I have a dream - 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 have a dream (/thread-22635.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: I have a dream (/thread-22635.html)
RE: I have a dream - cardcrimson - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 05:51 PM)81alum Wrote: I have generally kept quiet on football this season since I do not relish entering into the mud. So I will post my thoughts on Shaw and our program here and then decline to participate in any similar threads this year.
1) It is of course undeniable that our program has fallen from a high point to a low point in the last few years under the leadership of David Shaw. This makes me terribly sad, since I find so much to admire in the man.
2) The reasons for this decline are not always obvious. There are major forces at work in college football that go far beyond the control of a coach. I myself am unclear how much of the blame for our slide to futility rests with the coach and what does not. I am humble about my own ability to evaluate the causes, let alone my ability to prescribe a cure.
3) I find the tone of several posters on this board regarding David Shaw and the decline of our program to be very off-putting. They not only critique Shaw's performance, but they make the same arguments over and over and with a bitter tone. The disagreements on this board used to generally be more collegial and civil. I miss that tone.
4) Recruits probably read this board. Constant negativity may contribute to the decline.
5) Now that some of you have concluded David Shaw is irredeemable as a coach, it appears you celebrate his failures as a way to hasten his replacement and rekindle a better era in Stanford football. I can understand that sentiment. However, I submit that one plausible outcome of the firing/failure of David Shaw will be ending football at Stanford University. Would that change your tone if you knew Shaw was your last chance? Consider how close we came to losing the sport before Harbaugh was hired. Now consider the numerous changes to football over the last couple of decades that make it an increasingly poor fit for an elite academic university. So be careful what you wish for.
I'm done. Back to my obsession with WBB.
So, you don't want to debate/discuss the decline of Stanford football because you don't want to get into the mud. However you freely share your opinions, profess your admiration for the coach, place blame on the forces beyond the coach for the decline, lament the criticism of our coach by those the board, blame said criticism for the decline of the program, take shots at those on this board with whom you disagree, again blame forces beyond the coach, and then take your ball and go home.
Lovely. This is what debate and discussion has become at Stanford today? What a bummer. One could argue that that type of behavior is more off putting to a potential Stanford recruit . . . .
RE: I have a dream - BostonCard - 11-22-2021
No one has to engage with anyone else if they don’t want to. Life is not an XKCD comic.
![[Image: duty_calls.png]](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
BC
RE: I have a dream - cardcrimson - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 08:46 PM)BostonCard Wrote: No one has to engage with anyone else if they don’t want to. Life is not an XKCD comic.
BC
Exactly correct BC. Why engage with people you disagree with, disagree with them, them tell them you're not going engage with them any more?
Laughable.
RE: I have a dream - BostonCard - 11-22-2021
He’s not stopping you from taking each of his points in turn and rebutting them. 81alum is even preemptively allowing you (or anyone else who disagrees with them) to have the last word. Ultimately, though, this is a sports board, not a debating society, and the argument boils down to an unprovable hypothesis. Do you think that Shaw can correct the problems with Stanford football? If you believe the answer is no, and many people here do, then there is no point waiting any longer, and the sooner we get on with hiring his replacement, the better. If, on the other hand, you believe that Shaw has the power to get the team doing better, then it follows that he should be given a chance todo so. At this point, the arguments have all been trodden out, so I doubt anyone will be convinced.
I was probably among the last people to become convinced that Dawkins should be let go, but after enough losing seasons, I came to agree with the majority here (as did the AD). I think there is at least one poster who still thinks Dawkins could have gotten the team back on track, and a) now that he is gone, we can’t prove otherwise and b) that poster’s warning that there is no guarantee that his replacement will be any better see,s to have proven prescient (at least so far). Despite Haase’s performance, I still think moving on from Dawkins was the right choice, but I respect the poster’s position.
Likewise, if we get a few more seasons of *gestures broadly at everything* this, I will come to the conclusion that Shaw cannot get us back to excellence, and hope that he and the administration come to an understanding about his future that does not involve him being the head coach here. But, I haven’t seen enough data to convince me that he *can’t*, no matter how much some posters discount his eight seasons of success as due to players recruited by Harbaugh and momentum from the initial success. I still believe he deserves a chance to prove the naysayers wrong. That is not a case I can make with data, nor a case that people can refute the data, because it necessarily involves an extrapolation into the future.
All that being said, however much one might be convinced that Shaw is not going to get out from under this, I think it is rather twisted logic to root for the team to be blown out so that his demise can be accelerated. Even once I had come around to accepting that Dawkins should be let go, I continued to hope that my conclusion was premature. Likewise, even as I am convinced that Haase isn’t doing it, I continue to hope that he will turn it around and make a fool out of me. It astonishes me that anyone would be so confident in their assessment of another man’s incompetence that they would wish a team they profess to support humiliation at the hands of rival.
