Stanford to the ACC? - 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: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.html)
+- 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: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.html)
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-20-2023
That's a good point, Big John. I think there are two ways to look at this, perception and reality.
In perception, using a data set I compiled on frequency of top 25 teams, the ACC has 4.5 of the all-time powers (Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech plus Notre Dame plays half an ACC schedule) and 5.5 of the 21st century powers (Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Miami, Louisville plus Notre Dame plays half an ACC schedule). The current Pac-12 has 3 all-time powers (USC, UCLA, Washington) with zero among the remnants and 4 21st century powers (USC, Oregon, Utah, Stanford) with one among the remnants. From a mainstream American sports perspective looking at historical relevance in the eyes of AP polls, the ACC looks stronger than where we're coming from (and of course massively stronger than trying to align with the remnants).
In reality, you are right that the ACC has not been a strong football conference in recent years. I like to look at the algorithms that judge conference quality. To get insight into this, I'll look at the Sagarin conference rankings for the last five years excluding 2020 (since a pandemic-shortened season deprived college football of non-conference contests and any way to legitimately compare across conferences):
2017 ACC: 78.29
2017 Pac-12: 76.07
2022 Pac-12: 75.71
2019 Pac-12: 75.71
2018 Pac-12: 75.43
2018 ACC: 75.19
2022 ACC: 73.84
2021 ACC: 73.12
2021 Pac-12: 72.87
2019 ACC: 71.29
The bottom line is the Pac-12 has tended to be stronger whether you look at median, mean, or most of the top years.
I think in moving to the ACC we'd be moving to an easier conference than our current conference and one that most people think is stronger. Because it has a perception of being stronger and is much more proximate to football talent hotbeds, it would also significantly improve our recruiting. We would also be signing ourselves up for more sluggish games (I don't think we can avoid that some of our games would be before 3:30pm Eastern and those games will be challenges), but on balance this would be a fantastic result for our football program. Live to fight another day, enhance program prestige and competitiveness, quietly find an easier conference to compete in than what fell apart around us.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-20-2023
(08-20-2023, 01:22 PM)msqueri Wrote: I think in moving to the ACC we'd be moving to an easier conference than our current conference and one that most people think is stronger. Because it has a perception of being stronger and is much more proximate to football talent hotbeds, it would also significantly improve our recruiting.Possibly, but there are good counter-arguments. While we would be playing half our games on the East coast, all our home games (and probably most of our out of conference games) would be thousands of miles away to the West. If someone wants to stay home, it wouldn't be that at all. We already do recruit nationally, so it is not as if we never got recruits from that area of the country anyway. No matter how one looks at it, we would be neither fish nor fowl, not a "West coast" school, because we play our conference games in the East. Not an "East coast" school because we play all our home games in the West. Not clear this is an advantage at all IMHO.
Quote:We would also be signing ourselves up for more sluggish games (I don't think we can avoid that some of our games would be before 3:30pm Eastern and those games will be challenges), but on balance this would be a fantastic result for our football program. Live to fight another day, enhance program prestige and competitiveness, quietly find an easier conference to compete in than what fell apart around us.There is certainly an argument to the "live to fight another day" approach. I do think we could do well in the ACC. I do not share your optimism about enhancing our program prestige for exactly the reason you cite. The ACC is "sinking", both in national appeal and in football success. There is a delay factor in the world recognizing this, but it will eventually. The exact same forces that destroyed the PAC-12 are at work, just perhaps a few years behind. Right now, the only thing keeping the "top" schools in the ACC is the GOR. It isn't "healthy". Attaching ourselves to it may just dump is in the same mess in two years. We don't know. Whether that is "worth it" depends a lot on the deal itself. If it was a full, equal membership in the ACC, probably it is worth a try IMO. If we are a "stepchild", or even Rutgers 2.0, I don't think it enhances our prestige at all, quite the opposite. As the deal goes downhill from "full and equal", I become less and less convinced it is worth the risks involved. Let's see what, if anything, we are offered.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Giants - 08-20-2023
(08-20-2023, 12:18 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote:(08-20-2023, 10:46 AM)msqueri Wrote: Mick, you've badly misread Stanford football's prospects going forward. It's not all sunshine and rainbows and we do face significant challenges, but you're over-reacting to a low point, just as many associated with Stanford did following the 1983, 1988, 1994, 2004, and 2006 seasons. Taylor may or may not be the coach to bring Stanford out of the doldrums but it certainly isn't the case that outlier bad seasons represent the ceiling for Stanford football. To address some of your points:
* Yes, we were bad the last couple of years. But turnarounds do happen. I've previously come up with 50 examples. There are probably 2-3 new coaches a year who go on to execute a turnaround of a flailing Power Five program. Given the significant advantages Power Five programs have, it averages about to about a 50/50 chance an attempted turnaround works to some extent. To me there is no question that if Stanford remains in a major conference there is a chance we can return to football relevance. It's a tossup whether Taylor can do it, but if he can't and Stanford can manage to stay in a power conference, the post-Taylor coach would have a chance too.
* I wonder if you know what you're talking about in saying Stanford hasn't figured out NIL. I think there's an important extent to which nobody has figured NIL out because it's new and evolving and, coupled with the transfer portal, creates retention and attrition dynamics that are very hard to navigate. We aren't the only school that sees contributors transfer out. I also wonder how much you know about the operations of Lifetime Cardinal. The press reports on it, at least, suggest significant and arguably competitive NIL efforts. In our current 2024 class we have a commitment from a player with a $190,000 NIL valuation. Going forward it remains to be seen what NIL deals Stanford players get, how this gets regulated by Congress, and other factors, and I don't think we (at least I) have enough information to say what it means for our competitive prospects going forward.
