bowl this year, Taylor is a miracle worker.

[SamuelMcF]

A bowl in 2025 is it not only realistic, it should be a milepost for an improving program.  If we get a bump similar to Harbaugh's, then it's possible we could get a bowl invite this year.  I have to assume Taylor is inheriting a program in better shape than the one handed to Harbaugh.

Not a chance in hell and it's in maybe marginally better shape. Shaw left a disaster in his wake.

If we make a bowl this year, Taylor is a miracle worker.

[msqueri]

Shaw left a disaster in his wake but so did Harris. Personally I think Harbaugh had a harder job than Taylor, but there are reasonable arguments both ways. Taylor inherits more notable top end talent and Stanford has been slightly more relevant in recent years than when Harbaugh came on board, but differences are modest and debatable. On the other hand, the landscape in 2007 was probably more amenable to a new coach being a disruptor (whereas in 2023 it's the landscape that's disrupting new coaches). Competitively, the Pac-10 was stronger in Harbaugh's era than the Pac-12 is in Taylor's, but it's not clear what that means for this discussion because some would argue a tougher conference makes competing tougher while others would argue a rising tide lifts all boats and I think there's truth to both.

Whenever this comparison comes up I want to be clear that me saying Harbaugh had a tougher job is not meant as a statement of optimism (or pessimism or anything) regarding the likelihood of Taylor succeeding. What Harbaugh did was a miracle. Taylor could have an easier job, be a pretty good coach, and still fail. That's not what this discussion is about to me. I just like to be faithful to the history when talking about the mid-2000s in Stanford football, and Harbaugh inherited a real doozy.

Agreed making a bowl this year would be a miracle. I will say, though, in the spirit of the above, making a bowl this year would be less of a miracle than if Harbaugh had made a bowl in 2007. Our 2023 schedule is really, really easy. Maybe the easiest in the entire history of the program. Harbaugh didn't make a bowl until his third year. Taylor could make a bowl in his second, or even first, year and still not be on a trajectory to transform the program like Harbaugh was. Honestly, that's an obvious comment. Harbaugh's ultimate accomplishment is sui generis in our history and not a fair standard to compare Taylor by.

[msqueri]

Shaw left a disaster in his wake but so did Harris. Personally I think Harbaugh had a harder job than Taylor, but there are reasonable arguments both ways. Taylor inherits more notable top end talent and Stanford has been slightly more relevant in recent years than when Harbaugh came on board, but differences are modest and debatable. On the other hand, the landscape in 2007 was probably more amenable to a new coach being a disruptor (whereas in 2023 it's the landscape that's disrupting new coaches). Competitively, the Pac-10 was stronger in Harbaugh's era than the Pac-12 is in Taylor's, but it's not clear what that means for this discussion because some would argue a tougher conference makes competing tougher while others would argue a rising tide lifts all boats and I think there's truth to both.

Whenever this comparison comes up I want to be clear that me saying Harbaugh had a tougher job is not meant as a statement of optimism (or pessimism or anything) regarding the likelihood of Taylor succeeding. What Harbaugh did was a miracle. Taylor could have an easier job, be a pretty good coach, and still fail. That's not what this discussion is about to me. I just like to be faithful to the history when talking about the mid-2000s in Stanford football, and Harbaugh inherited a real doozy.

Agreed making a bowl this year would be a miracle. I will say, though, in the spirit of the above, making a bowl this year would be less of a miracle than if Harbaugh had made a bowl in 2007. Our 2023 schedule is really, really easy. Maybe the easiest in the entire history of the program. Harbaugh didn't make a bowl until his third year. Taylor could make a bowl in his second, or even first, year and still not be on a trajectory to transform the program like Harbaugh was. Honestly, that's an obvious comment. Harbaugh's ultimate accomplishment is sui generis in our history and not a fair standard to compare Taylor by.

[BobK]

This dates even me but playing Montana and Idaho way back when they were in our leaguemight have been easier
:) :)

[BobK]

This dates even me but playing Montana and Idaho way back when they were in our leaguemight have been easier
:) :)

[GK3]

+1 to Matt.

Also, for those who think "Door #1 makes transferring in simply too difficult"...also propaganda. Trevor Mayberry has a 3.31 GPA at Penn. If you don't think there are dozens upon dozens of potentially-impactful transfers with 3.3+ GPAs out there that we could try to tap into, I have beachfront realty in Nebraska to sell you.

(To the new staff's credit, they seem to be making a big effort there right out the gate.)

