"I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ."

"I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." (/thread-23487.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

"I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - cardcrimson - 09-24-2022

We were only a few plays away.
We need to tighten up the turnovers.
We'll have the new offense functional by mid season.
We just need to execute better.
Injuries are really hurting us. (forgot that one. . . .)

Though I missed Shaw's post game presser, do I have it pretty much correct?

Where's SpeeDee when you need them? "When it's time for a change. . . ."

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Austroturf - 09-25-2022

The actual presser lasted a shade over 9 minutes. In his opening remarks, Shaw said the following:

-- It was a tough loss.
-- Noisy stadium, but team coped well.

Offense:
-- Injuries hurt us. Both starting tackles out, with Rouse returning but not at 100%.
-- Blocking was therefore a problem.
-- Turnovers were a problem.
-- Therefore: limited offensive effectiveness.

Defense:
-- Have to limit big plays.

Overall:
-- There's a lot there for us.
-- Love our schemes
-- But not giving ourselves a chance to win.
-- Need to stay in it till the 4th quarter.
-- This team has so much more to give, etc.

There were 5 or 6 questions:
-- One addressed the slow-mesh offense and its lack of effectiveness. Shaw stated that the Huskies had a very "active defense", which plugged gaps and produced an effective pass rush.
-- Two questions addressed the individual performance of Filkins and Wilson. Both were highly praised.

That was about it. My comments:
-- The injury card has already resurfaced, and I suspect it is here to stay for the 2022 season.
-- Shaw's overall positive take on the team is not surprising. That's the nature of press-conferences. However, he did not trot out his "tiger in the weeds" statement. That would have been ridiculous.
-- Clearly, we do not have the depth on the O-line that Shaw claimed we had prior to the season. Calling UW's defense "active" is just a way of saying that they beat us at the LOS and disrupted our offense. Gee, that's what defenses do for a living if you let them.
-- His positive view of Filkins and how he can eventually pair up with Smith to form a top-level running back duo is fine, but that assumes they both stay with the program. Our previous running back duo (Jones and Peat) is gone, with both plying their trade for other teams. If Filkins and Smith are both promising, do they stay?
-- The tone was obviously subdued, and Shaw clearly wanted to get the press conference over with as soon as possible. I think we will see a lot of similar pressers this year. I can't imagine the one next week after the Oregon game will be much different. Hope I am wrong, but this is where we are right now.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - JohnR34231 - 09-25-2022

I thought one of the keys to a decent season was us staying healthy on offense.
Unfortunately that's not the way things seem to be turning out.
With the transfer pool the penalties for poor seasons increase. Not only is recruiting top notch players difficult but the good ones you do have may transfer.
On defense, Miezan is hurt and Shaw says he has no idea as to his status. Seems like we have seen that movie before.
If I had to sum up Shaw's comments they would be "We need to play better." No kidding, coach?

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - gailtate - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 02:10 AM)Austroturf Wrote: The actual presser lasted a shade over 9 minutes. In his opening remarks, Shaw said the following:

-- It was a tough loss.
-- Noisy stadium, but team coped well.

Offense:
-- Injuries hurt us. Both starting tackles out, with Rouse returning but not at 100%.
-- Blocking was therefore a problem.
-- Turnovers were a problem.
-- Therefore: limited offensive effectiveness.

Defense:
-- Have to limit big plays.

Overall:
-- There's a lot there for us.
-- Love our schemes
-- But not giving ourselves a chance to win.
-- Need to stay in it till the 4th quarter.
-- This team has so much more to give, etc.

There were 5 or 6 questions:
-- One addressed the slow-mesh offense and its lack of effectiveness. Shaw stated that the Huskies had a very "active defense", which plugged gaps and produced an effective pass rush.
-- Two questions addressed the individual performance of Filkins and Wilson. Both were highly praised.