* Yes, we were decimated by the transfer portal. But that's something that affects our 2024 one year prospects, not something that should be used to cite whether we're major or minor going forward. We had the convergence of a bottoming out in football, transfer-conducive national environment, previous coach who built a program that encouraged individualism/40 year decisions/graduate degrees at the expense of team and football goals, and a coaching transition. Stanford's susceptibility to transfers going forward is another thing that remains to be seen, as does the ability to recruit higher quality transfers. Of course a losing program didn't get high quality transfers. But if you took the current national transfer environment and Stanford's current receptivity/admissions leeway for transfers and paired it with a football program at the level of where Stanford was from 2010-2017, the quality of transfers would have been much higher. If Taylor can start to turn around the program, transfers will look better than they did in 2023. I don't think we will ever rank high in transfer portal rankings, but if we can be #40 or #50 and pair that with top 20 (or even top 40) high school recruiting, that is very much major conference-competitive talent. And keep in mind that high school recruiting is easier now that so many programs are focused on transfers. The transfer portal is no more of a guaranteed death knell than NIL is. [By the way, it's incidental to the larger point but you had several factual errors in your logic. For example, our starting LT actually is poised to be a former 4-star recruit who looks quite promising. I assume you are talking about Alec Bank, who at no point has been a starter in camp last I heard.]
* Taylor will have a chance to prove Stanford made a good call with his hire. We'll see. I strongly believe that it was the type of budget hire Stanford always makes and shows less commitment to competing as a major college program than I think would be optimal or that the vast majority of power programs demonstrate. At the same time, Taylor has a resume, staff, and personal approach that very well could succeed. Jim Harbaugh is an obvious example of the right mentality and staff succeeding even with no prior major college football head coaching experience.
* It deserves a separate post but you are too defeatist about our 2023 schedule. I ran the numbers earlier and David Shaw’s crappy, demoralized, joyless, bad QB play, zero running backs by the end of the season, hapless defense with overmatched linemen 2022 abomination of a team would have been expected to win 3.59 games against this 2023 schedule. Three to five wins is not some radical exercise in optimism. It's common sense confronted with a schedule this favorable. Much more I can say about this and we can go there if you'd like, but predicting one win is radically pessimistic. To start, we are touchdown favorites for a game you're counting as a loss!
* Granted we'd be joining a tougher league with more challenging travel, but joining a tougher league with much closer proximity to football talent bases would very significantly boost our recruiting.
Why do people think the ACC will be tough? Per Sagarin, the P12 North was the 5th best division ahead of the ACC Atlantic at 6 and the Coastal at 10. In moving to the ACC we are going to an easier conference not a harder one.
Outside of Clemson, who exactly is good at football in the ACC?
I think Florida State is better than Clemson. If (a big if) they can beat LSU in their season opener, I wouldn’t be surprised to them make the playoffs this year. Also, UNC is a preseason Top 25 team.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - BayAreaCardinal - 08-20-2023
Quote:Outside of Clemson, who exactly is good at football in the ACC?
Quote:I think Florida State is better than Clemson. If (a big if) they can beat LSU in their season opener, I wouldn’t be surprised to them make the playoffs this year. Also, UNC is a preseason Top 25 team.
Florida State is a bunch of hype with no results right now. They are NOT as good as everyone thinks. They beat LSU on a fluke missed extra point last year. If they play LSU again at the end of the season, FSU gets creamed. Also, FSU was 0-3 against ranked teams last year.
Clemson is still the class of the ACC until otherwise demonstrated.
Mack Brown is the most underachieving coach in the entire ACC. He has won the least with the most amount of talent. UNC has offense with Drake Maye, but their defense is horrible. They will only go as far as their bad defense takes them.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Spiny_Norman - 08-20-2023
I see the ACC as a life raft, not a rescue ship. But it could keep all of the other programs alive. The ACC is nationally competitive in many sports beyond basketball and football. They have teams that compete at a national level in:
Men's Cross Country (3 in the top 11 at last year's NCAA meet)
Women's Cross Country (NC State is the defending NC)
Men's and Women's Soccer
Men's and Women's Tennis
Men's and Women's Golf
Women's Swimming (Men's not as much)
Women's Volleyball (Louisville and Pitt are top 5)
Softball (Florida St, Duke, Clemson all top 10)
Women's lacrosse
Field hockey
My reading-between-the-lines of the strong push for ACC membership is that the Stanford leaders (including their advisors) see the ACC as an attempt to maintain a well-rounded, nationally competitive athletics program for the time being. Stanford could continue to pitch recruits (and coaches) in those sports that they will get to compete against the best if Stanford joins the ACC. I think recruiting would suffer in non-football and non-basketball sports in a reconstituted Pac 10 with SD State, Fresno St, UNLV, etc. Stanford could lose coaches as well.