BC
RE: I have a dream - 81alum - 11-22-2021
I stand corrected. I should not have pronounced that I was unwilling to further engage. I should instead have the courage of my convictions and be prepared to defend what I posted. To do otherwise would be to contribute to the the declining tone of this board that I had lamented in my message. For that I apologize.
I thought long and hard about posting that first message. Emotions are running high. Many of us are in grief. This is a sports board, and those of us who come here have lost something that was deeply important to us. We enjoyed success in football for a number of years beyond our wildest "dreams," but now seem to have lost it all, as far as football is concerned. People in grief respond in different ways. Some of you are angry. I am simply sad.
Let me clarify a couple of things. I suspect that Shaw does not have what is needed to turn things around, although I hope I am wrong. As I said, I am sad--even morose--to have come to that conclusion. But others are feeling different passions now, and these passions are sometimes expressed in ways that seem less than civil. And so I am grieving not only for our lost excellence in football, but for the warmth of a community of like minded sports fans. The atmosphere that made the Cardboard so different from invective-filled sports boards may also be a casualty of the decline of Stanford football.
The endangerment of football as a sport at Stanford does not seem to have registered on people. By several accounts, ending the program was considered prior to Harbaugh's hiring. Even then, the program was not sitting well within a elite academic institution.
But think of what has happened since then. There is a growing concern over CTE, there is the professionalization of "student-athletes," the decline of attendance and interest in football in ALL the Bay Area football programs, the rise to stratospheric heights in admissions requirements, the increasing regionalization and concentration in the South of interest in high school football. Even our nation's growing ideological divide factors into declining interest: California--and especially the Bay Area--has become increasingly blue and college football doesn't fit that demographic well:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-every-nfl-teams-fans-lean-politically/
Could we lose football? Every time a coach is replaced, there is soul-searching about Stanford athletics, but when the most successful coach in Stanford history is replaced there will be more than soul-searching. In the minds of most of the Stanford community, David Shaw has stood against the rising tide of unfavorable conditions. His personal example and his reputation as "the conscience of college football" has held back the existential debate over whether Stanford should be in the football business at all. As the rest of college football gets increasingly slimy, at least Stanford faculty, students, Trustees and fans could rationalize to themselves, "but we are not like the rest of them. We are resisting those trends. We have David Shaw. We have a purpose and that purpose is to show the rest of the nation what college sports really SHOULD look like." Naive certainly, but charming in its way and oh-so-Stanford-like. The Camelot of college football.
But we know what happened to Camelot.
So I am quite serious when I suggest that the real choice is not between David Shaw and some collage of a coach that people imagine will have all the right characteristics. The choice could well be between David Shaw and....nothing at all.
RE: I have a dream - pefloresjr - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 11:15 PM)81alum Wrote: I stand corrected. I should not have pronounced that I was unwilling to further engage. I should instead have the courage of my convictions and be prepared to defend what I posted. To do otherwise would be to contribute to the the declining tone of this board that I had lamented in my message. For that I apologize.
I thought long and hard about posting that first message. Emotions are running high. Many of us are in grief. This is a sports board, and those of us who come here have lost something that was deeply important to us. We enjoyed success in football for a number of years beyond our wildest "dreams," but now seem to have lost it all, as far as football is concerned. People in grief respond in different ways. Some of you are angry. I am simply sad.
Let me clarify a couple of things. I suspect that Shaw does not have what is needed to turn things around, although I hope I am wrong. As I said, I am sad--even morose--to have come to that conclusion. But others are feeling different passions now, and these passions are sometimes expressed in ways that seem less than civil. And so I am grieving not only for our lost excellence in football, but for the warmth of a community of like minded sports fans. The atmosphere that made the Cardboard so different from invective-filled sports boards may also be a casualty of the decline of Stanford football.
The endangerment of football as a sport at Stanford does not seem to have registered on people. By several accounts, ending the program was considered prior to Harbaugh's hiring. Even then, the program was not sitting well within a elite academic institution.