That was about it. My comments:
-- The injury card has already resurfaced, and I suspect it is here to stay for the 2022 season.
-- Shaw's overall positive take on the team is not surprising. That's the nature of press-conferences. However, he did not trot out his "tiger in the weeds" statement. That would have been ridiculous.
-- Clearly, we do not have the depth on the O-line that Shaw claimed we had prior to the season. Calling UW's defense "active" is just a way of saying that they beat us at the LOS and disrupted our offense. Gee, that's what defenses do for a living if you let them.
-- His positive view of Filkins and how he can eventually pair up with Smith to form a top-level running back duo is fine, but that assumes they both stay with the program. Our previous running back duo (Jones and Peat) is gone, with both plying their trade for other teams. If Filkins and Smith are both promising, do they stay?
-- The tone was obviously subdued, and Shaw clearly wanted to get the press conference over with as soon as possible. I think we will see a lot of similar pressers this year. I can't imagine the one next week after the Oregon game will be much different. Hope I am wrong, but this is where we are right now.

You are not wrong and this is exactly where Shaw and his program are. And will likely remain.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - pcgoode - 09-25-2022

I suspect I was one of the last holdouts on this board still thinking there was a chance for a good season with this team. I was mistaken. If trends we’ve all seen over the last few years continue the only game I can see that we have a decent shot of winning is vs Arizona State, which leaves us 2-10. Shaw would have to go at that point. If he doesn’t, Muir has to go.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - CPSteeple - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 08:14 AM)pcgoode Wrote: I suspect I was one of the last holdouts on this board still thinking there was a chance for a good season with this team. I was mistaken. If trends we’ve all seen over the last few years continue the only game I can see that we have a decent shot of winning is vs Arizona State, which leaves us 2-10. Shaw would have to go at that point. If he doesn’t, Muir has to go.

+1. I shared your cautious optimism heading into the season, knowing the defense was going to be a bit of a dumpster fire. But last night was the final straw for me as well, more specifically regarding Shaw. The team played hard last night, there was no quit, but this program is desperately in need of new ideas and energy from the top. I can only imagine how deflating it is for these players to trot out there every week knowing they have to score 30+ (now 40+) points per game to have a shot at winning.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - lex24 - 09-25-2022

The hard part is not seeing anything better on the horizon. The changes in College Football hurt Stanford tremendously. When I first heard of the transfer portal, I knew it would be bad. But not this bad. Change the coaching staff, the core problems won’t change. When you can lose players regularly and not replace them, that’s a major problem. Depth? Makes it that much tougher.

If they wish to become competitive again, the Administration has to change its position on transfers. And that is not going to happen.

None of this is offered as an “excuse “ for Shaw. The recruiting deficits are showing big time. Thats on him. You can revamp the staff. It won’t matter. There is a major talent deficiency. They built up the program in the trenches. O-line. Defensive front seven. They physically whipped teams. That “impose our will” mentality is long gone. The days when the howling would be over “why didn’t they give it to Gaffney” on top 10 teams, built to play complimentary bruising old style football are long gone.

Can they get back to the days when they at least would hover near .500 and occasionally bust out an 8-4. With an occasional big win? I doubt it. And I doubt it no matter who is at the helm. Not in this new world environment.

(09-25-2022, 08:55 AM)CPSteeple Wrote:
(09-25-2022, 08:14 AM)pcgoode Wrote: I suspect I was one of the last holdouts on this board still thinking there was a chance for a good season with this team. I was mistaken. If trends we’ve all seen over the last few years continue the only game I can see that we have a decent shot of winning is vs Arizona State, which leaves us 2-10. Shaw would have to go at that point. If he doesn’t, Muir has to go.

+1. I shared your cautious optimism heading into the season, knowing the defense was going to be a bit of a dumpster fire. But last night was the final straw for me as well, more specifically regarding Shaw. The team played hard last night, there was no quit, but this program is desperately in need of new ideas and energy from the top. I can only imagine how deflating it is for these players to trot out there every week knowing they have to score 30+ (now 40+) points per game to have a shot at winning.