Whether or not you think that is true, Stanford seems to see it that way. Their offer to take a significantly reduced share or no media rights fees at all (if true) speaks to their desperation.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - BobK - 08-20-2023
I certainly agree with you Spiny. I don’t like it given the travel but we seem be be beggars
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - crazypaco - 08-20-2023
(08-20-2023, 06:43 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I see the ACC as a life raft, not a rescue ship. But it could keep all of the other programs alive. The ACC is nationally competitive in many sports beyond basketball and football. They have teams that compete at a national level in:
Men's Cross Country (3 in the top 11 at last year's NCAA meet)
Women's Cross Country (NC State is the defending NC)
Men's and Women's Soccer
Men's and Women's Tennis
Men's and Women's Golf
Women's Swimming (Men's not as much)
Women's Volleyball (Louisville and Pitt are top 5)
Softball (Florida St, Duke, Clemson all top 10)
Women's lacrosse
Field hockey
My reading-between-the-lines of the strong push for ACC membership is that the Stanford leaders (including their advisors) see the ACC as an attempt to maintain a well-rounded, nationally competitive athletics program for the time being. Stanford could continue to pitch recruits (and coaches) in those sports that they will get to compete against the best if Stanford joins the ACC. I think recruiting would suffer in non-football and non-basketball sports in a reconstituted Pac 10 with SD State, Fresno St, UNLV, etc. Stanford could lose coaches as well.
Whether or not you think that is true, Stanford seems to see it that way. Their offer to take a significantly reduced share or no media rights fees at all (if true) speaks to their desperation.
And men's lax.
ACC schools won 9 team NCAA championships this past year, the most of any conference. And ACC teams were national championship finalists in 5 additional sports, with 26 total final four teams.
And it is crazy deep in many sports like soccer and lax.
It is arguably the best all-around sports conference. Its members collectively have the highest mean US News ranking. Its membership comprises a mix of small to medium-sized schools with enrollments of 9K to 45K (avg 25K) including 7 with AAU membership among its 6 private, 1 private-public hybrid, 5 public, and 3 public land-grant schools. Institutionally, the ACC is probably the best current fit for Stanford except for the unfortunate nature of its geography.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Spiny_Norman - 08-20-2023
(08-20-2023, 07:11 PM)crazypaco Wrote: And men's lax.
ACC schools won 9 team NCAA championships this past year, the most of any conference. And member teams were a national championship finalist in 5 additional sports, with 26 total final four teams.
And it is crazy deep in many sports like soccer and lax.
It is arguably the best all-around sports conference.
Stanford does not have a men's lax team. But maybe they would add one if joining the ACC. ESPN certainly loves it. And so does the Capital One Cup where men's lax gets triple points, same as football, basketball, baseball and soccer.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - cctop - 08-20-2023
(08-20-2023, 08:12 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Conferences are not going to last much longer. College Football needs a national league like the NFL with 60-70 members divided by region, separate from the NCAA and conferences. It's NFL lite, and yes, players are going to be paid in this structure. It's only a matter of time.
I can see this happening, except that a new college league will be somewhere around 32 teams like the NFL.
Now that TV money has been shown to be driving the bus, when ESPN & FOX offer the big schools an extra $20-30 million per year to leave the small schools behind, the presidents won't say no.
The question is whether the NFL will get involved since 1) they'll want a piece of the pie, and 2) it's in their interest to have more players to draft from.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Mick - 08-20-2023
(08-20-2023, 10:46 AM)msqueri Wrote: Mick, you've badly misread Stanford football's prospects going forward. It's not all sunshine and rainbows and we do face significant challenges, but you're over-reacting to a low point, just as many associated with Stanford did following the 1983, 1988, 1994, 2004, and 2006 seasons. Taylor may or may not be the coach to bring Stanford out of the doldrums but it certainly isn't the case that outlier bad seasons represent the ceiling for Stanford football. To address some of your points:
* Yes, we were bad the last couple of years. But turnarounds do happen. I've previously come up with 50 examples. There are probably 2-3 new coaches a year who go on to execute a turnaround of a flailing Power Five program. Given the significant advantages Power Five programs have, it averages about to about a 50/50 chance an attempted turnaround works to some extent. To me there is no question that if Stanford remains in a major conference there is a chance we can return to football relevance. It's a tossup whether Taylor can do it, but if he can't and Stanford can manage to stay in a power conference, the post-Taylor coach would have a chance too.
* I wonder if you know what you're talking about in saying Stanford hasn't figured out NIL. I think there's an important extent to which nobody has figured NIL out because it's new and evolving and, coupled with the transfer portal, creates retention and attrition dynamics that are very hard to navigate. We aren't the only school that sees contributors transfer out. I also wonder how much you know about the operations of Lifetime Cardinal. The press reports on it, at least, suggest significant and arguably competitive NIL efforts. In our current 2024 class we have a commitment from a player with a $190,000 NIL valuation. Going forward it remains to be seen what NIL deals Stanford players get, how this gets regulated by Congress, and other factors, and I don't think we (at least I) have enough information to say what it means for our competitive prospects going forward.
* Yes, we were decimated by the transfer portal. But that's something that affects our 2024 one year prospects, not something that should be used to cite whether we're major or minor going forward. We had the convergence of a bottoming out in football, transfer-conducive national environment, previous coach who built a program that encouraged individualism/40 year decisions/graduate degrees at the expense of team and football goals, and a coaching transition. Stanford's susceptibility to transfers going forward is another thing that remains to be seen, as does the ability to recruit higher quality transfers. Of course a losing program didn't get high quality transfers. But if you took the current national transfer environment and Stanford's current receptivity/admissions leeway for transfers and paired it with a football program at the level of where Stanford was from 2010-2017, the quality of transfers would have been much higher. If Taylor can start to turn around the program, transfers will look better than they did in 2023. I don't think we will ever rank high in transfer portal rankings, but if we can be #40 or #50 and pair that with top 20 (or even top 40) high school recruiting, that is very much major conference-competitive talent. And keep in mind that high school recruiting is easier now that so many programs are focused on transfers. The transfer portal is no more of a guaranteed death knell than NIL is. [By the way, it's incidental to the larger point but you had several factual errors in your logic. For example, our starting LT actually is poised to be a former 4-star recruit who looks quite promising. I assume you are talking about Alec Bank, who at no point has been a starter in camp last I heard.]
