Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - 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: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. (/thread-24405.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: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. (/thread-24405.html)
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - GK3 - 09-10-2023
(09-10-2023, 05:21 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(09-09-2023, 09:28 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Hope you're both proud at the state of Stanford football you both created. The cupboards weren't this bare even in the early 2000s.
That said, I still have faith in the new staff and the new team.
Give us a break, the buddy teevens years at the bottom were stacked with dreadful 3 and 2 star players. There are a slew of 4 stars on the current roster still.
Shaw's coaching was a liability in the end - especially with offense. But it wasn't all on him. NIL stance by Stanford was and still is slow.
It is time to get over the fact that today is not yesterday. How we did things 20 years ago is not today and Stanford is not going to jump into the new reality with both feet. We will have a NIL, we will allow a few transfers, but we aren't going to allow athletes who have met the requirements to graduate to stick around another year unless they are in a grad school. 20 years ago yes, today, it isn't happening. Why ask an athlete to give up a paid year of grad school somewhere else to play another quarter at Stanford.
Once the transfer portal and NIL started we were at a disadvantage and will stay there until the rules change. We are not going to be USC and allow any large body who can run fast, catch footballs, and spell CAT to matriculate.
I don't like the current situation, and football is the sport most impacted but it is what it is and each of us has to choose which model we would like to have and then live with the one the University gives us.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - TrumpCard - 09-10-2023
The short term is going to be rough for Stanford trying to compete in football in a major conference. In the long term, football will die out and colleges will endure. Stanford will be well positioned when tennis, golf, swimming and crew are the marquis college sports.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - GK3 - 09-11-2023
(09-10-2023, 12:11 PM)M T Wrote:(09-10-2023, 09:43 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Stanford simply has to be more flexible. It can't:
- Refuse JC transfers
- Limit itself to a few undergrad transfers (even Cal has like 27 transfers)*
- Require the highest admissions standards of everyone with whom it competes
- Require Grad School admission to stay for a 5th year and push guys to graduate in 4 years
- Look down on or not fully embrace NIL collectives, and paying players
A football-first school can't do those things. Stanford should never become a football-first school.
Has there been any (good, non-self selecting) survey of football importance to the Stanford's 16,000+ students?
Outsider Fan and MT make excellent points. What used to be is gone, most likely forever. We have to learn to live with the new realities as outlined by OF. Will Stanford change, maybe a little, but my guess we have pretty much changed as much as we are going to change in terms of transfers. If we change we become more like Colorado and USC, which are academic institutions for the majority of their students but for athletes they are just a factory whose standards bear no resemblance to those of the parent institution. Football is the one sport that suffers the most in the rules of the new world we are in. It takes a LOT of players and a good number of very good players to be successful year in and year out. There will always be a few qualified players in the portal, but not USC or Colorado numbers. There may be a lot of 50/50 years coming up.
Stanford has always had challenging standards, it is partially what made it what it is. I don't see those standards changing much just to support athletics.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - OutsiderFan - 09-11-2023
(09-11-2023, 02:35 AM)GK3 Wrote:(09-10-2023, 12:11 PM)M T Wrote:(09-10-2023, 09:43 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Stanford simply has to be more flexible. It can't:
- Refuse JC transfers
- Limit itself to a few undergrad transfers (even Cal has like 27 transfers)*
- Require the highest admissions standards of everyone with whom it competes
- Require Grad School admission to stay for a 5th year and push guys to graduate in 4 years
- Look down on or not fully embrace NIL collectives, and paying players
A football-first school can't do those things. Stanford should never become a football-first school.
Has there been any (good, non-self selecting) survey of football importance to the Stanford's 16,000+ students?
Outsider Fan and MT make excellent points. What used to be is gone, most likely forever. We have to learn to live with the new realities as outlined by OF. Will Stanford change, maybe a little, but my guess we have pretty much changed as much as we are going to change in terms of transfers. If we change we become more like Colorado and USC, which are academic institutions for the majority of their students but for athletes they are just a factory whose standards bear no resemblance to those of the parent institution. Football is the one sport that suffers the most in the rules of the new world we are in. It takes a LOT of players and a good number of very good players to be successful year in and year out. There will always be a few qualified players in the portal, but not USC or Colorado numbers. There may be a lot of 50/50 years coming up.