True enough, but then there are 3.3 gpa's that can get into Stanford and there a lot that can't. GPA by itself is meaningless.  As important or more important is the institution where the GPA was earned and the courses or major it was earned in.

[GK3]

+1 to Matt.

Also, for those who think "Door #1 makes transferring in simply too difficult"...also propaganda. Trevor Mayberry has a 3.31 GPA at Penn. If you don't think there are dozens upon dozens of potentially-impactful transfers with 3.3+ GPAs out there that we could try to tap into, I have beachfront realty in Nebraska to sell you.

(To the new staff's credit, they seem to be making a big effort there right out the gate.)

True enough, but then there are 3.3 gpa's that can get into Stanford and there a lot that can't. GPA by itself is meaningless.  As important or more important is the institution where the GPA was earned and the courses or major it was earned in.

[Mick]

This dates even me but playing Montana and Idaho way back when they were in our league might have been easier
:)  :)

Let's put them on the list, along with Nevada Reno. Stanford is a collective 26-2-2 against those three schools, though we haven't played any of them since the 1940s. Time to bring 'em back.

[Mick]

This dates even me but playing Montana and Idaho way back when they were in our league might have been easier
:)  :)

Let's put them on the list, along with Nevada Reno. Stanford is a collective 26-2-2 against those three schools, though we haven't played any of them since the 1940s. Time to bring 'em back.

[OutsiderFan]

Does anyone have an answer as to why Stanford has this love/hate relationship with its football program?

Football revenues are not that important to the university writ large, like they might be for other schools, but football revenues are suppose to fund the rest of the athletic department too, right?  

How can anyone in Stanford leadership circles justify this cycle of allowing football to languish, then decide it has to be fixed, come back up as nationally relevant, then languish again? I mean it's prohibitively expensive to forgo maintenance on a property and then be forced to do a tear down and replace because it deteriorated so much while being ignored.  This seems to be Stanford's MO. Why? To what end? How does this make any sense? An argument can be made it is more sensible to drop football than continue this boom and bust cycle. Not sure what the argument is for letting football languish, then deciding it must be restored.  Wy let it languish in the first place?

[OutsiderFan]

Does anyone have an answer as to why Stanford has this love/hate relationship with its football program?

Football revenues are not that important to the university writ large, like they might be for other schools, but football revenues are suppose to fund the rest of the athletic department too, right?  

How can anyone in Stanford leadership circles justify this cycle of allowing football to languish, then decide it has to be fixed, come back up as nationally relevant, then languish again? I mean it's prohibitively expensive to forgo maintenance on a property and then be forced to do a tear down and replace because it deteriorated so much while being ignored.  This seems to be Stanford's MO. Why? To what end? How does this make any sense? An argument can be made it is more sensible to drop football than continue this boom and bust cycle. Not sure what the argument is for letting football languish, then deciding it must be restored.  Wy let it languish in the first place?

[BostonCard]

Agree that bouncing back from 5 years of sub-.500 football punctuated by a 1-11 season and players so disgruntled that they led a mutiny against Harris was a much heavier lift than coming back from 3 years of sub-.500 football (in 4), with the low point being a 3-9 season, that had a pretty smooth transition such as these things go.

Harbaugh went 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, and 12-1, and it wasn't on the strength of what Harris left behind.  Even if you believe that the talent in 2023 is substantially lower than 2022 (fair assumption given all the departures), a good coach should be able to at least tread water in 2023 compared to 2022, with a goal to improve every year thereafter and reach at least 6-6- and a bowl by 2025.

BC

---

Does anyone have an answer as to why Stanford has this love/hate relationship with its football program?

Football revenues are not that important to the university writ large, like they might be for other schools, but football revenues are suppose to fund the rest of the athletic department too, right?  

How can anyone in Stanford leadership circles justify this cycle of allowing football to languish, then decide it has to be fixed, come back up as nationally relevant, then languish again? I mean it's prohibitively expensive to forgo maintenance on a property and then be forced to do a tear down and replace because it deteriorated so much while being ignored.  This seems to be Stanford's MO. Why? To what end? How does this make any sense? An argument can be made it is more sensible to drop football than continue this boom and bust cycle. Not sure what the argument is for letting football languish, then deciding it must be restored.  Wy let it languish in the first place?

It's almost as if there are multiple voices with different views at Stanford, some of whom are actively hostile to Stanford football, some of whom are indifferent, and some of whom really want a University that the football team can be proud of, and that a lot depends on the priorities of the people in charge.