* Taylor will have a chance to prove Stanford made a good call with his hire. We'll see. I strongly believe that it was the type of budget hire Stanford always makes and shows less commitment to competing as a major college program than I think would be optimal or that the vast majority of power programs demonstrate. At the same time, Taylor has a resume, staff, and personal approach that very well could succeed. Jim Harbaugh is an obvious example of the right mentality and staff succeeding even with no prior major college football head coaching experience.
* It deserves a separate post but you are too defeatist about our 2023 schedule. I ran the numbers earlier and David Shaw’s crappy, demoralized, joyless, bad QB play, zero running backs by the end of the season, hapless defense with overmatched linemen 2022 abomination of a team would have been expected to win 3.59 games against this 2023 schedule. Three to five wins is not some radical exercise in optimism. It's common sense confronted with a schedule this favorable. Much more I can say about this and we can go there if you'd like, but predicting one win is radically pessimistic. To start, we are touchdown favorites for a game you're counting as a loss!
* Granted we'd be joining a tougher league with more challenging travel, but joining a tougher league with much closer proximity to football talent bases would very significantly boost our recruiting.
I respect your opinion and analysis. It's a thoughtful approach, and I always enjoy reading your posts. To your points:
- I don't think we're at a low point. I certainly hope we are, after consecutive 3-9 seasons. I think there are depths yet to be plumbed.
- The transfer-conducive environment isn't going away after this year, unless you have inside information that Stanford will throw open its doors to transfers. I would welcome that environment. I hope it materializes.
- I think the NIL environment is anathema to amateur athletics. I'm not saying Stanford is avoiding it, failing to embrace it, or can't understand it. I think they are moving more slowly and with less imagination and flexibility than other programs to succeed, in spite of the anecdotal evidence that you presented.
- Re: the factual errors, both Bank and Mayberry were cited as likely to start by Sports Illustrated, hence my comment. I will retract when Stanford announces its depth chart.
- Harbaugh had a substantial NFL resume, and strong coaching relationships and EUTM. I don't think Taylor will be as successful. I certainly hope he will be successful.
- Totally agree with you that the national exposure will boost Stanford football recruiting, I've made that same point in the last week or so on this board.
How about a friendly wager on the total number of wins and bowl games in 2023, and collectively over the next three years?
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - OutsiderFan - 08-20-2023
Things can change, but right now Stanford would have the #4 ranked ACC recruiting class.
https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/where-stanfords-2024-recruiting-class-currently-ranks-compared-to-acc-programs
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - GK3 - 08-21-2023
I believe that Taylor has not been given enough credit either for his coaching ability or his ability to attract good assistant coaches and recruit good players. As I recall Harbaugh came in with sort of the same kind of record. He didn't do badly. If Shaw had had the ability to tell someone he was non performing and he was no longer part of the Stanford staff, things might have been different. Shaw's greatest weakness in my opinion was his inability to demand excellence from his staff and if they didn't cut it, to let them go.
Count me in the small group that thinks Taylor will exceed expectations. How the NIL and transfer portal play out are to some extent dependent on the Universities stance on these issues. At some point soon they are going to have say we are ok with this but not with that. That has to happen. The coaches in all sports need to know what the University will tolerate.
I personally like the ACC because it is also a very strong basketball conference and very good in the other so-called minor sports. If we are recruiting in basketball pointing to a schedule that includes Duke and NC will mean something to the high school prospects.
Travel and travel costs can be an issue, but we had one academic year where most everything was on line, there will be more of that for our student athletes.
Home games every other year with Florida State and Clemson would be attractive games. Home games in basketball every other year will be attractive when NC and Duke come to town. Having Cal in deal is attractive since you could have those same teams playing two games on the west coast every other year.
Besides, I sort of like NC, one of my best friends at Stanford taught at NC for years and liked every minute of it, sorry to say he has now passed on. UNC gave my great grandfather an honorary degree years after the Civil War ended. He had been a Freshman at UNC when the war broke out and with his entire class went off to war.
Much of all this remains in limbo waiting for final University decisions and most probably court decisions. We just have to hope it works out the way we want.
One last add. I do not begrudge our players in any sport who graduate in 4 years and take the portal as an opportunity to get one year of grad school paid for. I do not believe we should encourage our players to work things out so they can redshirt one year and graduate in 5 and then have to pay for that first year of grad school.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - SkiBum80 - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 01:51 AM)GK3 Wrote: I believe that Taylor has not been given enough credit either for his coaching ability or his ability to attract good assistant coaches and recruit good players. As I recall Harbaugh came in with sort of the same kind of record. He didn't do badly. If Shaw had had the ability to tell someone he was non performing and he was no longer part of the Stanford staff, things might have been different. Shaw's greatest weakness in my opinion was his inability to demand excellence from his staff and if they didn't cut it, to let them go.Good points.