Stanford has always had challenging standards, it is partially what made it what it is. I don't see those standards changing much just to support athletics.
So why bend over backwards to get into the ACC and give up so much money to get your teeth kicked in? It makes absolutely zero sense. "We're going to make our players travel thousands of miles to be in a power conference for football, and give up tens of millions of dollars to do it, but we're not going to do what it takes to compete, are OK with being a punching bag, further de-valuing our brand, and when the next consolidation comes, we'll be OK being even more in the wilderness than we just were" is not a smart strategy.
If the "surrender monkey" mentality is ultimately going to prevail, why not just stay in a watered down Pac? But I've got news for you. Even IF Stanford were to stay with The Cougs and Beavs, if it doesn't raise its football game by making the yes, COMPROMISES it takes to win, Stanford would get its brains beat in by new Pac teams too.
IOW, if you play football, make the investments and adapt institutionally to be competitive, or drop the sport.
What is amazing to me is I see no evidence anywhere that any Stanford fans have a clue what Stanford's BOT thinks about the importance of being a legit football program, and the compromises and adaptations it will make to have one. All we have is the scramble to get in the ACC to show it does place importance on it, but is that just to be in a power conference or to be in it to win in one.
We also have no idea what the new Provost thinks, or how she may or may not allow Muir to be more empowered to make things better, or if he even knows how.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - CowboyIndian - 09-11-2023
(09-11-2023, 06:00 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: ... or how she may or may not allow Muir to be more empowered to make things better, or if he even knows how.
And if history is any guide....
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - SkiBum80 - 09-11-2023
A lotta doomsday discussion how the wide open transfer portal will surely doom us.
As perhaps evidenced by the bull rush to the door of so many of our football starters/vets joining Coach Shaw out the door.
But I believe the open portal need not be a certain death knell for us.
If our identity, our niche, is Good Student + Good Athlete, then continue to look for those guys to transfer In, that were missed on first cut. Guys who were maybe a good student but a less than 3 star in HS but came on strong in play in Frosh or Soph year at State U or JC. Or Guys who were strong on field but slacked in HS classroom, but became better student once hit college and maybe their State U team not looking that great.
These guys are great prospects for us to transfer in.
I hope that a year or two from now we can look back and say that the recent big exodus to the portal was more because of Coach Shaw leaving rather than any insurmountable disadvantage inherent to us.
Furthermore, based on their success in the 2024 recruiting class, I think if anyone able to pivot to this new reality, then Coach TT & Co seem to be the ones to do it.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - msqueri - 09-11-2023
I think it's too early to say the 2024 recruiting class will be a success - we've lost several of the more promising commits and are at risk of it becoming a hemorrhaging of such commits - but agree with the thrust of SkiBum80's post. Let's see how things look for us if Taylor or even a coach after him can build a culture and winning ways that make us more attractive. There is also the possibility that rules changes (or even legislation) will continue to alter the landscape, and those changes could help or harm us. There is a new rule now in effect going forward that could fundamentally change things - reining in the ability of players to transfer multiple times. The bottom line is that for various reasons it's premature to say this new landscape is inhospitable to Stanford.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - Farm93 - 09-11-2023
(09-11-2023, 06:00 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:Why the ACC?(09-11-2023, 02:35 AM)GK3 Wrote:(09-10-2023, 12:11 PM)M T Wrote:(09-10-2023, 09:43 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Stanford simply has to be more flexible. It can't:
- Refuse JC transfers
- Limit itself to a few undergrad transfers (even Cal has like 27 transfers)*
- Require the highest admissions standards of everyone with whom it competes
- Require Grad School admission to stay for a 5th year and push guys to graduate in 4 years
- Look down on or not fully embrace NIL collectives, and paying players
A football-first school can't do those things. Stanford should never become a football-first school.
Has there been any (good, non-self selecting) survey of football importance to the Stanford's 16,000+ students?