BC

[BostonCard]

Agree that bouncing back from 5 years of sub-.500 football punctuated by a 1-11 season and players so disgruntled that they led a mutiny against Harris was a much heavier lift than coming back from 3 years of sub-.500 football (in 4), with the low point being a 3-9 season, that had a pretty smooth transition such as these things go.

Harbaugh went 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, and 12-1, and it wasn't on the strength of what Harris left behind.  Even if you believe that the talent in 2023 is substantially lower than 2022 (fair assumption given all the departures), a good coach should be able to at least tread water in 2023 compared to 2022, with a goal to improve every year thereafter and reach at least 6-6- and a bowl by 2025.

BC

---

Does anyone have an answer as to why Stanford has this love/hate relationship with its football program?

Football revenues are not that important to the university writ large, like they might be for other schools, but football revenues are suppose to fund the rest of the athletic department too, right?  

How can anyone in Stanford leadership circles justify this cycle of allowing football to languish, then decide it has to be fixed, come back up as nationally relevant, then languish again? I mean it's prohibitively expensive to forgo maintenance on a property and then be forced to do a tear down and replace because it deteriorated so much while being ignored.  This seems to be Stanford's MO. Why? To what end? How does this make any sense? An argument can be made it is more sensible to drop football than continue this boom and bust cycle. Not sure what the argument is for letting football languish, then deciding it must be restored.  Wy let it languish in the first place?

It's almost as if there are multiple voices with different views at Stanford, some of whom are actively hostile to Stanford football, some of whom are indifferent, and some of whom really want a University that the football team can be proud of, and that a lot depends on the priorities of the people in charge.

BC

[Farm93]

To be clear, I am talking about high school class recruiting rankings, not record.  Shaw's class of 2022, on the heels of a 3-9 season, was 19th nationally and second in the Pac-12.  Except for the weird small classes that we periodically had, Shaw was pretty much always in the top half of the conference; the issues were about recruiting imbalances, failures to retain players (and not being able to replace them with incoming transfers) and failure to develop them. But historically our recruiting ranking has been fine, and with USC and UCLA out of conference starting in 2024, it is not unreasonable for us to duke it out with Washington for the second most desirable destination in the conference behind Oregon.  Top 5 most of the time and and top 3 much of the time is attainable.

BC

When it comes to HS recruiting I sure hope we are in the top 3 every year in the new Pac-10.

Stanford will likely always need relatively large incoming classes to offset transfer losses, so now that the transfer portal is dominating the scene I hope Stanford will be top 3 in the new Pac-10 since those ratings have a quantity element to them.

That noted, I am not sure most future Stanford head coaches will be able to enjoy Coach Shaw levels of recruiting success.   Selling the Stanford 40-year story just seems like something parents would find more credible if it was delivered by a Stanford alum with success after his playing years in college football. 

Also the new world of NIL, which wasn't really in force during most of Shaw's tenure, seems to be driving a lot of top recruits to the most lucrative NIL rather than a 4 v 40 decision.

[Farm93]

To be clear, I am talking about high school class recruiting rankings, not record.  Shaw's class of 2022, on the heels of a 3-9 season, was 19th nationally and second in the Pac-12.  Except for the weird small classes that we periodically had, Shaw was pretty much always in the top half of the conference; the issues were about recruiting imbalances, failures to retain players (and not being able to replace them with incoming transfers) and failure to develop them. But historically our recruiting ranking has been fine, and with USC and UCLA out of conference starting in 2024, it is not unreasonable for us to duke it out with Washington for the second most desirable destination in the conference behind Oregon.  Top 5 most of the time and and top 3 much of the time is attainable.

BC

When it comes to HS recruiting I sure hope we are in the top 3 every year in the new Pac-10.

Stanford will likely always need relatively large incoming classes to offset transfer losses, so now that the transfer portal is dominating the scene I hope Stanford will be top 3 in the new Pac-10 since those ratings have a quantity element to them.

That noted, I am not sure most future Stanford head coaches will be able to enjoy Coach Shaw levels of recruiting success.   Selling the Stanford 40-year story just seems like something parents would find more credible if it was delivered by a Stanford alum with success after his playing years in college football. 

Also the new world of NIL, which wasn't really in force during most of Shaw's tenure, seems to be driving a lot of top recruits to the most lucrative NIL rather than a 4 v 40 decision.

[rudruff]

The NIL is less of a problem than the grad transfer issue in my mind. NIL is money, and the University could find it if they wanted to. Finding an appealing grad program that players could get accepted to and stay is harder. Too many good students on the team can get a portion of grad school paid somewhere else.

