My question for the university - 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: My question for the university (/thread-23664.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: My question for the university (/thread-23664.html)
RE: My question for the university - Phogge - 11-06-2022
BC, I’m confused. Was I shitty at math since kindergarten until this day because I chewed a lot of bubblegum as a kid?
RE: My question for the university - OutsiderFan - 11-06-2022
(11-05-2022, 06:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-05-2022, 04:29 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Personally, I don't tolerate it. I demonstrate this by not participating in posts talking about the team, not watching or listening to games, and not bothering to learn who the players are. I don't really follow Stanford any more than any other college football team.
And yet, here you are. Newsflash, whether you participate in threads or not, or loudly proclaim that you won’t, the administration doesn’t care. Pound the proverbial message table that is this board of it makes you feel better. That’s what message boards are for. They are not, however, to try to affect change. Maybe Shaw will be fired, maybe he won’t (I think the threshold for the university to fire him will be pretty high, but I could be wrong). Be that as it may, just know that ranting and raving on here doesn’t make it any more or less likely.
BC
I'm here for the entertainment and out of habit. While I would prefer Stanford be a contending team, I'm really not bothered at all by the embarrassment Stanford chooses to be on the football field. As I have said before, if Stanford doesn't care, why should I?
RE: My question for the university - BostonCard - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 12:03 AM)Phogge Wrote: BC, I’m confused. Was I shitty at math since kindergarten until this day because I chewed a lot of bubblegum as a kid?
Nope, just if you were chewing bubblegum in order to improve your math, then you were doing it wrong.
BC
RE: My question for the university - 82 Card - 11-06-2022
Seems like the university is quiet quitting football. The thought has crossed my mind that the decision has been made to cancel football but they never hit send on the memo. Of course there have been times like this before. Back in my day, we sat in the stands watching Elway launch bombs from our own end zone lamenting that Stanford could never be competitive because it was too country club.
RE: My question for the university - msqueri - 11-06-2022
It happens roughly every 20 years at Stanford. I am going to be so sad and so mad if Stanford decides to step back from competing in major college football. Those who don't follow college football in a thoughtful way don't realize how, even in the current landscape, Stanford would have a very high chance of relevance by the second half of this decade if we committed to a rebuild. Maybe there's only a coin flip's chance Shaw's successor works out, given inherent uncertainty of coaching hires and what he'd be inheriting, but the odds a program with Stanford's advantages/disadvantages getting 7-8+ win seasons with either this hire or the one after it is high. What those paying a modicum of attention realize is that the odds of it while continuing to do what we're doing are vanishing.
RE: My question for the university - Mick - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 03:33 PM)msqueri Wrote: It happens roughly every 20 years at Stanford. I am going to be so sad and so mad if Stanford decides to step back from competing in major college football. Those who don't follow college football in a thoughtful way don't realize how, even in the current landscape, Stanford would have a very high chance of relevance by the second half of this decade if we committed to a rebuild. Maybe there's only a coin flip's chance Shaw's successor works out, given inherent uncertainty of coaching hires and what he'd be inheriting, but the odds a program with Stanford's advantages/disadvantages getting 7-8+ win seasons with either this hire or the one after it is high. What those paying a modicum of attention realize is that the odds of it while continuing to do what we're doing are vanishing.
The last time Stanford football was flushed by coaches Teevens and Harris, it took an NFL Super Bowl-level coach to drag them out of the doldrums, and even with that advantage, it took Harbaugh four years until he found Lord Vader (Vic Fangio), and Stanford ascended to #4.
What are the odds we can do that again?
RE: My question for the university - cardcrimson - 11-06-2022
Harbaugh wasn't a Super Bowl calibre coach. He had EUTM. Players bought in and played their asses off. Add a few great assistant coaches and it worked amazingly well. Harbaugh was not afraid to surround himself with coaches better than he was, and change out those who weren't. . . .
RE: My question for the university - Mick - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 04:34 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Harbaugh wasn't a Super Bowl calibre coach. He had EUTM. Players bought in and played their asses off. Add a few great assistant coaches and it worked amazingly well. Harbaugh was not afraid to surround himself with coaches better than he was, and change out those who weren't. . . .
I must be mistaken, I thought Harbaugh went to Super Bowl XLVII and coached against Ravens and his brother.
He became the first NFL coach to go to the NFC championship game in each of his first three seasons, then was fired after he went 49-22 in the NFL regular season, then 5-3 post-season.