They are slow and physically wanting across the front seven. Can’t scheme around that. Focus always on better coaching. Bring me better players. And, just so it’s clear, it’s the coaches job to recruit better players and develop them. But first it’s bringing in talent. That is where the biggest failure lies.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - msqueri - 09-25-2022

Lex, you’re too defeatist about the transfer portal. Georgia, Clemson, and Iowa don’t shop at the transfer window either. The difference is the combination of recruiting, retention, coaching, and culture works for them. Some version of that, like the Iowa version, could be us. Our problem is we don’t get transfers AND we don’t retain key players AND we don’t coach well. Until we’ve fixed those other things and still failed in the new environment I won’t buy all the talk that we can’t compete in the new environment.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - MV72018 - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 02:10 AM)Austroturf Wrote: The actual presser lasted a shade over 9 minutes. In his opening remarks, Shaw said the following:

-- It was a tough loss.
-- Noisy stadium, but team coped well.

Offense:
-- Injuries hurt us. Both starting tackles out, with Rouse returning but not at 100%.
-- Blocking was therefore a problem.
-- Turnovers were a problem.
-- Therefore: limited offensive effectiveness.

Defense:
-- Have to limit big plays.

Overall:
-- There's a lot there for us.
-- Love our schemes
-- But not giving ourselves a chance to win.
-- Need to stay in it till the 4th quarter.
-- This team has so much more to give, etc.

There were 5 or 6 questions:
-- One addressed the slow-mesh offense and its lack of effectiveness. Shaw stated that the Huskies had a very "active defense", which plugged gaps and produced an effective pass rush.
-- Two questions addressed the individual performance of Filkins and Wilson. Both were highly praised.

That was about it. My comments:
-- The injury card has already resurfaced, and I suspect it is here to stay for the 2022 season.
-- Shaw's overall positive take on the team is not surprising. That's the nature of press-conferences. However, he did not trot out his "tiger in the weeds" statement. That would have been ridiculous.
-- Clearly, we do not have the depth on the O-line that Shaw claimed we had prior to the season. Calling UW's defense "active" is just a way of saying that they beat us at the LOS and disrupted our offense. Gee, that's what defenses do for a living if you let them.
-- His positive view of Filkins and how he can eventually pair up with Smith to form a top-level running back duo is fine, but that assumes they both stay with the program. Our previous running back duo (Jones and Peat) is gone, with both plying their trade for other teams. If Filkins and Smith are both promising, do they stay?
-- The tone was obviously subdued, and Shaw clearly wanted to get the press conference over with as soon as possible. I think we will see a lot of similar pressers this year. I can't imagine the one next week after the Oregon game will be much different. Hope I am wrong, but this is where we are right now.

The blocking problem wasn't just b/c of injuries at the tackle position. UW outside rushers were coming in virtually unimpeded all night and sacking or disrupting McKee. I seem to recall that tight ends used to help out with blocking to protect the QB, no?

8 sacks. Good lord. Part of the problem: McKee has zero escapability. The glacially unfolding RPO didn't impress me. A number of times, the run option was stopped cold. Given UW's rush our lousy blocking, the "pass option" wasn't available.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Spiny_Norman - 09-25-2022

I am not giving much weight to the injury excuse either. UW's DL was dominating Stanford's OL before Rouse was injured. Even if he had remained uninjured, I don't think things would have been much different. You could tell from the 1st series that it would be a long night for the offense.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - lex24 - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 10:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: Lex, you’re too defeatist about the transfer portal. Georgia, Clemson, and Iowa don’t shop at the transfer window either. The difference is the combination of recruiting, retention, coaching, and culture works for them. Some version of that, like the Iowa version, could be us. Our problem is we don’t get transfers AND we don’t retain key players AND we don’t coach well. Until we’ve fixed those other things and still failed in the new environment I won’t buy all the talk that we can’t compete in the new environment.

Well, I’m not going to compare Stanford to either Clemson or Georgia. In any aspect. Iowa, sure. Unfortunately Iowa still does what Stanford used to be. Control ball, win in trenches. Not exciting. And Iowa is never going to challenge for a spit in the Championship series. But they are generally always in the 8-10 win range.