Outsider Fan and MT make excellent points. What used to be is gone, most likely forever. We have to learn to live with the new realities as outlined by OF. Will Stanford change, maybe a little, but my guess we have pretty much changed as much as we are going to change in terms of transfers. If we change we become more like Colorado and USC, which are academic institutions for the majority of their students but for athletes they are just a factory whose standards bear no resemblance to those of the parent institution. Football is the one sport that suffers the most in the rules of the new world we are in. It takes a LOT of players and a good number of very good players to be successful year in and year out. There will always be a few qualified players in the portal, but not USC or Colorado numbers. There may be a lot of 50/50 years coming up.
Stanford has always had challenging standards, it is partially what made it what it is. I don't see those standards changing much just to support athletics.
So why bend over backwards to get into the ACC and give up so much money to get your teeth kicked in? It makes absolutely zero sense. "We're going to make our players travel thousands of miles to be in a power conference for football, and give up tens of millions of dollars to do it, but we're not going to do what it takes to compete, are OK with being a punching bag, further de-valuing our brand, and when the next consolidation comes, we'll be OK being even more in the wilderness than we just were" is not a smart strategy.
If the "surrender monkey" mentality is ultimately going to prevail, why not just stay in a watered down Pac? But I've got news for you. Even IF Stanford were to stay with The Cougs and Beavs, if it doesn't raise its football game by making the yes, COMPROMISES it takes to win, Stanford would get its brains beat in by new Pac teams too.
IOW, if you play football, make the investments and adapt institutionally to be competitive, or drop the sport.
What is amazing to me is I see no evidence anywhere that any Stanford fans have a clue what Stanford's BOT thinks about the importance of being a legit football program, and the compromises and adaptations it will make to have one. All we have is the scramble to get in the ACC to show it does place importance on it, but is that just to be in a power conference or to be in it to win in one.
We also have no idea what the new Provost thinks, or how she may or may not allow Muir to be more empowered to make things better, or if he even knows how.
In some ways the ACC is a really good conference for Stanford. Travel is a problem, but it was going to be a problem as soon as USC and UCLA left the Pac-12.
The ACC is just a short-term lifeboat. A number of the ACC schools are in the same place as Stanford and I bet a few of them know it. If the transfer portal turns into a college free agency vehicle, a few existing ACC schools are in trouble too.
Stanford probably can deal with NIL trends, at least for a while. The transfer portal is just a completely different deal.
Common Data Set numbers tell the story.
Over the last 10 years the enrolling transfers have been 47, 65, 67, 20, 24, 27, 39, 15, 29 and 28. The numbers were a bit higher in the three post-COVID fall quarters but that is likely because of the very unique disruptions COVID created in higher education.
Put it together and that's 36.1 per year over that 10 year window. 36.1 is not for the football team, or the AD, that's 36.1 undergraduate transfers for the university.
Let's compare to USC
USC is rather notorious for using non-fall transfers to improve their US News metrics, but just looking at the Fall of 2022 USC's enrollment was 1,295. That one semester in one year was 3.5 times what Stanford enrolled over 10 years.
Colorado? 1,352
Clemson? 1,622
Florida State? 1,633
tOSU? 2,070
Duke? 50
Wake Forest? 32
Boston College? 80
I would submit it is not difficult to bring in 20, 30 or even 40 football players if the university has more than a thousand transfers each year.
It is quite another thing to bring in 20, 30 or 40 football players if a school has less than 100 transfers coming to campus each year. It is nice to see that the ACC has a few other schools that probably will have the same issue with using the transfer portal as a free agency type resource.
Stanford will not be admitting 20 "student" athletes from JuCos for the football program each year.
Stanford will not even be admitting 20 student athletes for football from highly selective D1 schools each year.
If, or when, landing 20+ transfers becomes required to compete at the highest level in D1 football, then it will be time for Stanford to accept playing at a lower level or step away.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - Duck Tears - 09-11-2023
(09-10-2023, 05:21 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(09-09-2023, 09:28 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Hope you're both proud at the state of Stanford football you both created. The cupboards weren't this bare even in the early 2000s.
That said, I still have faith in the new staff and the new team.
Give us a break, the buddy teevens years at the bottom were stacked with dreadful 3 and 2 star players. There are a slew of 4 stars on the current roster still.
Shaw's coaching was a liability in the end - especially with offense. But it wasn't all on him. NIL stance by Stanford was and still is slow.
