TreeCast post-USC - 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: TreeCast post-USC (/thread-23445.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: TreeCast post-USC (/thread-23445.html)
RE: TreeCast post-USC - CTcard - 09-17-2022
(09-17-2022, 07:49 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-16-2022, 11:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: My post evidently hit a nerve, because it engendered two posts so defensive it would have made Shaw blush. It seems that nobody enjoys being criticized, whether you are a Power 5 football coach or an anonymous poster on a message board (nb, I include myself here). Now imagine having to do that in front of TV cameras every week. If you want to get worked up about the loss, go ahead, but for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would care about a press conference. If it bothers you so much, maybe, change the channel?
BC
Your thin-ness of skin is showing. Chill.
Seems to be some confusion about the width of skin in various places.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - MV72018 - 09-17-2022
(09-16-2022, 11:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: My post evidently hit a nerve, because it engendered two posts so defensive it would have made Shaw blush. It seems that nobody enjoys being criticized, whether you are a Power 5 football coach or an anonymous poster on a message board (nb, I include myself here). Now imagine having to do that in front of TV cameras every week. If you want to get worked up about the loss, go ahead, but for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would care about a press conference. If it bothers you so much, maybe, change the channel?
BC
A praiseworthy trait in lawyers, politicians, and sports board posters is the disposition to characterize an interlocutor's or adversary's views accurately, rather than resorting to exaggerating them in order to more easily criticize or knock them down.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - Mick - 09-17-2022
David Shaw is 93-45, for a winning percentage of 58%. Here's the number of consecutive games David Shaw would have to lose to match the winning percentages of the following Stanford coaches:
17, John Ralston
22, Bill Walsh
23, Chuck Taylor
24, Tiny Thornhill
24, Jack Christiansen
31, The Sheriff
48, Marchmont Schwartz
63, Jack Elway
117, Paul Wiggin
172, Buddy Teevens
218, Wlat Harris
And here's the number of consecutive wins that Shaw would have to have to match the winning percentage of the following Stanford coaches:
32, Walter Camp
42, Fielding Yost
67, Pop Warner
147, Clark Shaughnessy
RE: TreeCast post-USC - CTcard - 09-18-2022
(09-17-2022, 10:04 PM)Mick Wrote: David Shaw is 93-45, for a winning percentage of 58%.
??????????
That particular record is a winning percentage of 67.4
RE: TreeCast post-USC - winflop - 09-18-2022
(09-17-2022, 10:04 PM)Mick Wrote: David Shaw is 93-45And over the last five seasons he's 21-24
RE: TreeCast post-USC - JohnR34231 - 09-18-2022
(09-18-2022, 07:35 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-17-2022, 10:04 PM)Mick Wrote: David Shaw is 93-45And over the last five seasons he's 21-24
How did you come up with that? This is the second post I have seen claiming that the last five years have been a losing record..
2017 9-5
2018 9-4
2019 4-8
2020 4-2
2021 3-9
29-28 by my count.
If you want to throw out the Covid year and include 2016 it improves to 35-29.
P.S. Oh, I get it. You are counting 2022's 1-1 record as a full season and throwing out 2017. Not really legit, IMO.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - winflop - 09-18-2022
(09-18-2022, 08:02 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-18-2022, 07:35 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-17-2022, 10:04 PM)Mick Wrote: David Shaw is 93-45And over the last five seasons he's 21-24
How did you come up with that? This is the second post I have seen claiming that the last five years have been a losing record..
2017 9-5
2018 9-4
2019 4-8
2020 4-2
2021 3-9
29-28 by my count.
If you want to throw out the Covid year and include 2016 it improves to 35-29.
P.S. Oh, I get it. You are counting 2022's 1-1 record as a full season and throwing out 2017. Not really legit, IMO.