That's the kind of coach Stanford football needs to turn it around.
RE: My question for the university - msqueri - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 04:29 PM)Mick Wrote:(11-06-2022, 03:33 PM)msqueri Wrote: It happens roughly every 20 years at Stanford. I am going to be so sad and so mad if Stanford decides to step back from competing in major college football. Those who don't follow college football in a thoughtful way don't realize how, even in the current landscape, Stanford would have a very high chance of relevance by the second half of this decade if we committed to a rebuild. Maybe there's only a coin flip's chance Shaw's successor works out, given inherent uncertainty of coaching hires and what he'd be inheriting, but the odds a program with Stanford's advantages/disadvantages getting 7-8+ win seasons with either this hire or the one after it is high. What those paying a modicum of attention realize is that the odds of it while continuing to do what we're doing are vanishing.
The last time Stanford football was flushed by coaches Teevens and Harris, it took an NFL Super Bowl-level coach to drag them out of the doldrums, and even with that advantage, it took Harbaugh four years until he found Lord Vader (Vic Fangio), and Stanford ascended to #4.
What are the odds we can do that again?
It took Harbaugh to take us from Teevens and Harris to even better than Ralston. That was a miracle. We don’t need that to become relevant. Hypothetically, maybe we could have hired Mike Riley and been a frequent bowl team rather than a BCS level team.
Look back at our history. Ralston turned us around after having been a successful lower level head coach. Green had been a failed Power Five coach and an NFL position coach but he injected life in our program. Harbaugh wasn’t even a Group of Five coach when we hired him. There is no reason somebody like Brent Brennan couldn’t find success at Stanford. Earlier this season I named a dozen guys I believe would have at least a 50 percent chance of eventually getting Stanford back to relevance (say being too 25 at some point in their tenure).
RE: My question for the university - Phogge - 11-06-2022
Agree with Mick, disagree with CC.
May take a couple of years, sometimes right away. Harbaugh checks the box.
So he pisses off people. IDGAF.
RE: My question for the university - vataha - 11-06-2022
Not a dart at the current AD, but Bowlsby was the right AD at the right time. He understood competitive football and brought that understanding here. Other than that Jim brought in a very good combo of assistants young and old to the staff.
RE: My question for the university - cardcrimson - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 04:41 PM)Mick Wrote:(11-06-2022, 04:34 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Harbaugh wasn't a Super Bowl calibre coach. He had EUTM. Players bought in and played their asses off. Add a few great assistant coaches and it worked amazingly well. Harbaugh was not afraid to surround himself with coaches better than he was, and change out those who weren't. . . .
I must be mistaken, I thought Harbaugh went to Super Bowl XLVII and coached against Ravens and his brother.
He became the first NFL coach to go to the NFC championship game in each of his first three seasons, then was fired after he went 49-22 in the NFL regular season, then 5-3 post-season.
That's the kind of coach Stanford football needs to turn it around.
I didn't make my point well enough. Harbaugh certainly wasn't a Super Bowl calibre coach in 2007. That said, he was exactly the right guy at the right time for Stanford, and later again for the 49ers. Harbaugh didn't scheme his way to success, he surrounded himself with those who could and gave them the support and enthusiasm to implement it. He set the tone and culture. He's a great CEO of a football team. . . .
And yes, we need someone like him again, someone with passion and enthusiasm to set a tone and culture for success.
RE: My question for the university - gailtate - 11-06-2022
My father was sure Stanford would go the way of Santa Clara while Curtice was struggling. "They want scholars, not football players", he would say. Then Ralston arrived (thanks, Director Taylor). I was thrilled later when Bill Walsh arrived for two seasons and a couple of actual bowl wins. I appreciated his candor about the shallowness of the recruiting pool and how it would always limit Stanford to secondary bowls, at best. I bought into it and I accepted the low expectations. Then Harbaugh changed everything. Most of all, he blew up the trope about Stanford's competitive disadvantage(s). At last, a Big Time program with Big Time expectations that were real. Stanford was bad-ass football played by bad-asses who were coached by one. So still I hesitate to swallow the line about mutual exclusivity: that Stanford and "Blueblood" don't belong in the same sentence. It's been done. This tells me it is eminently do-able again. There is a precedent. It has happened before. And, BTW, the university has no choice about a return to FBS prominence. It's All In or it is Down and Out. Home of Champions No More. Who's gonna vote for that?