The transfer portal is a big negative relative to every other PAC 12 team. I don’t see how there is any argument to the contrary.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - murky - 09-25-2022

One thing I recall from my earlier fan days when our offenses were exciting, and defense questionable, was that the QB routinely through the ball away if there wasn't a play to be made.

Have we ever had a season with our QB sacked more times than he threw the ball away? We probably have more turnovers than throw aways.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - msqueri - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 12:58 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(09-25-2022, 10:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: Lex, you’re too defeatist about the transfer portal. Georgia, Clemson, and Iowa don’t shop at the transfer window either. The difference is the combination of recruiting, retention, coaching, and culture works for them. Some version of that, like the Iowa version, could be us. Our problem is we don’t get transfers AND we don’t retain key players AND we don’t coach well. Until we’ve fixed those other things and still failed in the new environment I won’t buy all the talk that we can’t compete in the new environment.

Well, I’m not going to compare Stanford to either Clemson or Georgia. In any aspect. Iowa, sure. Unfortunately Iowa still does what Stanford used to be. Control ball, win in trenches. Not exciting. And Iowa is never going to challenge for a spit in the Championship series. But they are generally always in the 8-10 win range.

The transfer portal is a big negative relative to every other PAC 12 team. I don’t see how there is any argument to the contrary.

Whether it's a negative relative to "every other PAC 12 team" remains to be seen and depends not just on our ability to shop for transfers but in our ability to retain our own best talent. If we can have a fun and fulfilling football experience or rebuild a culture of commitment and camaraderie rather than a culture of leaving, we very well could be less adversely affected by the transfer portal than several other conference foes. There's a world in which Stanford is less affected, for good or for ill, by the portal than other teams. You can only see the downside vis-a-vis other teams that "shop." But there are winners and losers and some of the losers will be in the Pac-12. To the extent it's a conference in decline the Pac-12 could actually be systematically more of a loser than winner, especially once USC is gone.

This is not theoretical, just look at this past off-season. Arizona State and Colorado were two of the biggest losers to the portal nationally. Heck, many categorized Oregon as a loser too.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - qwerty49 - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 07:40 AM)gailtate Wrote:
(09-25-2022, 02:10 AM)Austroturf Wrote: The actual presser lasted a shade over 9 minutes. In his opening remarks, Shaw said the following:

-- It was a tough loss.
-- Noisy stadium, but team coped well.

Offense:
-- Injuries hurt us. Both starting tackles out, with Rouse returning but not at 100%.
-- Blocking was therefore a problem.
-- Turnovers were a problem.
-- Therefore: limited offensive effectiveness.

Defense:
-- Have to limit big plays.

Overall:
-- There's a lot there for us.
-- Love our schemes
-- But not giving ourselves a chance to win.
-- Need to stay in it till the 4th quarter.
-- This team has so much more to give, etc.

There were 5 or 6 questions:
-- One addressed the slow-mesh offense and its lack of effectiveness. Shaw stated that the Huskies had a very "active defense", which plugged gaps and produced an effective pass rush.
-- Two questions addressed the individual performance of Filkins and Wilson. Both were highly praised.

That was about it. My comments:
-- The injury card has already resurfaced, and I suspect it is here to stay for the 2022 season.
-- Shaw's overall positive take on the team is not surprising. That's the nature of press-conferences. However, he did not trot out his "tiger in the weeds" statement. That would have been ridiculous.
-- Clearly, we do not have the depth on the O-line that Shaw claimed we had prior to the season. Calling UW's defense "active" is just a way of saying that they beat us at the LOS and disrupted our offense. Gee, that's what defenses do for a living if you let them.
-- His positive view of Filkins and how he can eventually pair up with Smith to form a top-level running back duo is fine, but that assumes they both stay with the program. Our previous running back duo (Jones and Peat) is gone, with both plying their trade for other teams. If Filkins and Smith are both promising, do they stay?
-- The tone was obviously subdued, and Shaw clearly wanted to get the press conference over with as soon as possible. I think we will see a lot of similar pressers this year. I can't imagine the one next week after the Oregon game will be much different. Hope I am wrong, but this is where we are right now.

