Brian Kelly to LSU - 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: Brian Kelly to LSU (/thread-22680.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: Brian Kelly to LSU (/thread-22680.html)
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - BostonCard - 11-30-2021
(11-30-2021, 07:03 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-30-2021, 06:34 PM)Farm93 Wrote:(11-30-2021, 06:17 PM)teejers1 Wrote:All that is missing is a "natty"?!!??!!(11-30-2021, 02:06 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-30-2021, 11:34 AM)DC 86 Wrote: As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.
I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND? All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year. I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful. So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND. Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?
Could be true, I suppose . . .
There are two problems with that observation.
1 - For Notre Dame and its network of followers 12 years without a national title is far too long.
2 - Ironically most ESPN types believe Kelly realized that the admission limitations at Notre Dame made it too difficult to win a "natty" while at Notre Dame.
Though, his departure is a great reminder for everyone on this board.
There will always be some other place that will offer a head coach more money than whatever Stanford alums think is a lot of money. And, assuming the coach can get the recruits for their system, it will be easier (possible) to win a natty at several other schools. Successful coaches want to win, so they will leave ASAP. (see Walsh I, Green & Harbaugh)
So, it's your belief that Kelly was receiving wrath from fans for not winning enough and that caused tension in his professional relationship at ND? Could be - but I doubt that's true. He has won a ton, including the last several years, and has delivered ND to title game and a couple CFPs. That's pretty incredible, especially for a school with some admissions limitations.
The problem with the Stanford-as-a-stepping-stone assumption for all coaches is that such was more applicable under the Old Model - you know, where Stanford University was opposed to having its head football coach show up on the 990. Those days are long gone. I think there are lots of coaches out there who would view Stanford as an ideal long-term coaching destination for all the reasons Shaw does (the guy is not dumb, after all - he "gets" the many benefits of the Stanford HC gig). Are you going to lose guys (who hate recruiting) to the NFL? Probably. Are you going to lose guys who are only after top dollar? Maybe. But given that HC salary at college level is exceeding that of the pros, both considerations are not as big a hurdle as previously believed.
Regardless, there is something to be said about a job (a) that pays very well ($3M-$6M), (b) that has good kids who do not get into off-field trouble, © that has an institutional draw that is second-to-none, making recruiting easier, (d) where 6-6, with occasional 9 win seasons, will keep most everyone happy, and (e) where AD and fan pressure is low/non-existent. Just put an entertaining product on the field and win some (not a ton), and you're in good stead.
There are people out there who love coaching in college ranks who would find Stanford an ideal destination. That's my belief, anyway.
I wouldn’t count on being able to get a replacement coach onto the form 990, which is about $2.5 million. I think a lot of people at Stanford had the same reaction that a lot of people here did to Shaw’s salary, except that their reaction wasn’t grounded on his poor on-field results.
BC
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - Goose - 11-30-2021
(11-30-2021, 07:30 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I wouldn’t count on being able to get a replacement coach onto the form 990, which is about $2.5 million. I think a lot of people at Stanford had the same reaction that a lot of people here did to Shaw’s salary, except that their reaction wasn’t grounded on his poor on-field results.You are absolutely correct that lots of people questioned why a football coach would be so much better compensated than academic positions are. While I think it will be possible to get the next coach onto the form 990, I suspect there will be more vocal opposition than ever before.
BC
(11-30-2021, 07:03 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Regardless, there is something to be said about a job (a) that pays very well ($3M-$6M), (b) that has good kids who do not get into off-field trouble, © that has an institutional draw that is second-to-none, making recruiting easier, (d) where 6-6, with occasional 9 win seasons, will keep most everyone happy, and (e) where AD and fan pressure is low/non-existent. Just put an entertaining product on the field and win some (not a ton), and you're in good stead.I think you have just described the recipe to hire Buddy Teevens. First of all, no coach with an ounce of ambition/self respect is going to take a job where he hopes to go 6-6 most of the time. Second of all, such a coach is never going to be able to attract any athletes who aspire to win games. You have to at least make it seem like you think you can win. Guys will respond to EUTM if you can say "Come build something here", but if you can't credibly say that, they won't. Stanford institutional draw is the silver lining in the brobdingnagian rain cloud that says 99% of the athletes available can't be recruited because they can't get in. No way is that an "advantage". You make the best of it.
There are people out there who love coaching in college ranks who would find Stanford an ideal destination. That's my belief, anyway.
You must have heard David Shaw recount the experience he had when one recruit turned down Stanford, telling Shaw that the Stanford team was not good enough to showcase the players talents. Shaw said he had to privately agree with that player, and that Shaw never wanted to be in that position again. Unfortunately, now he certainly is back there. The coach you describe would be permanently there. At least Shaw wanted out of it.