But think of what has happened since then. There is a growing concern over CTE, there is the professionalization of "student-athletes," the decline of attendance and interest in football in ALL the Bay Area football programs, the rise to stratospheric heights in admissions requirements, the increasing regionalization and concentration in the South of interest in high school football. Even our nation's growing ideological divide factors into declining interest: California--and especially the Bay Area--has become increasingly blue and college football doesn't fit that demographic well:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-every-nfl-teams-fans-lean-politically/
Could we lose football? Every time a coach is replaced, there is soul-searching about Stanford athletics, but when the most successful coach in Stanford history is replaced there will be more than soul-searching. In the minds of most of the Stanford community, David Shaw has stood against the rising tide of unfavorable conditions. His personal example and his reputation as "the conscience of college football" has held back the existential debate over whether Stanford should be in the football business at all. As the rest of college football gets increasingly slimy, at least Stanford faculty, students, Trustees and fans could rationalize to themselves, "but we are not like the rest of them. We are resisting those trends. We have David Shaw. We have a purpose and that purpose is to show the rest of the nation what college sports really SHOULD look like." Naive certainly, but charming in its way and oh-so-Stanford-like. The Camelot of college football.
But we know what happened to Camelot.
So I am quite serious when I suggest that the real choice is not between David Shaw and some collage of a coach that people imagine will have all the right characteristics. The choice could well be between David Shaw and....nothing at all.
Completely agree. This year's horrific losing streak combined with the last few years worsening line play make it clear that Shaw needs to make some major changes. I fear that he can't do it. However, I think he has the right to try since he produced some of Stanford's best years (We WON two Rose Bowls) and he was also part of the Harbaugh revolution. I also know based on modern coaching at Stanford, that most coaches are worse overall and the few that are in the good coaching range ALL left after only a few years.
That takes me to your main point and also a point of fear and sadness for me. The transfer portal has created free agency that Stanford can't realistically participate in without seriously undermining its academic integrity. The new NIL rules have effectively authorized a pay to play system that will make it impossible for Stanford to compete. One of the examples that convinced me of this was the BYU business giving all the walk on players full scholarships. Others will, and already are, paying outrageous fees before players have played a minute for the team. Stanford's policy allows NIL payments but they have to be proportional to the expected value. We will be playing it straight, while almost everyone else is exploiting it. I used to think that Stanford had another decade of D1 level football and that maybe there would be just enough NCAA reform to allow us to stay in the game. There is basically no chance that will happen now based on recent court rulings. I told my family when the recent court rulings came down that we probably have 3 to 5 years left of D1 football. I plan to keep tailgating and supporting our team if we have one, but I realize I am in the minority.
I am also mad about Shaw's current performance and the professionalization of college sports but don't claim to have all the answers or to know the football solutions and to know with any certainty whether or not Shaw can accomplish those solutions. I get tired of the yelling here by those who think they do and mostly try to stay out of it. If you are there like we will be on Saturday night, stop by the RV in Master's Grove and I will offer offer some good food and drink to try to mitigate the pain. That's the way I feel right now. I suspect that there is a quiet group out there who have reactions that are something like mine and 81 alums'.
Cheers,
Pete F.
RE: I have a dream - gailtate - 11-23-2021
(11-22-2021, 05:51 PM)81alum Wrote: I have generally kept quiet on football this season since I do not relish entering into the mud. So I will post my thoughts on Shaw and our program here and then decline to participate in any similar threads this year.
1) It is of course undeniable that our program has fallen from a high point to a low point in the last few years under the leadership of David Shaw. This makes me terribly sad, since I find so much to admire in the man.
2) The reasons for this decline are not always obvious. There are major forces at work in college football that go far beyond the control of a coach. I myself am unclear how much of the blame for our slide to futility rests with the coach and what does not. I am humble about my own ability to evaluate the causes, let alone my ability to prescribe a cure.
3) I find the tone of several posters on this board regarding David Shaw and the decline of our program to be very off-putting. They not only critique Shaw's performance, but they make the same arguments over and over and with a bitter tone. The disagreements on this board used to generally be more collegial and civil. I miss that tone.
4) Recruits probably read this board. Constant negativity may contribute to the decline.
5) Now that some of you have concluded David Shaw is irredeemable as a coach, it appears you celebrate his failures as a way to hasten his replacement and rekindle a better era in Stanford football. I can understand that sentiment. However, I submit that one plausible outcome of the firing/failure of David Shaw will be ending football at Stanford University. Would that change your tone if you knew Shaw was your last chance? Consider how close we came to losing the sport before Harbaugh was hired. Now consider the numerous changes to football over the last couple of decades that make it an increasingly poor fit for an elite academic university. So be careful what you wish for.
I'm done. Back to my obsession with WBB.
I'd be curious about recruits paying any attention to the silliness of this board. Is there data available on this? I'm inclined to think there isn't any, but who knows. I seriously doubt that recruits would/could be "discouraged" in any way. To those who think otherwise I suggest checking out the bile and venom on the boards associated with the "blue-blood" schools whose recruiting, just like Old Man River, keeps on rollin' along...
lex24 - lex24 - 11-23-2021
(11-22-2021, 11:15 PM)81alum Wrote: I stand corrected. I should not have pronounced that I was unwilling to further engage. I should instead have the courage of my convictions and be prepared to defend what I posted. To do otherwise would be to contribute to the the declining tone of this board that I had lamented in my message. For that I apologize.