You are not wrong and this is exactly where Shaw and his program are. And will likely remain.

I think we all agree Shaw is a great representative of the University. Why not kick him upstairs --- give him Muir's job. Shaw as AD would add to everybody's brand. I'm trying hard to remember an instance where Muir has added value since he was hired.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - lex24 - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 01:20 PM)msqueri Wrote:
(09-25-2022, 12:58 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(09-25-2022, 10:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: Lex, you’re too defeatist about the transfer portal. Georgia, Clemson, and Iowa don’t shop at the transfer window either. The difference is the combination of recruiting, retention, coaching, and culture works for them. Some version of that, like the Iowa version, could be us. Our problem is we don’t get transfers AND we don’t retain key players AND we don’t coach well. Until we’ve fixed those other things and still failed in the new environment I won’t buy all the talk that we can’t compete in the new environment.

Well, I’m not going to compare Stanford to either Clemson or Georgia. In any aspect. Iowa, sure. Unfortunately Iowa still does what Stanford used to be. Control ball, win in trenches. Not exciting. And Iowa is never going to challenge for a spit in the Championship series. But they are generally always in the 8-10 win range.

The transfer portal is a big negative relative to every other PAC 12 team. I don’t see how there is any argument to the contrary.

Whether it's a negative relative to "every other PAC 12 team" remains to be seen and depends not just on our ability to shop for transfers but in our ability to retain our own best talent. If we can have a fun and fulfilling football experience or rebuild a culture of commitment and camaraderie rather than a culture of leaving, we very well could be less adversely affected by the transfer portal than several other conference foes. There's a world in which Stanford is less affected, for good or for ill, by the portal than other teams. You can only see the downside vis-a-vis other teams that "shop." But there are winners and losers and some of the losers will be in the Pac-12. To the extent it's a conference in decline the Pac-12 could actually be systematically more of a loser than winner, especially once USC is gone.

This is not theoretical, just look at this past off-season. Arizona State and Colorado were two of the biggest losers to the portal nationally. Heck, many categorized Oregon as a loser too.

Simply put, I’d rather have the option to recruit again through the portal than be in a position where I can only lose players through the portal. I don’t think that’s debatable.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - winflop - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 02:59 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:
(09-25-2022, 07:40 AM)gailtate Wrote:
(09-25-2022, 02:10 AM)Austroturf Wrote: The actual presser lasted a shade over 9 minutes. In his opening remarks, Shaw said the following:

-- It was a tough loss.
-- Noisy stadium, but team coped well.

Offense:
-- Injuries hurt us. Both starting tackles out, with Rouse returning but not at 100%.
-- Blocking was therefore a problem.
-- Turnovers were a problem.
-- Therefore: limited offensive effectiveness.

Defense:
-- Have to limit big plays.

Overall:
-- There's a lot there for us.
-- Love our schemes
-- But not giving ourselves a chance to win.
-- Need to stay in it till the 4th quarter.
-- This team has so much more to give, etc.

There were 5 or 6 questions:
-- One addressed the slow-mesh offense and its lack of effectiveness. Shaw stated that the Huskies had a very "active defense", which plugged gaps and produced an effective pass rush.
-- Two questions addressed the individual performance of Filkins and Wilson. Both were highly praised.

That was about it. My comments:
-- The injury card has already resurfaced, and I suspect it is here to stay for the 2022 season.
-- Shaw's overall positive take on the team is not surprising. That's the nature of press-conferences. However, he did not trot out his "tiger in the weeds" statement. That would have been ridiculous.
-- Clearly, we do not have the depth on the O-line that Shaw claimed we had prior to the season. Calling UW's defense "active" is just a way of saying that they beat us at the LOS and disrupted our offense. Gee, that's what defenses do for a living if you let them.
-- His positive view of Filkins and how he can eventually pair up with Smith to form a top-level running back duo is fine, but that assumes they both stay with the program. Our previous running back duo (Jones and Peat) is gone, with both plying their trade for other teams. If Filkins and Smith are both promising, do they stay?
-- The tone was obviously subdued, and Shaw clearly wanted to get the press conference over with as soon as possible. I think we will see a lot of similar pressers this year. I can't imagine the one next week after the Oregon game will be much different. Hope I am wrong, but this is where we are right now.