Count me in the small group that thinks Taylor will exceed expectations. How the NIL and transfer portal play out are to some extent dependent on the Universities stance on these issues. At some point soon they are going to have say we are ok with this but not with that. That has to happen. The coaches in all sports need to know what the University will tolerate.
I personally like the ACC because it is also a very strong basketball conference and very good in the other so-called minor sports. If we are recruiting in basketball pointing to a schedule that includes Duke and NC will mean something to the high school prospects.
Travel and travel costs can be an issue, but we had one academic year where most everything was on line, there will be more of that for our student athletes.
Home games every other year with Florida State and Clemson would be attractive games. Home games in basketball every other year will be attractive when NC and Duke come to town. Having Cal in deal is attractive since you could have those same teams playing two games on the west coast every other year.
Besides, I sort of like NC, one of my best friends at Stanford taught at NC for years and liked every minute of it, sorry to say he has now passed on. UNC gave my great grandfather an honorary degree years after the Civil War ended. He had been a Freshman at UNC when the war broke out and with his entire class went off to war.
Much of all this remains in limbo waiting for final University decisions and most probably court decisions. We just have to hope it works out the way we want.
One last add. I do not begrudge our players in any sport who graduate in 4 years and take the portal as an opportunity to get one year of grad school paid for. I do not believe we should encourage our players to work things out so they can redshirt one year and graduate in 5 and then have to pay for that first year of grad school.
I think we'd all agree that being a successful college head coach has at least 2 big parts, game success, recruiting success.
In game success, Coach TT has already showed great game success at SacState.
OK fine it's not at Power PAC level.
So skepticism remains. Understood.
I am optimistic though on his creative offensive spread sets, relying on speed and deception to confuse defenses.
Kinda the opposite of our recent miserable experience with slow developing mesh that only gives the defensive front 7 more time to tee off on the ball handler.
But on recruiting, to mix metaphors, I think he's already hit it outta the park with 2024.
Especially given the crappy state of affairs handed to him.
Not sure about team EUTM, hope so, will see soon enough.
But I can personally vouch for EUTMR (enthusiasm unknown to me recently).
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-21-2023
Thanks, Mick. I appreciate the exchange and your perspective too. On the points you raised:
Low point: even if 2023 is 2-3 wins and/or #90-100 in the algorithms (the current expectation whereas Sagarin had us #87 last year), I view that as the denouement of Shaw's low point. In the normal rhythm of rebuilds, Taylor would have good prospects of doing better from there. It's an open question how much better but given our talent base it strikes me as unlikely we'd be flirting with sub-top 100 for long. In any case, I think the normal level for Stanford football performance is considerably better than where we are now. Shaw really screwed it up but getting a few years past Shaw should revert toward the mean a bit.
Transfers: the transfer-conducive environment isn't going away but what we've seen is Stanford willing to bring in 5-6 transfers a year and once we revert toward the Stanford mean the quality of those transfers will rise. Regardless, this environment creates advantages for Stanford in high school recruiting that we can use to somewhat mitigate the transfer disadvantage. Most importantly, Shaw was a perfect storm of environment, circumstance, philosophy, and personality pushing people out the door to a devastating extent and Taylor's move to a more fun and family-oriented environment will make it much easier for us to navigate the transfer environment (by keeping more players in the fold). If Taylor can couple that with actually winning the difference will be fundamental.
NIL: I'm not sure what makes my evidence any more anecdotal than yours. Elijah Brown is one person, but a $4 million NIL collective, as publicly reported, is a real number that as far as I can tell is a competitive foray into NIL. I honestly don't know whether Stanford is approaching NIL with more or less dispatch and imagination than other programs but I suspect you don't either. I think many fans focus on the eye-catching (anecdotal) stories of the most prominent NIL players and draw conclusions about where their school stands, but that's not a rigorous comparison. There are over 130 major college programs and high 60s (exact number TBD with the fate of the Pac-4 remnants) power programs. If Stanford is #25 or #30 in the NIL game that means it's actually a benefit to us. Too many people are throwing their hands up saying we can't compete with USC in NIL but that's the wrong way to think about this.
OL depth chart: Sports Illustrated is now a bogus aggregator rather than a new source and has indescribably less insight than the handful of people who follow Stanford football very closely. It is possible I will be surprised by the depth chart but I am comfortable saying Fisher Anderson is a bigger part of Stanford's future in the coming years than Alec Bank.
Harbaugh/Taylor comparisons: I don't think Taylor will be as successful as Harbaugh either. That would be quite a historic success. Harbaugh's NFL resume was good but a very high number of our new coaches played in the NFL too and one of the key ones, April, had a lot more NFL coaching experience than Harbaugh. Harbaugh had strong coaching relationships but so did Taylor. In fact, it's easy to make an argument that our new Chris Petersen-enabled coaching staff is stronger on paper than Harbaugh's initial Harbaugh family tree-enabled staff. Harbaugh had EUTM but Taylor has culture of love. It's inherently subjective to compare cultures and intangibles and certainly with the benefit of hindsight Harbaugh's worked spectacularly but all available evidence points to very strong culture, energy, and morale in our new staff too. In any case, the point is less to predict how Taylor will do compared to Harbaugh and more to say you could not have asked for a closer comparison resume-wise - former NFL QBs with limited (three years) but spectacular FCS level head coaching experience, a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done, young hungry staff (though Taylor's has far more established veteran guys too), a palpable sense of self and theory of change (and competitiveness). The bottom line is an FCS to Power Five leap is highly unusual and we are in the same situation as 2007 as putting on faith that the outstanding but limited track record, culture, and intangibles of the new guy will translate, but there's a lot of reason to be optimistic it will.