The cupboard sure seems bare at two positions: What current wide receivers and/or running backs were 4-stars?
Harbaugh inherited Mark Bradford AND Evan Moore – 4-stars apiece – from Buddy Teevens. That '07 team had Toby Gerhart and Richard Sherman; Both were 3-star Walt Harris recruits.
I see no current RB or WR of their caliber. Am I overlooking anyone?
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - norcard10 - 09-11-2023
(09-11-2023, 12:32 PM)Duck Tears Wrote:(09-10-2023, 05:21 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(09-09-2023, 09:28 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Hope you're both proud at the state of Stanford football you both created. The cupboards weren't this bare even in the early 2000s.
That said, I still have faith in the new staff and the new team.
Give us a break, the buddy teevens years at the bottom were stacked with dreadful 3 and 2 star players. There are a slew of 4 stars on the current roster still.
Shaw's coaching was a liability in the end - especially with offense. But it wasn't all on him. NIL stance by Stanford was and still is slow.
The 2023 skill position cupboard sure seems bare (beyond Ben Yurosek). What current receivers and running backs were 4-star recruits?
In 2007, Harbaugh inherited Evan Moore and Mark Bradford. Both were 4-star Teevens recruits. The '07 team also featured two key Walt Harris recruits: Richard Sherman (3 stars) and Toby Gerhart (3 stars).
I see no current Stanford receivers or running backs of that caliber.
Did you miss John Humphreys, EJ Smith, Tiger Bachmeier? and that's all from a 5 second cursory look.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - jacket3ree - 09-11-2023
Some good thoughts in this thread. Outsider Fan is right. While some of Stanford's recent executive decisions have seemed questionable, why would they work so hard and give away so much to be in the ACC only to offer a token football program? I mean, they will try, right? (I'm sure Vandy tries and I know Duke does - trying isn't always enough. Until it is and you humiliate Clemson on national TV.) Standing on some moral high ground to require oral surgery on a weekly basis is silly.
Stanford operates under the same rules as everyone else. My understanding is that they cannot stand in the way of NIL opportunities, but why don't they embrace the true entrepreneurial aspect of them? Be a little different; this is teachable marketing. (Did they help Brink at all? Can they help? This is all so confusing.) Am I happy that I get to watch Caleb Williams pick a Strawberry Dr. Pepper hat while on commercial break from slicing and dicing the Card? No. No I am not. (He's not awful by the way.) So SC and UCLA have Burbank in their backyard. Stanford has Silicon Valley. More kids (and probably adults) watch their phones than TV. Leverage that market segment.
As to transfers, Stanford shouldn't tie anything to the non-athlete population. If the University only takes 80 transfers as a whole, that doesn't mean the school is ruined by taking more than 0.4 transfer a year on average. Take what you need to be competitive and stop putting quotation marks around students from other schools. Or asking what the University of Alabama has ever done for anyone. There are plenty of great athletes that can handle Stanford. Plenty. Is Austin Jones now stupid or something? No, he was smart enough to leave a dirge program and enjoy life. Drop the pretense and offer the opportunities. Which is what Stanford has always done. No need to become manic about the portal because it is new. Use it wisely, but for God's sake, make Stanford a place players want to stay and help build a program.
Like Harbaugh and his fullbacks, there is still a place for strong high school recruiting. balancing classes, and building the old-fashioned way by making this a destination program again. Particularly since some high school kids will be left looking by an increased reliance on the portal. Sure BYU had advantages by always having adults playing against kids, but it isn't exactly like they've been churning national titles since Detmer beat that weak Michigan team whenever that was.
When Stanford sucks, we tend to get existential. But they are headed to a conference with FSU, Clemson, UNC, and the rotating ACC Wheel of Destiny. I find it hard to believe they'll just give up. Some coach can do it. Keep trying until you find that coach. Better yet if he's already on board.
Gratuitious Haase shot - tournament or terminated. This may not be your father's ACC (your father being....me), but they don't suck. You can't take that weak ass ess in there.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - Spiny_Norman - 09-11-2023
If you talk to a Stanford administrator, they will tell you that Stanford HAS made changes to adapt to the new environment to try to remain competitive. Admissions makes earlier evaluations, Stanford has NIL collectives, and they have increased athletic transfers. The football program appears to be much more aggressive at recruiting compared to their predecessors. And of course, the University has negotiated an invitation to a major conference of peer schools when it looked like Stanford was going to be without a home at all.