You are not wrong and this is exactly where Shaw and his program are. And will likely remain.

I think we all agree Shaw is a great representative of the University. Why not kick him upstairs --- give him Muir's job. Shaw as AD would add to everybody's brand.  I'm trying hard to remember an instance where Muir has added value since he was hired.

Not in a million years. Shaw has demonstrated that he has no clue on how to hire good coaches

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - lex24 - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 01:20 PM)msqueri Wrote:
(09-25-2022, 12:58 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(09-25-2022, 10:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: Lex, you’re too defeatist about the transfer portal. Georgia, Clemson, and Iowa don’t shop at the transfer window either. The difference is the combination of recruiting, retention, coaching, and culture works for them. Some version of that, like the Iowa version, could be us. Our problem is we don’t get transfers AND we don’t retain key players AND we don’t coach well. Until we’ve fixed those other things and still failed in the new environment I won’t buy all the talk that we can’t compete in the new environment.

Well, I’m not going to compare Stanford to either Clemson or Georgia. In any aspect. Iowa, sure. Unfortunately Iowa still does what Stanford used to be. Control ball, win in trenches. Not exciting. And Iowa is never going to challenge for a spit in the Championship series. But they are generally always in the 8-10 win range.

The transfer portal is a big negative relative to every other PAC 12 team. I don’t see how there is any argument to the contrary.

Whether it's a negative relative to "every other PAC 12 team" remains to be seen and depends not just on our ability to shop for transfers but in our ability to retain our own best talent. If we can have a fun and fulfilling football experience or rebuild a culture of commitment and camaraderie rather than a culture of leaving, we very well could be less adversely affected by the transfer portal than several other conference foes. There's a world in which Stanford is less affected, for good or for ill, by the portal than other teams. You can only see the downside vis-a-vis other teams that "shop." But there are winners and losers and some of the losers will be in the Pac-12. To the extent it's a conference in decline the Pac-12 could actually be systematically more of a loser than winner, especially once USC is gone.

This is not theoretical, just look at this past off-season. Arizona State and Colorado were two of the biggest losers to the portal nationally. Heck, many categorized Oregon as a loser too.

Simply put, I’d rather have the option to recruit again through the portal than be in a position where I can only lose players through the portal. I don’t think that’s debatable.

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - cardcrimson - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 08:26 PM)lex24 Wrote: Simply put, I’d rather have the option to recruit again through the portal than be in a position where I can only lose players through the portal. I don’t think that’s debatable.

If Shaw were to think strategically, he'd tell guys he likes can't quite make admissions out of high school, to push hard the first year or two in college, and we'll find a place for you. . . .

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - BostonCard - 09-25-2022

I think the most challenging aspect of the portal is keeping kids who graduate, but have eligibility left (fifth year seniors, typically, but also sometimes guys who graduate after three years).

Those guys have gotten their Stanford degree. They have an option of picking up a master’s degree for free. Ironically, they have to apply to the school they are already in (and be accepted), while they can grad transfer to another school via the portal for minimal effort. That’s going to be an uphill climb, especially for those who’ve been impacted by COVID and have an extra year of eligibility.

No amount of “fun and fulfilling football experience” or “a culture of commitment and camaraderie” fixes it if guys with eligibility remaining find their only path (or path with least resistance) to a graduate degree involves a graduate transfer.

BC

RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - newguy - 09-25-2022

(09-25-2022, 02:59 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I think we all agree Shaw is a great representative of the University. Why not kick him upstairs --- give him Muir's job. Shaw as AD would add to everybody's brand. I'm trying hard to remember an instance where Muir has added value since he was hired.

i don't know how likely this scenario is, but personally, i think it's a great idea.