SHAW QUITS! - 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: SHAW QUITS! (/thread-23786.html)

---

RE: SHAW QUITS! - lex24 - 11-27-2022

Well, good to be wrong. Certainly didn’t see this coming. Shaw took the program to heights I never thought I’d see.  For which I am forever grateful.  But it was certainly time.  And I don’t care whose decision it was. No need to know.

Interesting to see who is next up.  I like that they appear to be addressing portal and NIL.  That should help with their search.  

Brennan going to be on the list?

---

RE: SHAW QUITS! - winflop - 11-27-2022

(11-27-2022, 09:25 AM)terry Wrote:  

(11-27-2022, 02:59 AM)Austroturf Wrote:  However, if Muir is heading up the search for Shaw's successor, I remain worried.  I hope Muir gets lots of sound help and advice in vetting all possible candidates. 

I'm an optimist, so I'm going to focus on the fact that Muir has made some good hires -- Greg Meehan, John Hambly, David Esquer, Jessica Allister. . . .

Outside of FB & MBB Muir has made a lot of great hires - and he's also kept many previous great hires on board too. But he's not going to get a second chance at this hire (unlike softball for example). I still think he shouldn't get a first chance, but that's a different conversation.

I think we will learn a lot from who is on the search committee. There need to be some voices from outside the Stanford bubble who are going to push the thinking.

---

RE: SHAW QUITS - martyup - 11-27-2022

(11-27-2022, 01:26 AM)M T Wrote:  Note the poster has never posted before.  

I would call this fake news as it has no source

That post didn't age well.  Good inclination though.

---

RE: SHAW QUITS! - lex24 - 11-27-2022

(11-27-2022, 07:40 AM)BobK Wrote:  Of course there’s a buy out. Why in the world wouldn’t there be ? no doubt Shaw worked something out.  It was time to quit but to imply Shaw is beyond stupid is crazy

Bingo.  And quite frankly, why do we care?

---

RE: SHAW QUITS - footandballtorture - 11-27-2022

I don’t post because I think sometimes I’m not allowed to say what I know, couldn’t help myself this time though! 

(11-27-2022, 01:26 AM)M T Wrote:  Note the poster has never posted before.  

I would call this fake news as it has no source

---

RE: SHAW QUITS - martyup - 11-27-2022

(11-27-2022, 10:22 AM)footandballtorture Wrote:  I don’t post because I think sometimes I’m not allowed to say what I know, couldn’t help myself this time though! 

---

There have been a number of members here that have been calling for Shaw to be fired or quit for several years.  I expected more celebratory posts here when I heard the news.  

Stanford is now entering a new era of football.  Can it be rebuilt to previous elite level?  

---

RE: SHAW QUITS! - chrisk - 11-27-2022

Shaw set a record for tenure in the job by 3 years. His winning percentage is the best since Pop Warner (9 years) and Clark Shaughnessy (2 years).

---

RE: SHAW QUITS! - winflop - 11-27-2022

(11-27-2022, 11:08 AM)chrisk Wrote:  Shaw set a record for tenure in the job by 3 years.  His winning percentage is the best since Pop Warner (9 years) and Clark Shaughnessy (2 years).

His winning percentage over the last four seasons set records too

---

RE: SHAW QUITS! - martyup - 11-27-2022

(11-27-2022, 11:11 AM)winflop Wrote:  

(11-27-2022, 11:08 AM)chrisk Wrote:  Shaw set a record for tenure in the job by 3 years.  His winning percentage is the best since Pop Warner (9 years) and Clark Shaughnessy (2 years).

His winning percentage over the last four seasons set records too

---

RE: SHAW QUITS! - Mick - 11-27-2022

I don't celebrate, I think this was a long time coming. I think we all sensed this, Coach Shaw was last to know. I think he is mystified that he couldn't extend his early career success. And I don't care what his buyout is, but I suspect that the number increased from two weeks ago -- whether it was an actual buyout or a sinecure.

As for AD Muir...I think hiring a football coach is several standard deviations more difficult than hiring a softball coach. The formula for hiring non-revenue (low-revenue) head coaches isn't particularly difficult; e.g., let's hire a successful coach who apprenticed and played under the last successful coach. Great formula for success, but as has been noted ad infinitum, Coach Shaw doesn't have a successful coaching tree, so to speak. So Muir should look to another successful coaching tree, one with academic restrictions; e.g., Michigan. I'd like to get one of Harbaugh's very effective coordinators.

Last point: I think most posters here underestimate the difficulty of recruiting at Stanford.  I don't think the pool of recruitable candidates is even 10% of the overall pool. Whoever Muir hires had better be a spectacular recruiter, energetic and with EUTM.

---

RE: SHAW QUITS! - BostonCard - 11-27-2022

Women’s volleyball has never hired a former assistant (or player).  Dunning was a successful coach at another school (he’d actually won a national title before being brought to Stanford); ditto Hambly.

BC

---

(11-27-2022, 11:17 AM)martyup Wrote:  

(11-27-2022, 11:11 AM)winflop Wrote:  

(11-27-2022, 11:08 AM)chrisk Wrote:  Shaw set a record for tenure in the job by 3 years.  His winning percentage is the best since Pop Warner (9 years) and Clark Shaughnessy (2 years).

His winning percentage over the last four seasons set records too

His winning percentage the last four years (14-28, .333) is better than Walt Harris (.261) and Buddy Teevens (.303), so, alas, no record even if you cherry pick his four worst years.

BC

---