The fact that AD pressure and fan support is "almost non-existent" also means that if you need support from either one, you probably won't get much of it, especially if you have generated no credibility by at least making a credible attempt at winning. I think there are guys who will come to Stanford expecting it to be a stepping stone. I think there are other guys who will come to Stanford fully expecting to stay a long time but leave because they get an opportunity they just can't refuse. Others will come to Stanford and fail totally. There may be a very, very few that will come to Stanford, have success and chose to stay. They didn't come to go 6-6. When that (or worse)starts happening, well, here we are. How does this end? We will see.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - teejers1 - 12-01-2021
(11-30-2021, 09:00 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-30-2021, 07:30 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I wouldn’t count on being able to get a replacement coach onto the form 990, which is about $2.5 million. I think a lot of people at Stanford had the same reaction that a lot of people here did to Shaw’s salary, except that their reaction wasn’t grounded on his poor on-field results.You are absolutely correct that lots of people questioned why a football coach would be so much better compensated than academic positions are. While I think it will be possible to get the next coach onto the form 990, I suspect there will be more vocal opposition than ever before.
BC
(11-30-2021, 07:03 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Regardless, there is something to be said about a job (a) that pays very well ($3M-$6M), (b) that has good kids who do not get into off-field trouble, © that has an institutional draw that is second-to-none, making recruiting easier, (d) where 6-6, with occasional 9 win seasons, will keep most everyone happy, and (e) where AD and fan pressure is low/non-existent. Just put an entertaining product on the field and win some (not a ton), and you're in good stead.I think you have just described the recipe to hire Buddy Teevens. First of all, no coach with an ounce of ambition/self respect is going to take a job where he hopes to go 6-6 most of the time. Second of all, such a coach is never going to be able to attract any athletes who aspire to win games. You have to at least make it seem like you think you can win. Guys will respond to EUTM if you can say "Come build something here", but if you can't credibly say that, they won't. Stanford institutional draw is the silver lining in the of immense proportions rain cloud that says 99% of the athletes available can't be recruited because they can't get in. No way is that an "advantage". You make the best of it.
There are people out there who love coaching in college ranks who would find Stanford an ideal destination. That's my belief, anyway.
You must have heard David Shaw recount the experience he had when one recruit turned down Stanford, telling Shaw that the Stanford team was not good enough to showcase the players talents. Shaw said he had to privately agree with that player, and that Shaw never wanted to be in that position again. Unfortunately, now he certainly is back there. The coach you describe would be permanently there. At least Shaw wanted out of it.
The fact that AD pressure and fan support is "almost non-existent" also means that if you need support from either one, you probably won't get much of it, especially if you have generated no credibility by at least making a credible attempt at winning. I think there are guys who will come to Stanford expecting it to be a stepping stone. I think there are other guys who will come to Stanford fully expecting to stay a long time but leave because they get an opportunity they just can't refuse. Others will come to Stanford and fail totally. There may be a very, very few that will come to Stanford, have success and chose to stay. They didn't come to go 6-6. When that (or worse)starts happening, well, here we are. How does this end? We will see.
Oh, please. Nice straw man. I never said a coach would come here with goal of going 6-6.
Coaches are competitive and want to win every game (and try to). That's true for even the worst game coaches (i.e., the current guy).
But it remains true that 6-6 here will not get you on the hot seat here that it will at the majority of other schools. To pretend that isn't a positive factor for coaches - or worse, to suggest that means only Buddy Teevens will be interested - is a construct you entirely fabricated.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - Goose - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 12:03 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Oh, please. Nice straw man. I never said a coach would come here with goal of going 6-6.As you say, any decent coach isn't intending to go 6-6 with any regularity. For that reason, the response of the AD and the school to repeated 6-6 seasons isn't any consideration at all. If a coach comes here thinking that is an issue, he is Buddy Teevens like. In fact, I suspect even Buddy wasn't taking into consideration what would happen if he went 6-6. So no, I believe that for any decent coach that isn't a consideration at all. You are the one arguing that would be an attractive feature (which you just restated), not I. Most coaches would in fact wonder about the institutional commitment to football if going 6-6 was just fine.
Coaches are competitive and want to win every game (and try to). That's true for even the worst game coaches (i.e., the current guy).