[rudruff]

The NIL is less of a problem than the grad transfer issue in my mind. NIL is money, and the University could find it if they wanted to. Finding an appealing grad program that players could get accepted to and stay is harder. Too many good students on the team can get a portion of grad school paid somewhere else.

[martyup]

The NIL is less of a problem than the grad transfer issue in my mind. NIL is money, and the University could find it if they wanted to. Finding an appealing grad program that players could get accepted to and stay is harder. Too many good students on the team can get a portion of grad school paid somewhere else.

Maybe Stanford should start a new graduate program just for athletes.  It could be something like sports management.  It would be a real academic program with classes to assist athletes in their careers during and after they retire from their sport.  I could envision classes in coaching, sports agency, financial management, nutrition, training, etc.

It wouldn't water down the prestige of Stanford's undergraduate program and it could set its own standards for admission.  This would allow both men's and women's sports to bring in grad transfers.  Maybe the only way you could get into the graduate program is if a Stanford coach made the recommendation.

This might also allow us to retain some of our seniors with remaining eligibility rather than have them grad transfer to another school.

[martyup]

The NIL is less of a problem than the grad transfer issue in my mind. NIL is money, and the University could find it if they wanted to. Finding an appealing grad program that players could get accepted to and stay is harder. Too many good students on the team can get a portion of grad school paid somewhere else.

Maybe Stanford should start a new graduate program just for athletes.  It could be something like sports management.  It would be a real academic program with classes to assist athletes in their careers during and after they retire from their sport.  I could envision classes in coaching, sports agency, financial management, nutrition, training, etc.

It wouldn't water down the prestige of Stanford's undergraduate program and it could set its own standards for admission.  This would allow both men's and women's sports to bring in grad transfers.  Maybe the only way you could get into the graduate program is if a Stanford coach made the recommendation.

This might also allow us to retain some of our seniors with remaining eligibility rather than have them grad transfer to another school.

[Snorlax94]

First, a note on the anticipated record for 2023. The team should have a better record, if only because the schedule will be easier.

We swap games against BYU and Colgate with Hawaii and Sac State, which should add a win.

We swap games against Utah and ASU with games against Colorado and Arizona, which could add a win.

Then in even years we play Washington, UCLA, Notre Dame, Cal and Oregon at home, and have 7 home games to boot.

So even if Stanford had the same coaching staff and same players as in 2022, the 2023 team should have more wins.

I am not saying they go bowling in 2023, but it’s very possible the 2023 team has a better record than the 2024 team, and if it turns out the new S&C staff are able to make an immediate impact on injuries, then yeah, I do think a post season is possible. If the S&C imoroves, and the players are healthier and stronger, then I think there’s > 1/3 chance they go bowling this year.

And second, I disagree that the fluctuations in success necessarily reflect whether the university suddenly does or does not “care about winning.” Many many universities care about winning every single year, and yet they have up and down years — it’s part of college football. Notre Dame has had some similar downs (perhaps not as prolonged) and I can assure you, they care about winning every year. There was a deteriorating trend but I think it was reasonable that the university was a bit slow to respond due to Shaw’s previous success (the team narrowly lost a conference championship in 2017), and because the pandemic provided cover for the 2020-2021 seasons.

[Snorlax94]

First, a note on the anticipated record for 2023. The team should have a better record, if only because the schedule will be easier.

We swap games against BYU and Colgate with Hawaii and Sac State, which should add a win.

We swap games against Utah and ASU with games against Colorado and Arizona, which could add a win.

Then in even years we play Washington, UCLA, Notre Dame, Cal and Oregon at home, and have 7 home games to boot.

So even if Stanford had the same coaching staff and same players as in 2022, the 2023 team should have more wins.

I am not saying they go bowling in 2023, but it’s very possible the 2023 team has a better record than the 2024 team, and if it turns out the new S&C staff are able to make an immediate impact on injuries, then yeah, I do think a post season is possible. If the S&C imoroves, and the players are healthier and stronger, then I think there’s > 1/3 chance they go bowling this year.

And second, I disagree that the fluctuations in success necessarily reflect whether the university suddenly does or does not “care about winning.” Many many universities care about winning every single year, and yet they have up and down years — it’s part of college football. Notre Dame has had some similar downs (perhaps not as prolonged) and I can assure you, they care about winning every year. There was a deteriorating trend but I think it was reasonable that the university was a bit slow to respond due to Shaw’s previous success (the team narrowly lost a conference championship in 2017), and because the pandemic provided cover for the 2020-2021 seasons.