I think they believe that those changes will give Stanford a chance to be competitive in football. We need to acknowledge that Stanford is not sitting idly or passively as the college sports world changes around it (although they were pretty passive until recently). They may want to sit back and see the results. Still, I think the people here would say "you need to do more."
My priority above and beyond all of the changes that everyone has suggested would be hire a football AD. Someone who is passionate about football, who has experience with football success as an administrator and who is willing to push Stanford a bit beyond its comfort zone (but without compromising the academic mission of the University) in pursuit of excellence.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - Mick - 09-11-2023
(09-11-2023, 09:43 AM)SkiBum80 Wrote: But I believe the open portal need not be a certain death knell for us.
If our identity, our niche, is Good Student + Good Athlete, then continue to look for those guys to transfer In, that were missed on first cut. Guys who were maybe a good student but a less than 3 star in HS but came on strong in play in Frosh or Soph year at State U or JC. Or Guys who were strong on field but slacked in HS classroom, but became better student once hit college and maybe their State U team not looking that great.
These guys are great prospects for us to transfer in.
I hope that a year or two from now we can look back and say that the recent big exodus to the portal was more because of Coach Shaw leaving rather than any insurmountable disadvantage inherent to us.
Furthermore, based on their success in the 2024 recruiting class, I think if anyone able to pivot to this new reality, then Coach TT & Co seem to be the ones to do it.
I genuinely hope that's the case. I think it could be if Coach TT and his staff are on top of their game, if they're aware of the academic progress of key targeted players.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - msqueri - 09-11-2023
(09-11-2023, 12:40 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(09-11-2023, 12:32 PM)Duck Tears Wrote:(09-10-2023, 05:21 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(09-09-2023, 09:28 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Hope you're both proud at the state of Stanford football you both created. The cupboards weren't this bare even in the early 2000s.
That said, I still have faith in the new staff and the new team.
Give us a break, the buddy teevens years at the bottom were stacked with dreadful 3 and 2 star players. There are a slew of 4 stars on the current roster still.
Shaw's coaching was a liability in the end - especially with offense. But it wasn't all on him. NIL stance by Stanford was and still is slow.
The 2023 skill position cupboard sure seems bare (beyond Ben Yurosek). What current receivers and running backs were 4-star recruits?
In 2007, Harbaugh inherited Evan Moore and Mark Bradford. Both were 4-star Teevens recruits. The '07 team also featured two key Walt Harris recruits: Richard Sherman (3 stars) and Toby Gerhart (3 stars).
I see no current Stanford receivers or running backs of that caliber.
Did you miss John Humphreys, EJ Smith, Tiger Bachmeier? and that's all from a 5 second cursory look.
Bachmeier is a stretch but yes, we do have former 4-star recruits at the skill positions:
Humphreys: Unanimous 4-star, borderline whale
Smith: Unanimous 4-star, borderline whale
Roush: Consensus 4-star
That's not even to mention the many 4-star OL (Rogers, McLaughlin, Pogorelc, Anderson) or the guys who were 4-stars in the view of some but not most (Ungar, Yurosek, Farrell, Patu, Uke, Heyer, Hawkins, Borden, Jackson, Irvin, Bachmeier, Pale, Harris).
So yeah, Stanford has 4-stars in three different rooms on offense and at least two arguable 4-stars in every single room.
Talent alone cannot explain what we see. 247 crunched all the numbers and, inclusive of transfers and attrition not just for us but everybody, they assess us as having the #37 talent in the country. That seems about right. And clearly we perform much, much worse than that on offense. Here's why that's the case:
1. Football starts up front and our OL is almost entirely new and was eviscerated by attrition. We have very little experience and zero fifth or sixth year guys, which is very hard to overcome empirically at this position. Our OL is going to be a work in progress this year and maybe longer.
2. The most important single position is QB and all of our competitors shopped to get a proven QB. We shopped in the transfer portal too, but like Cal the best we could do was a non-proven QB. That's tough when almost everybody you play has a QB they know is solid (or in the case of half our schedule downright great) and you have a QB you hope is solid.