But it remains true that 6-6 here will not get you on the hot seat here that it will at the majority of other schools. To pretend that isn't a positive factor for coaches - or worse, to suggest that means only Buddy Teevens will be interested - is a construct you entirely fabricated.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - Farm93 - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 07:05 AM)Goose Wrote: Most coaches would in fact wonder about the institutional commitment to football if going 6-6 was just fine.Oh, I don't know about that one. I think a good number of coaches would be happy to take a step in their D1 head coaching career at a place with a rich history of 6-6 type seasons and near .500 in conference.
A program with a 6-6 history normally will be delighted if the team can go 9-3 once or twice in a four year contract. Should the coach get that type of improvement they will then be in a position to pick the best 8-4/9-3 type programs or the NFL as the next step. (See. Walsh I, Green and Harbaugh).
When Green became coach people on campus were pretty excited about the prospect of Stanford football returning to the edge of the top 25 in a year or two. I even got promotional pieces as an incoming frosh that made it clear that the mere potential of a decent season was a reason to get season tickets. At the time the edge of the top 25 implied a 7-4 type season which is the level Green achieved...before he left.
When Harbaugh arrived it had been a few years since the team went to a bowl game or beat its rival. So I think most would have been thrilled for a few years of 6-6 ball with credible shot at winning the rivalry game.
In both cases taking moving from the basement and returning to 6-6 would be hailed as a success, and in both cases the coaches were literally working to get a new job before the start of their second season. That's the reality for a 6-6 level program.
A 6-6 program and its hires are best served by knowing their situations. The 6-6 program hopes to get a coach with grand ambitions, but the coach will leave as soon as they can get that first 8-4 type season unless they have some particular affinity for the school. (see Shaw and Fitzgerald)
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - needle - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 10:13 AM)Farm93 Wrote:(12-01-2021, 07:05 AM)Goose Wrote: Most coaches would in fact wonder about the institutional commitment to football if going 6-6 was just fine.Oh, I don't know about that one. I think a good number of coaches would be happy to take a step in their D1 head coaching career at a place with a rich history of 6-6 type seasons and near .500 in conference.
A program with a 6-6 history normally will be delighted if the team can go 9-3 once or twice in a four year contract. Should the coach get that type of improvement they will then be in a position to pick the best 8-4/9-3 type programs or the NFL as the next step. (See. Walsh I, Green and Harbaugh).
When Green became coach people on campus were pretty excited about the prospect of Stanford football returning to the edge of the top 25 in a year or two. I even got promotional pieces as an incoming frosh that made it clear that the mere potential of a decent season was a reason to get season tickets. At the time the edge of the top 25 implied a 7-4 type season which is the level Green achieved...before he left.
When Harbaugh arrived it had been a few years since the team went to a bowl game or beat its rival. So I think most would have been thrilled for a few years of 6-6 ball with credible shot at winning the rivalry game.
In both cases taking moving from the basement and returning to 6-6 would be hailed as a success, and in both cases the coaches were literally working to get a new job before the start of their second season. That's the reality for a 6-6 level program.
A 6-6 program and its hires are best served by knowing their situations. The 6-6 program hopes to get a coach with grand ambitions, but the coach will leave as soon as they can get that first 8-4 type season unless they have some particular affinity for the school. (see Shaw and Fitzgerald)
Fitzgerald is 13-20 over the last three seasons at Northwestern. Supposedly he makes $5.7 million per year (according to the USA Today database, which is not infallible). Are people outraged over Shaw's salary also outraged at Fitzgerald's compensation?
I don't really care (I am not outraged by either Shaw or Fitzgerald's pay), but I point it out to illustrate that he's another coach with a past history of success who is certainly overpaid relative to his recent winning percentage.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - 82lsju - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 10:38 AM)needle Wrote: Fitzgerald is 13-20 over the last three seasons at Northwestern. Supposedly he makes $5.7 million per year (according to the USA Today database, which is not infallible). Are people outraged over Shaw's salary also outraged at Fitzgerald's compensation?
I don't really care (I am not outraged by either Shaw or Fitzgerald's pay), but I point it out to illustrate that he's another coach with a past history of success who is certainly overpaid relative to his recent winning percentage.