RE: My question for the university - Treebound - 11-06-2022
Both Harbaugh and Montgomery proved that we could compete at the highest levels in Football and Basketball. Both of them, along with Ralston and Walsh were younger, up and coming coaches to whom Stanford gave a shot and a platform to take their careers to the next level. I will give Bowlsby credit as he was struggling on whether to cut ties with Harris after only 2 years, as there were some both here and within the AD that thought he should have one more year. BobB pulled the plug and we received the gift of EUTM and a rise to the top of the football world.
What is clear to me is that we need new EUTM, especially on the recruiting front. I've heard rumors that Shaw has not been spending even close to his full allocation on recruitment travel. If this is true, it points to the complacency that I believe has taken the program to its current depths. What is also clear to me after sitting in the stadium for a horrible first half versus WSU, is that we are now past time for a change and I'm hopeful that it happens in the next month. The stadium was a cavern and even Chuck Taylor was pretty quiet, although many there didn't venture into the game unfortunately. Not that I can blame them given what I saw first hand. Many people that I know are now changing their plans and will not go to Big Game. Oh how far we have fallen and I'm sad about the current state of Stanford football.
RE: My question for the university - lex24 - 11-07-2022
Bill Walsh wasn’t a bad coach. He didn’t outwardly exude EUTM. In fact, he was rather professorial on the face of things. Course, he could also be quite tough. And was a great offensive mind that could teach. Nice combo.
Just because a guy hops around and screams a lot doesn’t make that person a good HC. Ask Arizona about Stoops. Just because a coach doesn’t, isn’t a sign that they don’t have the same competitive juice. Walsh again comes to mind.
JH was and is a very good to great coach for a host of reasons. Not just because of EUTM.
Different styles work for different people.
RE: My question for the university - Phogge - 11-07-2022
Bill Walsh was a VERY tough guy. Street fighter as a kid. He was the kind of guy who would pull scholies if the U permitted it. There was no pansy in him. Now Stanford has a core of people running things who are panseys.
Football is a brutal game on the field, on the practice field and in the recruiting field. Maybe a tough guy won’t win with all the pansy restrictions that a Stanford coach has to live with but he might be able to instill an attitude that make it fun to watch again.
Dave Wyman once said that he was football first and academics second. They need about 85 Dave Wymans and winning will take care of itself. But won’t happen in a pansy environment and that’s what you guys have now.
RE: My question for the university - Spiny_Norman - 11-07-2022
From what I can tell, this is the first time in the past 30 years or so that Stanford has had a provost AND president who don't care about athletics and specifically about football.
During the 1990s when Gerhard Casper was president, Condie Rice was the provost. She definitely understood football and I think supported athletics.
During the period from 2000-2017, John Hennessy and John Etchemendy were in the executive suite. I believe their decision to hire Bob Bowlsby came directly from their knowledge about the importance of football and the need for AD leadership with football experience.
Since 2016-17, Stanford has been led by Marc Tessier-Levigne and Persis Drell who have little interest in athletics. It's a bad combination and I think they have allowed the decline of football by their inattention.
RE: My question for the university - gailtate - 11-07-2022
(11-07-2022, 11:34 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bill Walsh was a VERY tough guy. Street fighter as a kid. He was the kind of guy who would pull scholies if the U permitted it. There was no pansy in him. Now Stanford has a core of people running things who are panseys.
Football is a brutal game on the field, on the practice field and in the recruiting field. Maybe a tough guy won’t win with all the pansy restrictions that a Stanford coach has to live with but he might be able to instill an attitude that make it fun to watch again.
Dave Wyman once said that he was football first and academics second. They need about 85 Dave Wymans and winning will take care of itself. But won’t happen in a pansy environment and that’s what you guys have now.
I am curious to see the Battle Royal sure to arrive when it is, pardon the expression, come-to-Jesus time -- when the pansey-asses are forced to reconcile their values with the brutal, real-world reality of the NIL/portal era. Cannot wait!
RE: My question for the university - marchballer - 11-07-2022
I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor.
There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.
RE: My question for the university - gailtate - 11-07-2022
(11-07-2022, 12:31 PM)marchballer Wrote: I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor.
There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.
Inadequate levels of talent--quantitative--is an existential issue. I assume the poor coaching you cite includes the dismal failure to replenish specific needs annually on the recruitment front as well as player development. Both are conspicuously below par, relative to the Big Bowls Era. We're not just ver bad, we're very thin. The injuries have outed this.