3. Shaw's culture of leaving killed us. Just absolutely killed us. On offense alone, among departed guys with eligibility this year, Nugent is the top-ranked OL for Michigan so far this season and as we know an elite player, Rouse is starting for Oklahoma, Metcalf is the top-ranked OL for UCF, Hinton is starting for Michigan, Hornibrook is starting for Duke, Miller is starting for Cal, McKee left without his degree as far as I know and had two years of eligibility remaining, Wilson left eligibility on the table though a sixth year when the opportunity cost is playing in the NFL is a lot to ask, Higgins left eligibility on the table and looks like a fringe NFL player though he did make an active roster albeit not with the team that drafted him, Jones is STILL playing at USC and has been 6th/17th/18th in the Pac-12 in yards from scrimmage and would have been the superstar for a team that doesn't have a single non-Yurosek player who has ever been top 50 in the conference in yards from scrimmage (Yurosek has been 15th and 46th), and Peat is STILL playing at Missouri and has been 43rd in the Pac-12 in yards from scrimmage and is currently 12th in the SEC in yards from scrimmage through two games so he would have been a big help too. Give us McKee, Nugent OR Rouse OR Metcalf, Wilson OR Higgins, and Jones OR Peat and this is a totally different offense.
4. Shaw killed the culture, the commitment, strength and conditioning, everything. We saw for half a decade what was happening to our program and are now seeing what it all culminated in. The total has been less than the sum of the parts for years and it will take time for Taylor to rebuild all that atrophied (or worse).
5. Despite the on-paper number of former 4-stars, I think our eyeballs tell us that we are lacking talent at the skill positions. Yurosek is genuinely spectacular (though even he is somewhat one dimensional). Humphreys is Trent Irwin-lite - a reliable, decently talented guy you'd love to have as WR3 rather than WR1. Smith is exactly what I thought he was the moment we recruited him - a deadly third down back/versatile receiving weapon who is much more pedestrian and unreliable if you need him to be the bell cow. Roush is a big tease so far, looking hapless in the first 14 games of his college career despite the hype. Ungar has never been healthy even going back all through high school. Farrell is an ok weapon in small doses, a novelty rather than a feature piece. Patu and Jackson are buried on the QB depth chart. The new coaching staff has been a disaster for Hawkins and I'm not sure if he will play again before inevitably transferring out somewhere he meshes better with the coaches. Borden and Harris couldn't even make the travel roster ahead of walk-ons, a horribly ominous sign for our WR pipeline going forward. Irvin looks like he might be interesting, let's see. Bachmeier is playing a lot, which would be encouraging except he's been useless so far. All in all I think it's a very troubling skill position group, both for this year and looking into the future. Taylor and his staff need to address this via recruiting and/or transfers.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - fullmetal - 09-11-2023
Shannon Turley was let go from CU when Prime Time was hired there. Any appetite in the athletic department to bring him back, or are we too good/proud to recapture some fundamentals? Or is there another reason?
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - msqueri - 09-11-2023
(09-11-2023, 02:12 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Shannon Turley was let go from CU when Prime Time was hired there. Any appetite in the athletic department to bring him back, or are we too good/proud to recapture some fundamentals? Or is there another reason?
I don't know why we'd assume Turley is better than Deatrick. Turley had a great run at Stanford and then some subsequent aspects of his resume that are less sparkling. Deatrick has worked in effective synergy with a good chunk of our staff (Taylor, Agnew, Osborne, D'Onofrio, Williams, etc.) and most importantly was part of Taylor's secret sauce at Sacramento State. So far all indications from within the program are that we've experienced significant gains from the low point he inherited. Let's give him a chance. Very well may pay off.
And that's to say nothing of a) the difficulty of letting Turley back in this day and age when he departed under sexual harassment type of circumstances (even if many fans think it was overblown) and b) that Turley's prior spectacular successes very well may have been based on cheating. I mean, some of his top Stanford success stories were subsequently busted for PEDs.....