from their most recent form 990 I could find (Aug 2019) he made $5.2m (base pay $4.1m), the previous one (Aug 2018) he made $5.1m (base pay $4.1m), the one before that (Aug 2017) $3.6m (base pay $3.0m)
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - Goose - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 10:13 AM)Farm93 Wrote: A 6-6 program and its hires are best served by knowing their situations. The 6-6 program hopes to get a coach with grand ambitions, but the coach will leave as soon as they can get that first 8-4 type season unless they have some particular affinity for the school. (see Shaw and Fitzgerald)Exactly my point. The assertion was that Stanford was an attractive place for coaches to come who expect to be mostly .500 with a few ups and downs. No coach goes anywhere hoping to be a .500 coach and hang on. They all want and expect to be 9-3 or better. I am sure that is true of both Shaw and Fitzgerald. For a significant while, Shaw basically did that. Most coaches who succeed in having a few good years at Stanford get better opportunities and take them. A very few with some kind of emotional tie will not. That is just how it is. The idea there are tons of coaches out there that want to coach at Stanford is just plain wrong IMHO. Harbaugh was a reach. It turned out to be an inspired reach, but at the time there were skeptics everywhere. He got a better offer and left.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - teejers1 - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 11:13 AM)Goose Wrote:(12-01-2021, 10:13 AM)Farm93 Wrote: A 6-6 program and its hires are best served by knowing their situations. The 6-6 program hopes to get a coach with grand ambitions, but the coach will leave as soon as they can get that first 8-4 type season unless they have some particular affinity for the school. (see Shaw and Fitzgerald)Exactly my point. The assertion was that Stanford was an attractive place for coaches to come who expect to be mostly .500 with a few ups and downs. No coach goes anywhere hoping to be a .500 coach and hang on. They all want and expect to be 9-3 or better. I am sure that is true of both Shaw and Fitzgerald. For a significant while, Shaw basically did that. Most coaches who succeed in having a few good years at Stanford get better opportunities and take them. A very few with some kind of emotional tie will not. That is just how it is. The idea there are tons of coaches out there that want to coach at Stanford is just plain wrong IMHO. Harbaugh was a reach. It turned out to be an inspired reach, but at the time there were skeptics everywhere. He got a better offer and left.
Your whole mindset that a successful coach at Stanford will move on is informed by the Old Model, when Stanford 'was not Nebraska.'
Can you at least admit that there are LOTS of coaches out there who would be interested/intrigued by $3M/year starting salary? At Stanford?
It strikes me that you're dismissing the notion of finding a replacement for an overpaid coach who is clearly flailing because (a) he might not be better, and (b) if he is, he'll leave soon enough anyway.
Damn, where is beeg dawg's avatar when you need it.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - martyup - 12-01-2021
I'll bet there is the next Urban Meyer out there coaching HS or Div II or III. A great football mind and a great motivator. We can get that guy for a lot less money than a "name brand" D1 HC. The problem is identifying him and then keeping him once he is successful at Stanford. But, I would rather have the problem of keeping a coach with a winning program than the problem of having a losing program.
Absent monumental changes happening in the next 40 days from within his program, I think it is time for Stanford to move on from David Shaw.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - Goose - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 11:59 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Your whole mindset that a successful coach at Stanford will move on is informed by the Old Model, when Stanford 'was not Nebraska.'First of all, I don't find it bad that a successful coach at Stanford might leave for a better position. You still want the best coach you can get at the time. Very few coaches take a new job already aiming to leave it. They may have big ambitions but that doesn't drive their job selection. However, pretty much all coaches want to be "successful". They want to be 9-3 or better and going to good bowls. No coach worth anything at all is going to take a job with the goal of averaging .500 and collecting his 3M salary by hanging on as long as possible. I assume you are also not in favor of hiring such a coach.
Can you at least admit that there are LOTS of coaches out there who would be interested/intrigued by $3M/year starting salary? At Stanford?
It strikes me that you're dismissing the notion of finding a replacement for an overpaid coach who is clearly flailing because (a) he might not be better, and (b) if he is, he'll leave soon enough anyway.
Damn, where is beeg dawg's avatar when you need it.
As far as the "New Model" goes, I would argue that if anything the last few weeks have shown that a good salary isn't enough. Perhaps the theme should be "Notre Dame is Not LSU". If it were, Kelly stays at ND and Riley stays at Oklahoma. They moved for more money and (certainly in Kelly's case, probably in Riley's case) a better chance at winning. There are plenty of coaches who would like a 3M starting salary, but when you add "at Stanford", most will pass. Recruiting from a small pool is a big problem to winning, and coaches want to win. They know that if they don't win, eventually they will be gone, even at Stanford. If you are a good coach, you probably have other options and certainly have other aspirations.
Unfortunately, there are some coaches who will be attracted to the money and don't really understand what they are getting into. These are the Walt Harris of the world. There are other coaches (I use Jack Elway as an example) who should understand but don't. He went 25–29. There are a very few that do understand and actually make it work. There are even fewer that make it work and will remain at Stanford in the presence of better offers, but as I said, that's OK. You still want the best coach you can get, but keep in mind "best" is a vector.