[winflop]

I take the transfer signings as a small step in the right direction. Taylor's not going to fix the mess Shaw & Muir left him with in one season. It's going to take probably another one or two to get this right/better. As for the lost commits, I'm not surprised. Those commits were made to a different coaching staff. I don't have the data, but it wouldn't surprise me that every new coaching staff inm FBS loses a disproportionately large number of verbal commits made under the prior staff.

As for Taylor's subdued comments about current and incoming players, I'm not surprised in the least. He has yet to see any of them live on a practice field. I'll be more interested in his comments after spring camp ends.

I don't expect much improvement next season. Too many holes to fill, and players recruited to a vastly different offense will be learning all over again. Not sure how big the changes will be to the defense, but there will be adjustments even if to a lesser degree. I think four wins would be a good outcome.

Sadly I will not be renewing my season tickets. Not a lack of faith in Taylor or Stanford, just a change in our life situation that has resulted in us not being free on Saturdays. I'll be DVR'ing and watching. Maybe I'll be able to catch a Pac12AfterDark game live - I'm confident good seats will be available last minute

[winflop]

I take the transfer signings as a small step in the right direction. Taylor's not going to fix the mess Shaw & Muir left him with in one season. It's going to take probably another one or two to get this right/better. As for the lost commits, I'm not surprised. Those commits were made to a different coaching staff. I don't have the data, but it wouldn't surprise me that every new coaching staff inm FBS loses a disproportionately large number of verbal commits made under the prior staff.

As for Taylor's subdued comments about current and incoming players, I'm not surprised in the least. He has yet to see any of them live on a practice field. I'll be more interested in his comments after spring camp ends.

I don't expect much improvement next season. Too many holes to fill, and players recruited to a vastly different offense will be learning all over again. Not sure how big the changes will be to the defense, but there will be adjustments even if to a lesser degree. I think four wins would be a good outcome.

Sadly I will not be renewing my season tickets. Not a lack of faith in Taylor or Stanford, just a change in our life situation that has resulted in us not being free on Saturdays. I'll be DVR'ing and watching. Maybe I'll be able to catch a Pac12AfterDark game live - I'm confident good seats will be available last minute

[StanfordMatt]

And second, I disagree that the fluctuations in success necessarily reflect whether the university suddenly does or does not “care about winning.” Many many universities care about winning every single year, and yet they have up and down years — it’s part of college football. Notre Dame has had some similar downs (perhaps not as prolonged) and I can assure you, they care about winning every year. There was a deteriorating trend but I think it was reasonable that the university was a bit slow to respond due to Shaw’s previous success (the team narrowly lost a conference championship in 2017), and because the pandemic provided cover for the 2020-2021 seasons.

They were also likely "slow to respond" because they owed Shaw a gazillion dollars. There was no turning the page until Shaw was ready, he could've held the program hostage for many more years if he had wanted to. I never expected him to voluntarily walk away, but to his credit he did and left a lot of money on the table in doing so. I believe that was what allowed the administration to move forward.

[StanfordMatt]

And second, I disagree that the fluctuations in success necessarily reflect whether the university suddenly does or does not “care about winning.” Many many universities care about winning every single year, and yet they have up and down years — it’s part of college football. Notre Dame has had some similar downs (perhaps not as prolonged) and I can assure you, they care about winning every year. There was a deteriorating trend but I think it was reasonable that the university was a bit slow to respond due to Shaw’s previous success (the team narrowly lost a conference championship in 2017), and because the pandemic provided cover for the 2020-2021 seasons.

They were also likely "slow to respond" because they owed Shaw a gazillion dollars. There was no turning the page until Shaw was ready, he could've held the program hostage for many more years if he had wanted to. I never expected him to voluntarily walk away, but to his credit he did and left a lot of money on the table in doing so. I believe that was what allowed the administration to move forward.

[Chupacabra]

If the coach is any good, there should be upsets and tangible improvement in year 1. Even with "lesser" talent. There won't be a "biggest upset ever"-type win (which is kind of a weird thing to celebrate when you think about the implications), but there need to be some wins Stanford "shouldn't get" in order to pave the road back. And in the new 6-win bowl era, there needs to be a bowl in year 2.