29-28 isn’t any more impressive tbh. And at the end of this season it will be back below .500
RE: TreeCast post-USC - JohnR34231 - 09-20-2022
(09-18-2022, 05:19 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-18-2022, 08:02 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-18-2022, 07:35 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-17-2022, 10:04 PM)Mick Wrote: David Shaw is 93-45And over the last five seasons he's 21-24
How did you come up with that? This is the second post I have seen claiming that the last five years have been a losing record..
2017 9-5
2018 9-4
2019 4-8
2020 4-2
2021 3-9
29-28 by my count.
If you want to throw out the Covid year and include 2016 it improves to 35-29.
P.S. Oh, I get it. You are counting 2022's 1-1 record as a full season and throwing out 2017. Not really legit, IMO.
29-28 isn’t any more impressive tbh. And at the end of this season it will be back below .500
It's the difference between a winning and a losing record, which strikes me a significant. Also you could make an argument that the Covid year should be thrown out and then it would be 35-29. Think what you wish, though.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - winflop - 09-20-2022
(09-20-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Also you could make an argument that the Covid year should be thrown out and then it would be 35-29. Think what you wish, though.
If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - winflop - 09-20-2022
(09-14-2022, 06:41 PM)troyc Wrote: Thank you for checking out the show! I'd suggest giving it another listen, though. When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. Appreciate you listening!
Troy C
Troy I re-listened to this segment and your initial reaction was muted but directionally correct. However, I'm not buying your subsequent interpretation or explanation. I don't care how good U$C's offense is. When your defense gives up 5 TDs on 5 possessions and gives up 350+ yards in a HALF, that's TERRIBLE DEFENSE. How many times did the Toejams even face a third down in that half?
Yes, they played better in the second half but the game was over at halftime. I hope they play like that half this Saturday.
As for Shaw's further comment about switching to 3 edge rushers in the second half, why didn't anyone ask him why that switch wasn't made sooner? I think it's long past time for the media who cover Stanford football to start asking Shaw more pointed questions about his decision-making. I'm sure he's going to bristle at them but the reality is that his teams have largely stunk since 2019. It's about time the media started holding him just a little more accountable for that. You guys are the only ones whose questions he answers, and his AD doesn't have the spine to do it either.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - AlbanyCardinal - 09-20-2022
Maybe b/c he's the highest-paid employee at one of the world's richest, most powerful universities in the world? I've never seen one of his press conferences -- couldn't imagine anything more boring, win or lose -- so I'm probably not the one to speak on this topic. But given how tepid interest is in college football in the Bay Area, and how mild the press corps is here relative to many parts of this country, I don't fault anyone for holding Shaw to a higher, more accountable, more urgent standard.
(09-15-2022, 06:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote: “Not long ago” was last year.
I don’t know why you guys get worked up about what Shaw says at press conferences. I think maybe you want to extract some satisfaction at Shaw prostrating himself or something, but there is very little Shaw can say. If he tries to find silver linings, complaints line up that he is lying. Conversely, if he says anything negative, even if it is along the lines of “we struggled on defense” people will complain that he is throwing the players under the bus.
I’ve long said that Shaw’s goals at a press conference are to get out of there as quickly as possible, saying as little as possible. Obsessive can sometimes get a nugget or two of the coaching staff’s thinking, but more often than not, his comments are carefully couched coach-speak mostly designed to box check an activity that he clearly doesn’t enjoy (even, in many cases, after wins).
BC
RE: TreeCast post-USC - gailtate - 09-21-2022
(09-20-2022, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-20-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Also you could make an argument that the Covid year should be thrown out and then it would be 35-29. Think what you wish, though.
If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - winflop - 09-21-2022
(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote: We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.Ultimately I think the only way out is a new AD who's willing to turn the screws on Shaw to make major changes to his staff or resign. Muir doesn't have the spine to do it, and sadly his bosses don't seem to give a damn about athletics.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - gailtate - 09-21-2022
(09-21-2022, 08:20 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote: We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.Ultimately I think the only way out is a new AD who's willing to turn the screws on Shaw to make major changes to his staff or resign. Muir doesn't have the spine to do it, and sadly his bosses don't seem to give a damn about athletics.