I thought long and hard about posting that first message. Emotions are running high. Many of us are in grief. This is a sports board, and those of us who come here have lost something that was deeply important to us. We enjoyed success in football for a number of years beyond our wildest "dreams," but now seem to have lost it all, as far as football is concerned. People in grief respond in different ways. Some of you are angry. I am simply sad.
Let me clarify a couple of things. I suspect that Shaw does not have what is needed to turn things around, although I hope I am wrong. As I said, I am sad--even morose--to have come to that conclusion. But others are feeling different passions now, and these passions are sometimes expressed in ways that seem less than civil. And so I am grieving not only for our lost excellence in football, but for the warmth of a community of like minded sports fans. The atmosphere that made the Cardboard so different from invective-filled sports boards may also be a casualty of the decline of Stanford football.
The endangerment of football as a sport at Stanford does not seem to have registered on people. By several accounts, ending the program was considered prior to Harbaugh's hiring. Even then, the program was not sitting well within a elite academic institution.
But think of what has happened since then. There is a growing concern over CTE, there is the professionalization of "student-athletes," the decline of attendance and interest in football in ALL the Bay Area football programs, the rise to stratospheric heights in admissions requirements, the increasing regionalization and concentration in the South of interest in high school football. Even our nation's growing ideological divide factors into declining interest: California--and especially the Bay Area--has become increasingly blue and college football doesn't fit that demographic well:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-every-nfl-teams-fans-lean-politically/
Could we lose football? Every time a coach is replaced, there is soul-searching about Stanford athletics, but when the most successful coach in Stanford history is replaced there will be more than soul-searching. In the minds of most of the Stanford community, David Shaw has stood against the rising tide of unfavorable conditions. His personal example and his reputation as "the conscience of college football" has held back the existential debate over whether Stanford should be in the football business at all. As the rest of college football gets increasingly slimy, at least Stanford faculty, students, Trustees and fans could rationalize to themselves, "but we are not like the rest of them. We are resisting those trends. We have David Shaw. We have a purpose and that purpose is to show the rest of the nation what college sports really SHOULD look like." Naive certainly, but charming in its way and oh-so-Stanford-like. The Camelot of college football.
But we know what happened to Camelot.
So I am quite serious when I suggest that the real choice is not between David Shaw and some collage of a coach that people imagine will have all the right characteristics. The choice could well be between David Shaw and....nothing at all.
Good to hear from you. Don’t stay away. I’ve said several times the big issue is Admin. I don’t think they need much of an excuse to dump football. Violent. Only men play. The CTE issue.
Always felt losing Bowlsby was much bigger than losing Harbaugh.
There have been those that never warmed to Shaw. No matter how much he won, it should have been more. Or it was actually JH. Boring etc.
This was never going to last forever. Rationally a coach that has 4 COY’s, the best record of any modern era coach and won more PAC championships in 5 years then had been won over the previous 40 at a University where football is almost an afterthought, should have built some equity.
I think your warning is wise - be careful what you wish for.
RE: I have a dream - JohnR34231 - 11-23-2021
I think Shaw had built some equity. However, it disappears quickly in college football, even at Stanford.
And, hey, let's face it. 4-8 and 3-9 seasons, with many of the losses being blowouts is intolerable.
I'm OK with giving Shaw a chance to fix it (I realize some aren't). However if he can't somebody else should be given a shot. If that person can't either, then maybe we do need to reconsider whether Stanford should be trying to play at this level.
RE: I have a dream - CowboyIndian - 11-23-2021
(11-22-2021, 08:23 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: So, you don't want to debate/discuss the decline of Stanford football because you don't want to get into the mud. However you freely share your opinions, profess your admiration for the coach, place blame on the forces beyond the coach for the decline, lament the criticism of our coach by those the board, blame said criticism for the decline of the program, take shots at those on this board with whom you disagree, again blame forces beyond the coach, and then take your ball and go home.
Lovely. This is what debate and discussion has become at Stanford today? What a bummer. One could argue that that type of behavior is more off putting to a potential Stanford recruit . . . .
So...how's it going at the Straw Man Convention?
RE: I have a dream - Phogge - 11-23-2021
It is a debating society BC. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong.
We had one in San Francisco too but it happened in the sand dunes of the old Sunset neighborhood. Most of the time it consisted of rolling around the sand or on the street. Very few punches were landed, maybe a bloody lip once in a blue moon. Then everybody got back to playing war or kick the can or strikeout.
Now all the angst over a college football team. Football ain't worth it. But Baseball is.