Wager going forward: My view is rebuilds take time and Stanford will win 3-5 games in 2023 and something like 12-16 over the next three years and it's a tossup whether we make a bowl, maybe a bit more likely than not so I'd probably predict one bowl. Do we have action?
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 07:50 AM)msqueri Wrote: In any case, the point is less to predict how Taylor will do compared to Harbaugh and more to say you could not have asked for a closer comparison resume-wise - former NFL QBs with limited (three years) but spectacular FCS level head coaching experience, a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done,Let's not get carried away here. TT failed spectacularly as the OC at Utah. I am sure you know that. It may be argued that the OC job at Utah is a difficult one based on the turnover there, but TT knew about that going in. He and the head coach saw the way ahead differently, and unsurprisingly TT lost that fight. He was basically pushed out of the strategic decision making mid-season and left at the end of the year.
That doesn't mean he was wrong about what he wanted to do, and it doesn't mean he isn't a good coach, and it doesn't mean he won't have success at Stanford. However is just isn't accurate to say "a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done". At the very least he massively misread that situation.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 08:36 AM)Goose Wrote:(08-21-2023, 07:50 AM)msqueri Wrote: In any case, the point is less to predict how Taylor will do compared to Harbaugh and more to say you could not have asked for a closer comparison resume-wise - former NFL QBs with limited (three years) but spectacular FCS level head coaching experience, a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done,Let's not get carried away here. TT failed spectacularly as the OC at Utah. I am sure you know that. It may be argued that the OC job at Utah is a difficult one based on the turnover there, but TT knew about that going in. He and the head coach saw the way ahead differently, and unsurprisingly TT lost that fight. He was basically pushed out of the strategic decision making mid-season and left at the end of the year.
That doesn't mean he was wrong about what he wanted to do, and it doesn't mean he isn't a good coach, and it doesn't mean he won't have success at Stanford. However is just isn't accurate to say "a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done". At the very least he massively misread that situation.
I know that Taylor coached at Utah and that there are some indications the parting may have been mutual but you are mistaken that he failed miserably at Utah. They were #52 and #75 in scoring offense his two years there, which compares to #55 and #60 in the two years preceding him (and #52, #66, #75, and #74 before that). Absolutely absurd to say he failed miserably. He was not what Whittingham wanted. That's the most you can say, that Whittingham did not set Taylor up for success because Whittingham hired something he didn't want, and perhaps that Taylor should not have taken a job that wasn't a perfect fit. But Taylor did just fine. Literally tied for the highest scoring offense rank in seven years in the one year he had "strategic decision making" as you put it.
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder whether being as successful as Whittingham's various OCs before he finally found one that clicked in the brief detour that was the Utah job disqualified from "essentially" succeeding at everything he's done. That was arguably the least successful chapter of Taylor's life and I'd say finishing sixth and ninth in the Pac-12 in scoring offense and matching the best national rank they'd had in seven years is the kind of "failed spectacularly" that makes my point.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 07:50 AM)msqueri Wrote: My view is rebuilds take time and Stanford will win 3-5 games in 2023 and something like 12-16 over the next three years...
Well written post. Here's what disappoints me. You are one of the more optimistic football fans and you are only predicting 4 to 5 wins per season for three years starting in 2024 if I understand correctly. I may die of old age before the football team has a winning season.
As a fan of many Olympic sports, we need the football team to be successful to get to the B1G if that is the eventual objective. Losing W/L records won't get it done.
If I may go off topic, Penn State recently had a welcoming event for incoming WVB players. At the event were cheerleaders and some band members. The incoming players introduced themselves and the coach spoke. That was it and the main gym was nearly filled up with student fans.
Hopefully the B1G is Stanford's ultimate goal. The WVB team would be playing before boisterous, capacity crowds at most conference road games which helps attract nationally elite prep players.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 08:48 AM)msqueri Wrote:Not at all accurate IMO. The first year that they did "just fine" they ran Whittingham's preferred offense. The second year TT tried to change things pretty fundamentally and at that point the wheels came off. They started poorly and he was removed from having any input on the team. The statistics you cite were obtained independent of TTs presence, not because of it. This is demonstrably the case in the second year. I really don't see any way his time at Utah could be described as a "success" in any sense of the word. Your attributing their best national ranking to a coach that was forced out is difficult to understand. If he were essential to the process he certainly would have been retained. He clearly was not, as he had no input the last 2/3 of the season. At the very least, he politically failed totally as he lost the confidence of the HC. You can't do that and be a successful assistant coach.(08-21-2023, 08:36 AM)Goose Wrote:(08-21-2023, 07:50 AM)msqueri Wrote: In any case, the point is less to predict how Taylor will do compared to Harbaugh and more to say you could not have asked for a closer comparison resume-wise - former NFL QBs with limited (three years) but spectacular FCS level head coaching experience, a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done,Let's not get carried away here. TT failed spectacularly as the OC at Utah. I am sure you know that. It may be argued that the OC job at Utah is a difficult one based on the turnover there, but TT knew about that going in. He and the head coach saw the way ahead differently, and unsurprisingly TT lost that fight. He was basically pushed out of the strategic decision making mid-season and left at the end of the year.