As far as replacing the existing coach, yes, I am not going to recommend replacing him with a guy that I don't have a reasonable expectation will be better. I won't recommend replacing him with somebody who I think might be better or I hope would be better or that could perhaps be better. Would you? There have been plenty of coaches hired at Stanford that I thought would be "better" than the previous guy that weren't, or at least weren't enough better to matter. Harbaugh was a reach, but we were in such dire straights that we didn't have a big pool of choices. I have no idea who the realistic choices might be today. Name some names and we can discuss them.
Interesting quote from a Kal site:
That is why an alum, Ron Rivera or Troy Taylor, is the way to go. They would be more than happy coaching at Cal making $3million a year for the rest of their careers, hopefully challenging for conference championships and the playoffs.
There is your 3M, but with a few caveats.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - teejers1 - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 02:54 PM)Goose Wrote: I won't recommend replacing him with somebody who I think might be better or I hope would be better or that could perhaps be better. Would you?
Yes, I would, because we know what we have with the current guy. He took charge of Stanford Football when it was at its apex and presided over its decline to its lowest point ever (or as Stewart Mandel at The Athletic said, "rock bottom."). I know BC and others think we've had worse runs, but I know what my eyes tell me vis a vis the play on the field and the interest in the stands, and I believe we're at the low point . . . certainly of my lifetime.
And sure, almost any hire - certainly the ones Stanford would consider at its salary point - will be a roll of the dice; but when you're desperate to bring hope back to the program, you should be more willing to roll 'em.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - gailtate - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 06:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-01-2021, 02:54 PM)Goose Wrote: I won't recommend replacing him with somebody who I think might be better or I hope would be better or that could perhaps be better. Would you?
Yes, I would, because we know what we have with the current guy. He took charge of Stanford Football when it was at its apex and presided over its decline to its lowest point ever (or as Stewart Mandel at The Athletic said, "rock bottom."). I know BC and others think we've had worse runs, but I know what my eyes tell me vis a vis the play on the field and the interest in the stands, and I believe we're at the low point . . . certainly of my lifetime.
And sure, almost any hire - certainly the ones Stanford would consider at its salary point - will be a roll of the dice; but when you're desperate to bring hope back to the program, you should be more willing to roll 'em.
Getting into H.G. Wells' time machine and going back into the misty past of the Eisenhower administration (and kal's last RB appearance) only puts the current football futility into high relief. Those were the days of two-way players and ONE platoon. The goal posts were a couple of yards behind the damn goal line. Refs were still signaling touchdowns with a straight arm thrust forward (Ernie Nevers and Knute Rockne saw it) . Facial protection was a single bar across the mouth. Pads and cleats weighed in at about 10 lbs. UCLA ran a single-wing. IT WAS A DIFFERENT GAME. Tickets cost "four bits". Wish I knew what Stanford was paying Cactus Jack in 1958, even adjusted for inflation, but it was less than Shaw.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - Goose - 12-01-2021
(12-01-2021, 06:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And sure, almost any hire - certainly the ones Stanford would consider at its salary point - will be a roll of the dice; but when you're desperate to bring hope back to the program, you should be more willing to roll 'em.I don't disagree that when you are desperate you do desperate things. That usually doesn't work out well, because your judgement is clouded by emotions, mostly fear. IMHO you have to find somebody that you can say "Yeah, this has a good chance of working". Even that often doesn't work. If you can't even meet that low bar, that doesn't give me any hope, and I am sure it won't give the athletes any hope either. On that we may just disagree.
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - BostonCard - 12-01-2021
Again, I have good reason to believe that Shaw will be the first and last HC to appear on form 990 at Stanford for some time.
In 2019, the 5th highest salary was $2.5 million, so that is probably your upper bound. I think you can get a decent coach for that, but I’d expect that short of an alum, you would not get them to stay if successful.
BC
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - needle - 12-01-2021
I don’t think Stanford will pay less than $5 million for a head football coach ever again.
https://sports.yahoo.com/skyrocketing-college-football-contracts-point-to-nf-ls-next-head-coaching-salary-spike-230231530.html
RE: Brian Kelly to LSU - dabigv13 - 12-02-2021
As long as Stanford is a D1 football school, I agree it's unlikely we won't be paying our coach more than 5 mil.
We're also not going to fire Shaw this year. And I think it's more likely than not that if we do replace Shaw in the next couple years, I expect our results will probably be worse than under Shaw.
There are not many Harbaughs out there. Lot more Buddy Teevens and Walt Harrises. But it will be fun to see everybody clamoring to fire the new guy after a year or two. Well not really fun, but at least familiar.