RE: I have a dream - Beeg_Dawg - 11-23-2021
(11-22-2021, 03:57 PM)winflop Wrote: I will never root for Stanford to lose, but I'm also not much of a pipe-dreamer.\
This isn't 2007. There is no EUTM. There is no new-on-the-scene coach who got despondent players to believe that they can be better. There is no fire in the belly with this lousy, soft coaching staff.
Dream all you want. We are going to get run out of our own building. If you thought Big Game and Utah were embarrassing, just wait until Saturday.
Yep. I read one poster who did not think Kelly would run up the score because of respect for David Shaw. Spit up my coffee when I read that one. Must be thinking of different Brian Kelly than the one at Notre Dame.
RE: I have a dream - OutsiderFan - 11-23-2021
(11-23-2021, 11:43 AM)Beeg_Dawg Wrote:(11-22-2021, 03:57 PM)winflop Wrote: I will never root for Stanford to lose, but I'm also not much of a pipe-dreamer.\
This isn't 2007. There is no EUTM. There is no new-on-the-scene coach who got despondent players to believe that they can be better. There is no fire in the belly with this lousy, soft coaching staff.
Dream all you want. We are going to get run out of our own building. If you thought Big Game and Utah were embarrassing, just wait until Saturday.
Yep. I read one poster who did not think Kelly would run up the score because of respect for David Shaw. Spit up my coffee when I read that one. Must be thinking of different Brian Kelly than the one at Notre Dame.
It also demonstrates the soft, take prisoners mentality of way too many Stanford fans. College football is a blood sport. Either accept this reality as a fan of it and think accordingly, or be steamrolled by others with a taste for blood who take no prisoners.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 11-23-2021
(11-23-2021, 09:14 AM)lex24 Wrote:(11-22-2021, 11:15 PM)81alum Wrote: I stand corrected. I should not have pronounced that I was unwilling to further engage. I should instead have the courage of my convictions and be prepared to defend what I posted. To do otherwise would be to contribute to the the declining tone of this board that I had lamented in my message. For that I apologize.
I thought long and hard about posting that first message. Emotions are running high. Many of us are in grief. This is a sports board, and those of us who come here have lost something that was deeply important to us. We enjoyed success in football for a number of years beyond our wildest "dreams," but now seem to have lost it all, as far as football is concerned. People in grief respond in different ways. Some of you are angry. I am simply sad.
Let me clarify a couple of things. I suspect that Shaw does not have what is needed to turn things around, although I hope I am wrong. As I said, I am sad--even morose--to have come to that conclusion. But others are feeling different passions now, and these passions are sometimes expressed in ways that seem less than civil. And so I am grieving not only for our lost excellence in football, but for the warmth of a community of like minded sports fans. The atmosphere that made the Cardboard so different from invective-filled sports boards may also be a casualty of the decline of Stanford football.
The endangerment of football as a sport at Stanford does not seem to have registered on people. By several accounts, ending the program was considered prior to Harbaugh's hiring. Even then, the program was not sitting well within a elite academic institution.
But think of what has happened since then. There is a growing concern over CTE, there is the professionalization of "student-athletes," the decline of attendance and interest in football in ALL the Bay Area football programs, the rise to stratospheric heights in admissions requirements, the increasing regionalization and concentration in the South of interest in high school football. Even our nation's growing ideological divide factors into declining interest: California--and especially the Bay Area--has become increasingly blue and college football doesn't fit that demographic well:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-every-nfl-teams-fans-lean-politically/
Could we lose football? Every time a coach is replaced, there is soul-searching about Stanford athletics, but when the most successful coach in Stanford history is replaced there will be more than soul-searching. In the minds of most of the Stanford community, David Shaw has stood against the rising tide of unfavorable conditions. His personal example and his reputation as "the conscience of college football" has held back the existential debate over whether Stanford should be in the football business at all. As the rest of college football gets increasingly slimy, at least Stanford faculty, students, Trustees and fans could rationalize to themselves, "but we are not like the rest of them. We are resisting those trends. We have David Shaw. We have a purpose and that purpose is to show the rest of the nation what college sports really SHOULD look like." Naive certainly, but charming in its way and oh-so-Stanford-like. The Camelot of college football.
But we know what happened to Camelot.
So I am quite serious when I suggest that the real choice is not between David Shaw and some collage of a coach that people imagine will have all the right characteristics. The choice could well be between David Shaw and....nothing at all.
Good to hear from you. Don’t stay away. I’ve said several times the big issue is Admin. I don’t think they need much of an excuse to dump football. Violent. Only men play. The CTE issue.
Always felt losing Bowlsby was much bigger than losing Harbaugh.