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - norcard10 - 09-11-2023
One thing is for sure. SC will be bludgeoned by end of the season. Unlike last year, they'll actually have to play Oregon and Washington in addition to the usual Utah, ND, Oregon State, Colorado lineup
Overrated as usual
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - Duck Tears - 09-11-2023
Quote:Did you miss John Humphreys, EJ Smith, Tiger Bachmeier? and that's all from a 5 second cursory look.
And how good are they? What is their respective "ceiling?"
Humphreys is a senior with three career TD catches. I think we've seen enough of him to know he sits a rung below both Bradford and Moore.
Smith looks far more fragile than durable.
The jury is out on Bachmeier, I think.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - SamuelMcF - 09-11-2023
(09-11-2023, 02:33 PM)Duck Tears Wrote: Did you miss John Humphreys, EJ Smith, Tiger Bachmeier? and that's all from a 5 second cursory look.
And how good are they? What is their respective "ceiling?"
Humphreys is a senior with three career TD catches. I think we've seen enough of him to know he sits a rung below both Bradford and Moore.
Smith looks far more fragile than durable.
The jury is out on Bachmeier, I think.
Your question was about if we had 4* recruits (we do), not whether they were proven to be busts after being 4* recruits (they were). Busts happen. It sucks.
RE: Thank you David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Tonight is your legacy. - d4cohn - 09-11-2023
(09-11-2023, 06:00 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-11-2023, 02:35 AM)GK3 Wrote:(09-10-2023, 12:11 PM)M T Wrote:(09-10-2023, 09:43 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Stanford simply has to be more flexible. It can't:
- Refuse JC transfers
- Limit itself to a few undergrad transfers (even Cal has like 27 transfers)*
- Require the highest admissions standards of everyone with whom it competes
- Require Grad School admission to stay for a 5th year and push guys to graduate in 4 years
- Look down on or not fully embrace NIL collectives, and paying players
A football-first school can't do those things. Stanford should never become a football-first school.
Has there been any (good, non-self selecting) survey of football importance to the Stanford's 16,000+ students?
Outsider Fan and MT make excellent points. What used to be is gone, most likely forever. We have to learn to live with the new realities as outlined by OF. Will Stanford change, maybe a little, but my guess we have pretty much changed as much as we are going to change in terms of transfers. If we change we become more like Colorado and USC, which are academic institutions for the majority of their students but for athletes they are just a factory whose standards bear no resemblance to those of the parent institution. Football is the one sport that suffers the most in the rules of the new world we are in. It takes a LOT of players and a good number of very good players to be successful year in and year out. There will always be a few qualified players in the portal, but not USC or Colorado numbers. There may be a lot of 50/50 years coming up.
Stanford has always had challenging standards, it is partially what made it what it is. I don't see those standards changing much just to support athletics.
So why bend over backwards to get into the ACC and give up so much money to get your teeth kicked in? It makes absolutely zero sense. "We're going to make our players travel thousands of miles to be in a power conference for football, and give up tens of millions of dollars to do it, but we're not going to do what it takes to compete, are OK with being a punching bag, further de-valuing our brand, and when the next consolidation comes, we'll be OK being even more in the wilderness than we just were" is not a smart strategy.
If the "surrender monkey" mentality is ultimately going to prevail, why not just stay in a watered down Pac? But I've got news for you. Even IF Stanford were to stay with The Cougs and Beavs, if it doesn't raise its football game by making the yes, COMPROMISES it takes to win, Stanford would get its brains beat in by new Pac teams too.
IOW, if you play football, make the investments and adapt institutionally to be competitive, or drop the sport.
What is amazing to me is I see no evidence anywhere that any Stanford fans have a clue what Stanford's BOT thinks about the importance of being a legit football program, and the compromises and adaptations it will make to have one. All we have is the scramble to get in the ACC to show it does place importance on it, but is that just to be in a power conference or to be in it to win in one.
We also have no idea what the new Provost thinks, or how she may or may not allow Muir to be more empowered to make things better, or if he even knows how.
We bent over backwards to get into the ACC so sports like softball, my favorite Stanford sport, remain the national championship contenders they have been (e.g. in the case women's tennis, women's soccer etc.), or have become (in case of softball). We would have suffered a coach and player exodus, even in the Olympic sports, had we gone independent, MW, WCC etc.