That doesn't mean he was wrong about what he wanted to do, and it doesn't mean he isn't a good coach, and it doesn't mean he won't have success at Stanford. However is just isn't accurate to say "a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done". At the very least he massively misread that situation.
I know that Taylor coached at Utah and that there are some indications the parting may have been mutual but you are mistaken that he failed miserably at Utah. They were #52 and #75 in scoring offense his two years there, which compares to #55 and #60 in the two years preceding him (and #52, #66, #75, and #74 before that). Absolutely absurd to say he failed miserably. He was not what Whittingham wanted. That's the most you can say, that Whittingham did not set Taylor up for success because Whittingham hired something he didn't want, and perhaps that Taylor should not have taken a job that wasn't a perfect fit. But Taylor did just fine. Literally tied for the highest scoring offense rank in seven years in the one year he had "strategic decision making" as you put it.
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder whether being as successful as Whittingham's various OCs before he finally found one that clicked in the brief detour that was the Utah job disqualified from "essentially" succeeding at everything he's done. That was arguably the least successful chapter of Taylor's life and I'd say finishing sixth and ninth in the Pac-12 in scoring offense and matching the best national rank they'd had in seven years is the kind of "failed spectacularly" that makes my point.
When you say "least successful chapter" I certainly agree. IMO in no way was it a success at all, other than perhaps convincing TT that he needed to be a head coach so that he could do what he believed was optimal, not what "the boss" wanted. One often does learn more from failure than success, and I am pretty sure this was the case at Utah.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 08:52 AM)paloalto Wrote:(08-21-2023, 07:50 AM)msqueri Wrote: My view is rebuilds take time and Stanford will win 3-5 games in 2023 and something like 12-16 over the next three years...
Well written post. Here's what disappoints me. You are one of the more optimistic football fans and you are only predicting 4 to 5 wins per season for three years starting in 2024 if I understand correctly. I may die of old age before the football team has a winning season.
As a fan of many Olympic sports, we need the football team to be successful to get to the B1G if that is the eventual objective. Losing W/L records won't get it done.
I was responding to Mick's friendly wager for the next three years, so my guess at a win total spanned 2023-2025. For 2023 I think the state of the program Taylor inherited was bleak enough that it takes time to build back up the fundamentals of a program. Just too much program rot and attrition to make a winning season a likely bet. For 2024 and 2025 I am buoyed by some optimism we'll be further along in the rebuild, but also view the 2023 schedule as unusually easy in terms of racking up some wins (it's unusually hard in terms of winning the conference because of strength at the top but in terms of how the winnable games set up it's an absolute gift). Truth be told, 2024 and 2025 are complete wild cards and it is somewhat foolish of me or Mick or anybody else to predict wins.....we don't even know who we'll be playing! Candidly, I sometimes forget this in forecasting out because everything I've ever known is the Pac-12 with a credible non-conference schedule. We know those days are ending in five months and don't know what comes after. Predicting win totals for 2024 and 2025 depends a lot on if we are playing in a conference and what quality that conference is if so, and what kind of independent schedule we can muster if not. A winning season could be super easy in 2024 and 2025 if we're independent and playing minor programs all year, but that would be cold comfort. Importantly, it would do nothing for our program prestige, recruiting, and revenue.
What we need to eventually get to - and we may be racing extinction if things break poorly in terms of conference alignment - is occasional top 25 seasons. Nothing else is relevant. And the more infrequent those top 25 seasons are the less relevant we will be. Getting back to a bowl would be deeply cathartic and welcome, but we don't move needles in alignment or recruiting without 8+ win seasons in a major conference or 10+ win seasons as an independent or minor conference team. So the hill is a steep one.
I do not think I am all that optimistic compared to most Stanford fans, by the way. I follow Stanford football obsessively on the subscription-only Cardinal Sports Report and 247 site (formerly The Bootleg) as well as here and in real life and it is clear to me that this board has an unusually Olympic sports-tilted, anti-football mindset. There is more football defeatism here than elsewhere. I may be something approaching mainstream in terms of relative optimism or pessimism among Stanford football fans.
That said, there are real reasons for optimism. It is palpable that the new staff has lifted a pall over the program and totally transformed the morale, energy, and strength and conditioning of the team. That could have big, immediate effects. It is also the case that our 2023 schedule sets up almost perfectly in terms of the potential to build momentum. Having a super easy first half of the schedule with a well-timed bye and the hardest games being the games we were least likely to win all season is just what the doctor would have ordered in terms of creating a chance for 3-4 wins that build confidence. I don't rule out six or seven wins this year because a) Shaw had brought us so low and so disconnected from our actual talent level, b) all the signs are there in terms of a cultural transformation, and c) there is a chance to build momentum.
Nonetheless, I think a more prudent bet is that we crawl-walk-run, which is how most rebuilds go. That's what happened with Denny Green and Jim Harbaugh. Based on my research, I think Stanford's experience with attempted rebuilds is about typical: they work out about half the time and more often than not they take a few years. My bet on Troy Taylor is he will get Stanford back to bowls but it will take a few years. There are other possibilities out there, including quicker and/or more significant success as well as never succeeding.