Here's what the W-L needs to look like in order to show marked improvement and a path back to contention:

2023 (5 wins)

• Sac St and Hawaii as "auto-wins"
  
• Win 2 of the following: OSU, WSU, Colorado, Cal
  
• Win 1 other game
  

2024 (6 Wins, bowl-eligible)

• TCU on schedule makes it much tougher.
  
• I assume the league will try to go to a full round-robin for 2024, with a possible "alliance" with Big 12 in the future.
  
• Cal Poly - W
  
• 4 of OSU, WSU, Cal, AZ, ASU, Colorado.
  
• 1 "big" win needed among TCU, ND, Wash, Utah
  

Considering the path of college football on the West Coast, this should be expected and be the only accepted outcome in years 1 and 2. Is it ok if they don't get to a bowl until 2025? Sure. But if TT is who we want him to be, this has to be the path considering USC and UCLA leaving in 2024. Things could change if the Big 12 factors into 2024 scheduling.

You might ask, "Why such high expectations in year 1?" Well, everyone here was depressed by a 3-win season. The arrow has to point up.

Harbaugh added 3 wins in his first year. TT just needs +2.

---

Following this, the biggest the process to this is as follows:

1. Establish culture and a "fun" offense in 2023
   
2. QBs see they can put up numbers in the TT system
   
3. Continue to increase portal viability
   
4. Use the portal to find a veteran QB to come in for a year or two and a couple bodies on OL and DL
   
5. Sell consistent improvement to recruits and transfers both years
   
6. 8-win 2025
   

If the coach is any good, there should be upsets and tangible improvement in year 1. Even with "lesser" talent. There won't be a "biggest upset ever"-type win (which is kind of a weird thing to celebrate when you think about the implications), but there need to be some wins Stanford "shouldn't get" in order to pave the road back. And in the new 6-win bowl era, there needs to be a bowl in year 2.

Here's what the W-L needs to look like in order to show marked improvement and a path back to contention:

2023 (5 wins)

• Sac St and Hawaii as "auto-wins"
  
• Win 2 of the following: OSU, WSU, Colorado, Cal
  
• Win 1 other game
  

2024 (6 Wins, bowl-eligible)

• TCU on schedule makes it much tougher.
  
• I assume the league will try to go to a full round-robin for 2024, with a possible "alliance" with Big 12 in the future.
  
• Cal Poly - W
  
• 4 of OSU, WSU, Cal, AZ, ASU, Colorado.
  
• 1 "big" win needed among TCU, ND, Wash, Utah
  

Considering the path of college football on the West Coast, this should be expected and be the only accepted outcome in years 1 and 2. Is it ok if they don't get to a bowl until 2025? Sure. But if TT is who we want him to be, this has to be the path considering USC and UCLA leaving in 2024. Things could change if the Big 12 factors into 2024 scheduling.

You might ask, "Why such high expectations in year 1?" Well, everyone here was depressed by a 3-win season. The arrow has to point up.

Harbaugh added 3 wins in his first year. TT just needs +2.

[Chupacabra]

If the coach is any good, there should be upsets and tangible improvement in year 1. Even with "lesser" talent. There won't be a "biggest upset ever"-type win (which is kind of a weird thing to celebrate when you think about the implications), but there need to be some wins Stanford "shouldn't get" in order to pave the road back. And in the new 6-win bowl era, there needs to be a bowl in year 2.

Here's what the W-L needs to look like in order to show marked improvement and a path back to contention:

2023 (5 wins)

• Sac St and Hawaii as "auto-wins"
  
• Win 2 of the following: OSU, WSU, Colorado, Cal
  
• Win 1 other game
  

2024 (6 Wins, bowl-eligible)

• TCU on schedule makes it much tougher.
  
• I assume the league will try to go to a full round-robin for 2024, with a possible "alliance" with Big 12 in the future.
  
• Cal Poly - W
  
• 4 of OSU, WSU, Cal, AZ, ASU, Colorado.
  
• 1 "big" win needed among TCU, ND, Wash, Utah
  

Considering the path of college football on the West Coast, this should be expected and be the only accepted outcome in years 1 and 2. Is it ok if they don't get to a bowl until 2025? Sure. But if TT is who we want him to be, this has to be the path considering USC and UCLA leaving in 2024. Things could change if the Big 12 factors into 2024 scheduling.

You might ask, "Why such high expectations in year 1?" Well, everyone here was depressed by a 3-win season. The arrow has to point up.

Harbaugh added 3 wins in his first year. TT just needs +2.