There have been those that never warmed to Shaw. No matter how much he won, it should have been more. Or it was actually JH. Boring etc.
This was never going to last forever. Rationally a coach that has 4 COY’s, the best record of any modern era coach and won more PAC championships in 5 years then had been won over the previous 40 at a University where football is almost an afterthought, should have built some equity.
I think your warning is wise - be careful what you wish for.
People need to shake themselves a bit (and I'll include myself in that group). There are some facts/considerations that should inform all of our thinking in these parts:
1. It's just football;
2. Shaw, with his all-time high W/L record for Stanford, is also the coach of the team at its all time low in terms of performance and fan interest (based on some pretty fundamental metrics). He makes $5-$6M/year base salary and made $9.2M in 2019. (We won't have specifics for 2020 and this year until the 990s come out for those years). He's neither a saint, nor a villain. Shaw is a football coach.
3. Stanford dumping football is not as easy as some here would make it out to be. There will be Title IX ramifications, most notably (if I understand things correctly) a parallel required drop of women's scholarship sports at Stanford. If Stanford dumps football, I don't think it will be for competitive reasons, per se, but rather based on a determination that playing it in NIL world (and with increased CTE concerns) is not consistent with the university's mission. I'm not saying Stanford Football is here forever - or even for the next 10 years - I am saying that its duration on campus will not be tied to whether or not Shaw is the head coach.
4. Shaw is not going anywhere . . . unless he decides to resign or move on. Thus, the fortunes of Stanford football depend on him hiring great assistants and giving them the autonomy to do their jobs. Based on history, it's hard to be optimistic on that front, but we shall see.
RE: I have a dream - cardcrimson - 11-23-2021
One ludicrous straw man deserves another, don’t ya think? God help any recruit that pays attention to ‘fans’ on a sports board.
(11-23-2021, 10:58 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(11-22-2021, 08:23 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: So, you don't want to debate/discuss the decline of Stanford football because you don't want to get into the mud. However you freely share your opinions, profess your admiration for the coach, place blame on the forces beyond the coach for the decline, lament the criticism of our coach by those the board, blame said criticism for the decline of the program, take shots at those on this board with whom you disagree, again blame forces beyond the coach, and then take your ball and go home.
Lovely. This is what debate and discussion has become at Stanford today? What a bummer. One could argue that that type of behavior is more off putting to a potential Stanford recruit . . . .
So...how's it going at the Straw Man Convention?
RE: lex24 - Treebound - 11-23-2021
(11-23-2021, 11:58 AM)teejers1 Wrote: 4. Shaw is not going anywhere . . . unless he decides to resign or move on. Thus, the fortunes of Stanford football depend on him hiring great assistants and giving them the autonomy to do their jobs. Based on history, it's hard to be optimistic on that front, but we shall see.
I think TJ is correct on this point. To me, Shaw has become increasingly complacent over the last 4-5 years. Recruiting, managing his staff, motivating the Team, LEADING, have all fallen off imho. It can't be easy, but it comes with the position, even more so when you are one of the top paid coaches in the country. I had hoped that the wake up call would drive him to make changes 3 years ago, but the downturn continued. As others have stated, constant reinvention and bringing in top coaching talent is critical. I fully expect changes to be made to the staff within a month of season end, and I welcome them given our slide to the bottom of the league.
As for our Admin, I think in John Hennessy, we lost a true converted Stanford sports fan. I think the enthusiasm and good will that he witnessed firsthand at the Orange Bowl and the post game gatherings, helped him GET the benefits of a strong football program and what it can bring to the broader university. I don't think either MTL or PD have yet to grasp that facet and it does concern me.
So for now I will continue to hope, continue to tailgate and continue to cheer for Stanford Red vs ND and any other foe. I also hope that the senior player leadership is vocal this week in holding each other accountable to bring their best on Saturday versus the Domers. I saw McKee go after 2-3 offensive lineman in the second quarter who appeared to miss their assignments or not give it their best effort, and I'm glad he did! Let's bring back some EUTM, TWU and Party in the backfield!
RE: I have a dream - Austroturf - 11-23-2021
To reiterate Teejers' first point: yes, it is just college football, and there are weightier matters in the world. The sport is fantastic and entertaining, but it is ultimately an endeavor of 19-23 year-old young men playing a game. My father was a power 5 athletic director and stated on various occasions that his career and job security depended upon how a group of 20 year-old kids played on any given Saturday, so there's that.