I hope against hope that you're wrong, but I fear you are are dead-on right. Yuck.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - BostonCard - 09-21-2022
(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-20-2022, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-20-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Also you could make an argument that the Covid year should be thrown out and then it would be 35-29. Think what you wish, though.
If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.
The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc. the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.
If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.
There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then). But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-USC - Brickcity - 09-21-2022
(09-21-2022, 05:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-20-2022, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-20-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Also you could make an argument that the Covid year should be thrown out and then it would be 35-29. Think what you wish, though.
If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.
The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc. the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.
If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.
There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then). But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.
BC
"Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed." Yes, that is what I believe as do many others.
As we all know, Shaw refuses to fire people on his staff and replace them with others who could turn things around. Unless he does so - and there's no reason to believe he will - why would one assume this downward trend will reverse course?
RE: TreeCast post-USC - BostonCard - 09-21-2022
(09-21-2022, 05:26 PM)Brickcity Wrote: "Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed." Yes, that is what I believe as do many others.
As we all know, Shaw refuses to fire people on his staff and replace them with others who could turn things around. Unless he does so - and there's no reason to believe he will - why would one assume this downward trend will reverse course?
That’s fair; I hope time will prove you wrong, but I admit much of that is based on hope, rather than any clear evidence otherwise.
One caution I want to throw in there is that if you look at the record of coaches that I posted earlier, you will see that just about half had a record over .500, so beat in mind that even if you get your wish, there’s no guarantee that the next coach will even be mediocre. But if you are completely sure that Shaw is likely to have an under-.500 record going forward, even a coin flip would be an improvement.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-USC - Brickcity - 09-21-2022
(09-21-2022, 07:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-21-2022, 05:26 PM)Brickcity Wrote: "Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed." Yes, that is what I believe as do many others.
As we all know, Shaw refuses to fire people on his staff and replace them with others who could turn things around. Unless he does so - and there's no reason to believe he will - why would one assume this downward trend will reverse course?
That’s fair; I hope time will prove you wrong, but I admit much of that is based on hope, rather than any clear evidence otherwise.
One caution I want to throw in there is that if you look at the record of coaches that I posted earlier, you will see that just about half had a record over .500, so beat in mind that even if you get your wish, there’s no guarantee that the next coach will even be mediocre. But if you are completely sure that Shaw is likely to have an under-.500 record going forward, even a coin flip would be an improvement.
BC
I feel pretty confident that Shaw will have a -.500 moving forward.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - JohnR34231 - 09-22-2022
(09-21-2022, 05:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-20-2022, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-20-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Also you could make an argument that the Covid year should be thrown out and then it would be 35-29. Think what you wish, though.
If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.
The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc. the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.
If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.
There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then). But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.
BC
No doubt Shaw's overall record at Stanford has been exemplary.
However, for better or worse, college football coaching is very much a "what have you done for us lately" profession, and let's face it, two out of the last three years have sucked. I guess the question is how many more years does it have to suck before we conclude things have to change.
Hopefully Shaw will get things turned around so we won't have to address that question.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - gailtate - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-21-2022, 05:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-20-2022, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-20-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Also you could make an argument that the Covid year should be thrown out and then it would be 35-29. Think what you wish, though.
If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.
The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc. the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.
If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.
There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then). But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.
BC
No doubt Shaw's overall record at Stanford has been exemplary.
However, for better or worse, college football coaching is very much a "what have you done for us lately" profession, and let's face it, two out of the last three years have sucked. I guess the question is how many more years does it have to suck before we conclude things have to change.
Hopefully Shaw will get things turned around so we won't have to address that question.
The idiom "hoping against hope" comes to readily to mind here: To hope very strongly that something will happen, although you know it is not likely. I would like to see what kind of winning percentages other 10-year-plus coaches achieved comparable to Shaw's body of work: Ten years of enviable results after inheriting a powerhouse program, then a drastic fall-off. How many of them returned to their winning ways?