---

Following this, the biggest the process to this is as follows:

1. Establish culture and a "fun" offense in 2023
   
2. QBs see they can put up numbers in the TT system
   
3. Continue to increase portal viability
   
4. Use the portal to find a veteran QB to come in for a year or two and a couple bodies on OL and DL
   
5. Sell consistent improvement to recruits and transfers both years
   
6. 8-win 2025
   

If the coach is any good, there should be upsets and tangible improvement in year 1. Even with "lesser" talent. There won't be a "biggest upset ever"-type win (which is kind of a weird thing to celebrate when you think about the implications), but there need to be some wins Stanford "shouldn't get" in order to pave the road back. And in the new 6-win bowl era, there needs to be a bowl in year 2.

Here's what the W-L needs to look like in order to show marked improvement and a path back to contention:

2023 (5 wins)

• Sac St and Hawaii as "auto-wins"
  
• Win 2 of the following: OSU, WSU, Colorado, Cal
  
• Win 1 other game
  

2024 (6 Wins, bowl-eligible)

• TCU on schedule makes it much tougher.
  
• I assume the league will try to go to a full round-robin for 2024, with a possible "alliance" with Big 12 in the future.
  
• Cal Poly - W
  
• 4 of OSU, WSU, Cal, AZ, ASU, Colorado.
  
• 1 "big" win needed among TCU, ND, Wash, Utah
  

Considering the path of college football on the West Coast, this should be expected and be the only accepted outcome in years 1 and 2. Is it ok if they don't get to a bowl until 2025? Sure. But if TT is who we want him to be, this has to be the path considering USC and UCLA leaving in 2024. Things could change if the Big 12 factors into 2024 scheduling.

You might ask, "Why such high expectations in year 1?" Well, everyone here was depressed by a 3-win season. The arrow has to point up.

Harbaugh added 3 wins in his first year. TT just needs +2.

[msqueri]

Good thoughts Chupacabra. I'm going to try to be less mechanical and strictly wins-focused than this. For the next year or two the process you lay out at the end of your post is more important than total wins. Moreover, the sheer number of wins only conveys so much information and our evaluation will have to be more qualitative than this.

If we're going to use any particular metric, to me it should be Sagarin because that way we're doing our best to account for schedule and scope of wins/losses while maintaining some comparability from year to year. 2022 was #87. Given 2022 being one of the most veteran teams in the nation and 2023 being one of the least, in my view if 2023 can even be in the ballpark of 2022 that is sufficient to maintain some hope. Give me a top 90 team and I'll still have faith in Taylor. I think this is an important point because that could be a three win team, a four win team, or even a five win team. The sheer win total does not tell you whether the team has gotten better, especially given our schedule being easier. It's possible (unlikely but possible) to win more games than we did last year and be a worse team.

I think it is most sound for us to bring to bear as nuanced and qualitative evaluation of the next few years as we can. It's not about sheer win total. Unless 2023 is 6+ wins (in which case that's obviously a success) or 0-2 wins (in which case it's obviously a failure).

[msqueri]

Good thoughts Chupacabra. I'm going to try to be less mechanical and strictly wins-focused than this. For the next year or two the process you lay out at the end of your post is more important than total wins. Moreover, the sheer number of wins only conveys so much information and our evaluation will have to be more qualitative than this.

If we're going to use any particular metric, to me it should be Sagarin because that way we're doing our best to account for schedule and scope of wins/losses while maintaining some comparability from year to year. 2022 was #87. Given 2022 being one of the most veteran teams in the nation and 2023 being one of the least, in my view if 2023 can even be in the ballpark of 2022 that is sufficient to maintain some hope. Give me a top 90 team and I'll still have faith in Taylor. I think this is an important point because that could be a three win team, a four win team, or even a five win team. The sheer win total does not tell you whether the team has gotten better, especially given our schedule being easier. It's possible (unlikely but possible) to win more games than we did last year and be a worse team.

I think it is most sound for us to bring to bear as nuanced and qualitative evaluation of the next few years as we can. It's not about sheer win total. Unless 2023 is 6+ wins (in which case that's obviously a success) or 0-2 wins (in which case it's obviously a failure).

[BostonCard]

The NIL is less of a problem than the grad transfer issue in my mind. NIL is money, and the University could find it if they wanted to. Finding an appealing grad program that players could get accepted to and stay is harder. Too many good students on the team can get a portion of grad school paid somewhere else.

Maybe Stanford should start a new graduate program just for athletes.  It could be something like sports management.  It would be a real academic program with classes to assist athletes in their careers during and after they retire from their sport.  I could envision classes in coaching, sports agency, financial management, nutrition, training, etc.