There have been a few posts about whether the current situation evokes anger or sadness. In my case, the overriding emotion is disappointment. One of the most salient statements Shaw made when he took over from Harbaugh was that there was no truth to the notion that sustained success was impossible at a university with Stanford's high academic standards. Further, he was insistent that the program was larger than any one player or coach. And for the first part of his coaching tenure, he proved the skeptics wrong. Harbaugh, Fangio and Taggart left, and 2011 was an enormously successful season (if we exclude the last minutes of the Fiesta Bowl). Luck left, and Shaw won a Pac-12 title and a Rose Bowl in 2012. Stepfan Taylor and Pep Hamilton left, and in 2013 Stanford again won the Pac-12 and went to the Rose Bowl (again, let's forget the last minutes of that Rose Bowl). 2014 was a bit of a negative blip, but 2015 was perhaps Shaw's best team ever, even after losing Derek Mason after the 2014 season. In short, Shaw was proving that the program could continue at a high level and was not dependent on any single player or coach. I was never more sold on Shaw than after the team trounced the Hawkeyes on January 1, 2016. Three Pac-12 championships in his first five years, 4 BCS bowls. The man had committed and delivered. Rivals in the Pac-12, like Petersen and Mora, often referred to the "Stanford System" and how effective it was. It was perhaps not flashy nor entertaining, but it won games and had quite a few admirers.
Then things started slowly trending down. The D was now "bend-don't-break"; the O-line could not open holes for McCaffrey; there was the controversy at QB; we were 4-3 after 7 games in 2016 and were out of the race for the north. Clearly, the "System" was showing cracks. And my overriding criticism of Shaw is that he appeared to believe that the "System" was self-sustaining: recruit a decent class, promote in-house assistants to coordinators, dress everybody in Cardinal red and white, and the dominance remains. Yes, the program was larger than any one player or coach. But if you lose enough players and coaches and fail to reload the team AND staff with individuals of equal caliber, you begin to lose. Even in the year of Bryce Love's single season Stanford rushing record, the decline continued: our differential of rushing yards per game vs. our opponents declined from +126 in 2011 to only +33 by 2017. The next year, it finally flipped to negative.
And this slow decline has been profoundly disappointing. Shaw has been at Stanford since 2007 and has lived through 15 seasons. Nobody has been associated with the program longer. And nobody should know better what it takes to field a winning team at Stanford. Yet here we are, and I can't explain it. Is it complacency on his part? Is it fatigue? Is it lack of creativity, fire, will-to-win? I can't answer that. All I know is that we are where we are, and only dramatic change (a la 2007) is going to bring about a positive upward trend again.
But, yeah, when all is said and done, it's just football.
RE: lex24 - gailtate - 11-23-2021
(11-23-2021, 01:12 PM)Treebound Wrote:(11-23-2021, 11:58 AM)teejers1 Wrote: 4. Shaw is not going anywhere . . . unless he decides to resign or move on. Thus, the fortunes of Stanford football depend on him hiring great assistants and giving them the autonomy to do their jobs. Based on history, it's hard to be optimistic on that front, but we shall see.
I think TJ is correct on this point. To me, Shaw has become increasingly complacent over the last 4-5 years. Recruiting, managing his staff, motivating the Team, LEADING, have all fallen off imho. It can't be easy, but it comes with the position, even more so when you are one of the top paid coaches in the country. I had hoped that the wake up call would drive him to make changes 3 years ago, but the downturn continued. As others have stated, constant reinvention and bringing in top coaching talent is critical. I fully expect changes to be made to the staff within a month of season end, and I welcome them given our slide to the bottom of the league.
As for our Admin, I think in John Hennessy, we lost a true converted Stanford sports fan. I think the enthusiasm and good will that he witnessed firsthand at the Orange Bowl and the post game gatherings, helped him GET the benefits of a strong football program and what it can bring to the broader university. I don't think either MTL or PD have yet to grasp that facet and it does concern me.
So for now I will continue to hope, continue to tailgate and continue to cheer for Stanford Red vs ND and any other foe. I also hope that the senior player leadership is vocal this week in holding each other accountable to bring their best on Saturday versus the Domers. I saw McKee go after 2-3 offensive lineman in the second quarter who appeared to miss their assignments or not give it their best effort, and I'm glad he did! Let's bring back some EUTM, TWU and Party in the backfield!
Re Hennessy: You are absolutely bang-on. I had a chance to get his input to an article I wrote years ago for the The Bootleg Magazine during the wilderness years. I was pleasantly surprised by his take on what Stanford Football could, should and must be. Not long afterwards, Bob Bowlsby arrived. A sea change if there ever was one. Only thing I know about Marc Tessier-LaVigne is that he seemed to enjoy the food and festivities at the tailgate I used to host at Chuck Taylor Grove, after his arrival at Stanford. Time will tell.
RE: I have a dream - jacket3ree - 11-23-2021
(11-22-2021, 11:15 PM)81alum Wrote: People in grief respond in different ways. Some of you are angry. I am simply sad.