P.S. Goose, you and I agree on what matters, that it was his least successful chapter and that he probably grew from it. My point is just that when talking about a 55 year old man, having mediocre results in your first and only gig as a major college football offensive coordinator be the low point of your career, and only a two year period at that, is the kind of thing you say about somebody who has been very successful at what they've done. I also think Utah's years-long wheel-spinning on offense made it clear where the ownership was. I mean, Jim Harbaugh coached a #105 scoring offense his first year at Stanford. Heck, a few years into his job at Michigan he had a #91 offense. Chip Kelly started with the #98 offense at UCLA. Degree of difficulty does matter, and outlier low points don't define whether somebody has succeeded at each stage other than in the most literal sense. I probably exaggerated in saying he's succeeded at everything but thought I covered my bases enough with "essentially."
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Mick - 08-21-2023
(08-21-2023, 07:50 AM)msqueri Wrote: Thanks, Mick. I appreciate the exchange and your perspective too. On the points you raised:
Low point: even if 2023 is 2-3 wins and/or #90-100 in the algorithms (the current expectation whereas Sagarin had us #87 last year), I view that as the denouement of Shaw's low point. In the normal rhythm of rebuilds, Taylor would have good prospects of doing better from there. It's an open question how much better but given our talent base it strikes me as unlikely we'd be flirting with sub-top 100 for long. In any case, I think the normal level for Stanford football performance is considerably better than where we are now. Shaw really screwed it up but getting a few years past Shaw should revert toward the mean a bit.
Transfers: the transfer-conducive environment isn't going away but what we've seen is Stanford willing to bring in 5-6 transfers a year and once we revert toward the Stanford mean the quality of those transfers will rise. Regardless, this environment creates advantages for Stanford in high school recruiting that we can use to somewhat mitigate the transfer disadvantage. Most importantly, Shaw was a perfect storm of environment, circumstance, philosophy, and personality pushing people out the door to a devastating extent and Taylor's move to a more fun and family-oriented environment will make it much easier for us to navigate the transfer environment (by keeping more players in the fold). If Taylor can couple that with actually winning the difference will be fundamental.
NIL: I'm not sure what makes my evidence any more anecdotal than yours. Elijah Brown is one person, but a $4 million NIL collective, as publicly reported, is a real number that as far as I can tell is a competitive foray into NIL. I honestly don't know whether Stanford is approaching NIL with more or less dispatch and imagination than other programs but I suspect you don't either. I think many fans focus on the eye-catching (anecdotal) stories of the most prominent NIL players and draw conclusions about where their school stands, but that's not a rigorous comparison. There are over 130 major college programs and high 60s (exact number TBD with the fate of the Pac-4 remnants) power programs. If Stanford is #25 or #30 in the NIL game that means it's actually a benefit to us. Too many people are throwing their hands up saying we can't compete with USC in NIL but that's the wrong way to think about this.
OL depth chart: Sports Illustrated is now a bogus aggregator rather than a new source and has indescribably less insight than the handful of people who follow Stanford football very closely. It is possible I will be surprised by the depth chart but I am comfortable saying Fisher Anderson is a bigger part of Stanford's future in the coming years than Alec Bank.
Harbaugh/Taylor comparisons: I don't think Taylor will be as successful as Harbaugh either. That would be quite a historic success. Harbaugh's NFL resume was good but a very high number of our new coaches played in the NFL too and one of the key ones, April, had a lot more NFL coaching experience than Harbaugh. Harbaugh had strong coaching relationships but so did Taylor. In fact, it's easy to make an argument that our new Chris Petersen-enabled coaching staff is stronger on paper than Harbaugh's initial Harbaugh family tree-enabled staff. Harbaugh had EUTM but Taylor has culture of love. It's inherently subjective to compare cultures and intangibles and certainly with the benefit of hindsight Harbaugh's worked spectacularly but all available evidence points to very strong culture, energy, and morale in our new staff too. In any case, the point is less to predict how Taylor will do compared to Harbaugh and more to say you could not have asked for a closer comparison resume-wise - former NFL QBs with limited (three years) but spectacular FCS level head coaching experience, a lifetime of succeeding at essentially everything they've ever done, young hungry staff (though Taylor's has far more established veteran guys too), a palpable sense of self and theory of change (and competitiveness). The bottom line is an FCS to Power Five leap is highly unusual and we are in the same situation as 2007 as putting on faith that the outstanding but limited track record, culture, and intangibles of the new guy will translate, but there's a lot of reason to be optimistic it will.
Wager going forward: My view is rebuilds take time and Stanford will win 3-5 games in 2023 and something like 12-16 over the next three years and it's a tossup whether we make a bowl, maybe a bit more likely than not so I'd probably predict one bowl. Do we have action?
Absolutely, and FWLIW, I think of your prediction as my own best case scenario, assuming an ACC or B1G landing place, 4-5 wins a year, with three this year, five or six in 2024 and seven or eight in 2025. If TT and company can do that, they'll have come close to matching Harbaugh's record and I will happily swallow a Director's Cup full of crow.
So to the wager/stakes. This wager presupposes participation in a Power 4 conference -- if Stanford is an independent or in a minor conference, all bets are off. You take 12 wins or more and one bowl game over the next three years, and I'll take eleven wins or fewer, no bowl games over that period.
Stakes...if you're a wine drinker, I'll put up either a Chateau Montelena Chardonnay (if you prefer white) or a Stag's Leap Cabernet Sauvignon. Both of those wines that won the original Judgment of Paris. In a blind taste test, the 11 judges (nine of which were French) judged the California wines to be the best. Here are the results, if interested:
Judgment of Paris