It wouldn't water down the prestige of Stanford's undergraduate program and it could set its own standards for admission.  This would allow both men's and women's sports to bring in grad transfers.  Maybe the only way you could get into the graduate program is if a Stanford coach made the recommendation.

This might also allow us to retain some of our seniors with remaining eligibility rather than have them grad transfer to another school.

I know what you are trying to say, but this is bass ackwards.  We should not, under any circumstances, start a program just for athletes.  We shouldn't even start a program because of athletes.  We should start a program on its own academic merits, full stop.  If it happens to be a good fit for athletes, great.

BC

[BostonCard]

The NIL is less of a problem than the grad transfer issue in my mind. NIL is money, and the University could find it if they wanted to. Finding an appealing grad program that players could get accepted to and stay is harder. Too many good students on the team can get a portion of grad school paid somewhere else.

Maybe Stanford should start a new graduate program just for athletes.  It could be something like sports management.  It would be a real academic program with classes to assist athletes in their careers during and after they retire from their sport.  I could envision classes in coaching, sports agency, financial management, nutrition, training, etc.

It wouldn't water down the prestige of Stanford's undergraduate program and it could set its own standards for admission.  This would allow both men's and women's sports to bring in grad transfers.  Maybe the only way you could get into the graduate program is if a Stanford coach made the recommendation.

This might also allow us to retain some of our seniors with remaining eligibility rather than have them grad transfer to another school.

I know what you are trying to say, but this is bass ackwards.  We should not, under any circumstances, start a program just for athletes.  We shouldn't even start a program because of athletes.  We should start a program on its own academic merits, full stop.  If it happens to be a good fit for athletes, great.

BC

[BobK]

In the last several years we have had 7-8 Softball players back for their covid year because they were either in co term or grad school. It’s possible

[BobK]

In the last several years we have had 7-8 Softball players back for their covid year because they were either in co term or grad school. It’s possible

[SamuelMcF]

The NIL is less of a problem than the grad transfer issue in my mind. NIL is money, and the University could find it if they wanted to. Finding an appealing grad program that players could get accepted to and stay is harder. Too many good students on the team can get a portion of grad school paid somewhere else.

Maybe Stanford should start a new graduate program just for athletes.  It could be something like sports management.  It would be a real academic program with classes to assist athletes in their careers during and after they retire from their sport.  I could envision classes in coaching, sports agency, financial management, nutrition, training, etc.

It wouldn't water down the prestige of Stanford's undergraduate program and it could set its own standards for admission.  This would allow both men's and women's sports to bring in grad transfers.  Maybe the only way you could get into the graduate program is if a Stanford coach made the recommendation.

This might also allow us to retain some of our seniors with remaining eligibility rather than have them grad transfer to another school.

I know what you are trying to say, but this is bass ackwards.  We should not, under any circumstances, start a program just for athletes.  We shouldn't even start a program because of athletes.  We should start a program on its own academic merits, full stop.  If it happens to be a good fit for athletes, great.

BC

One of these already exists. It's called the part-time "Masters of Liberal Arts." All of our football grad assistants are doing it, and our grad transfer WBB player from Northwestern enrolled in it. We should be leveraging this every year.

[SamuelMcF]

The NIL is less of a problem than the grad transfer issue in my mind. NIL is money, and the University could find it if they wanted to. Finding an appealing grad program that players could get accepted to and stay is harder. Too many good students on the team can get a portion of grad school paid somewhere else.

Maybe Stanford should start a new graduate program just for athletes.  It could be something like sports management.  It would be a real academic program with classes to assist athletes in their careers during and after they retire from their sport.  I could envision classes in coaching, sports agency, financial management, nutrition, training, etc.

It wouldn't water down the prestige of Stanford's undergraduate program and it could set its own standards for admission.  This would allow both men's and women's sports to bring in grad transfers.  Maybe the only way you could get into the graduate program is if a Stanford coach made the recommendation.

This might also allow us to retain some of our seniors with remaining eligibility rather than have them grad transfer to another school.

I know what you are trying to say, but this is bass ackwards.  We should not, under any circumstances, start a program just for athletes.  We shouldn't even start a program because of athletes.  We should start a program on its own academic merits, full stop.  If it happens to be a good fit for athletes, great.

BC

One of these already exists. It's called the part-time "Masters of Liberal Arts." All of our football grad assistants are doing it, and our grad transfer WBB player from Northwestern enrolled in it. We should be leveraging this every year.