I wish I was angry. Yeah, maybe I am. I usually respond to something that makes me angry by laughing at it. I too would love to see Stanford embarrass ND on national TV. Not the old way with a beat down, but the old, old way just by winning when ND is clearly better.
(11-22-2021, 11:15 PM)81alum Wrote:
But others are feeling different passions now, and these passions are sometimes expressed in ways that seem less than civil....The atmosphere that made the Cardboard so different from invective-filled sports boards may also be a casualty of the decline of Stanford football.
I tend to disagree with this. The board is very civil. Heck, grammar matters. I frequent other sports boards. I frequent other hobby boards - hi fi and woodworking in particular. There are a lot of similarities. I'm right, you're wrong. On one of the woodworking boards, people were tossed for how personal the argument about left tilt table saws were superior to right tilt table saws became. Well, that is completely understandable. Right tilt table saws are for communists and people looking to cut their hand off. I try to hold discourse as if we are across beer bottles or cans (your choice, but there's probably a board somewhere where someone was banned over that argument.) When I got a little too much the anonymous internet guy with a keyboard, I took a break.
(11-22-2021, 11:15 PM)81alum Wrote:
The endangerment of football as a sport at Stanford does not seem to have registered on people. By several accounts, ending the program was considered prior to Harbaugh's hiring. Even then, the program was not sitting well within a elite academic institution.
Could we lose football? Every time a coach is replaced, there is soul-searching about Stanford athletics, but when the most successful coach in Stanford history is replaced there will be more than soul-searching. In the minds of most of the Stanford community, David Shaw has stood against the rising tide of unfavorable conditions. His personal example and his reputation as "the conscience of college football" has held back the existential debate over whether Stanford should be in the football business at all. As the rest of college football gets increasingly slimy, at least Stanford faculty, students, Trustees and fans could rationalize to themselves, "but we are not like the rest of them. We are resisting those trends. We have David Shaw. We have a purpose and that purpose is to show the rest of the nation what college sports really SHOULD look like." Naive certainly, but charming in its way and oh-so-Stanford-like. The Camelot of college football.
Was anyone talking about dumping football before Harbaugh was hired? I don't recall that. Sure Walt Harris sucked the life out of everything, he clearly wasn't it, nor was Teevens, but there is always another coach. Who might be about the same, worse, or better. (That should cover it.) Stanford could lose football and leave the Pac12. But the Home of Champions doesn't do that. The Home of Champions competes. The Home of Champions will not quit, the Home of Champions will not die. I heard that somewhere......hmmm, maybe that is better with an animal mascot. Hey, let's start talking about the nickname. Ninety five percent of our problems stem from a lame Ivy League nickname. And black trim.
But seriously, football pays the bills. It is a sea change for Stanford to win national titles every year without football paying for it all. Stanford could opt out and college football would notice. Then college football would move on along. It is more professionalized and crazy than ten years ago, but they were saying that ten years ago. And 50 years ago. And when the sport started. Ringers and paraprofessionals have been there from the start. Personally, I'd go with a little less "unbearable lightness of being Stanford" and figure out how to get recruiting, player development, and coaching back to where they were. Dropping down a level doesn't make any sense on the West Coast. There is no level down to drop. Then football is an expense and as fun as football is just as an expense, it is the lead revenue dog. It sucks to lose. It sucks to lose Big Game in epic fashion. But, let's not lose our heads.
(11-22-2021, 11:15 PM)81alum Wrote:
But we know what happened to Camelot.
We eat ham and jam and spam a lot?
(11-22-2021, 11:15 PM)81alum Wrote:
So I am quite serious when I suggest that the real choice is not between David Shaw and some collage of a coach that people imagine will have all the right characteristics. The choice could well be between David Shaw and....nothing at all.
With the most civility I can muster, oh no you don't. That isn't the choice: David Shaw or nothing.
There are lots of choices.
David Shaw gets to choose whether he can and will put the energy in to turning the aircraft carrier around.
Muir gets to choose whether to let Shaw make that choice.
Mur's bosses get to choose whether they will throw the University's considerable resources behind it all, or if they want a recently renovated single-event paperweight anchoring the El Camino Real frontage as their legacy.
Strike that. Way too serious. Teejers is right. It's just football. Stanford will muddle along like it has for 125 years or so. A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.
.....way too much seltzer this year. Way too much.
RE: I have a dream - george - 11-23-2021
(11-23-2021, 02:24 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: And black trim.
I have been shouting this to all who would listen. The black trim is cursed. Its first arrival coincided with Buddyball. It was nowhere to be found during the golden years. And its return portended our current nadir.