It's Tavita Pritchard! - 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: It's Tavita Pritchard! (/thread-25910.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: It's Tavita Pritchard! (/thread-25910.html)
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - norcard10 - 11-28-2025
(11-28-2025, 08:16 PM)KartyFan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 06:45 PM)calfan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 06:26 PM)norcard10 Wrote:I agree- I think Taylor was a reasonable hire (not outstanding, but reasonable) and there was a rational argument to celebrate. this is super weak(11-28-2025, 06:22 PM)calfan Wrote: Yikes guys. This is an awful hire for you all. Not sour grapes- just came over to the board to see what reactions would be (and they're pretty much in line with what I expected). Horrible hire, yikes
Some of the (few) positive posts here sound like the same posts made about Taylor. Starting to doubt Luck has the management experience needed to return y'all to glory. Seems like he just hired his buddy. This might be the worst hire of the coaching carousel so far. Sorry
watch cal hire petersen and this place explode. i was legitimately excited about troy taylor. this is such a move in the opposite direction. would have preferred reich to this as well.
Wait, but it turns out Taylor was a horrible hire, right? He did not improve the team and ended up with enough behavioral issues to have him fired off cycle?
So maybe any level of confidence in assessing this hire is misplaced, and we will see how it turns out?
I will also choose optimism because it’s more fun, and I like Tavita.
Taylor showed progress on the field with the scores (especially with the ACC transition in the second year) and a disastrous roster. His offense (does anyone remember the Colorado game?) has been more exciting to watch that whatever cluster shawvita rolled out during their last 4 years. This would have been a pivotal year for taylor with most of his key recruits as juniors. Pritchard was likely not a head coach cancidate for any of the myriad of college head coach openings out there. Nor should he be.
RE: 76lsjumb - MV72018 - 11-28-2025
(11-28-2025, 08:21 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:04 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:MV72018 dateline='[url=tel:1764383580' Wrote: 1764383580[/url]']
[quote="76lsjumb" pid='441405' dateline='1764370835']
[quote="MV72018" pid='441387' dateline='1764368667']
Marty, why the exclamation point? Surely you can't be truly excited? From where I sit, this is a major disappointment. First Taylor, then Pritchard. Color me unimpressed, exclamation point. So much for the momentum that started to build up after the Big Game win.
Because you and your fellow doomsayers know so much more about Stanford football than Andrew Luck…
I see; because I am not euphoric about hiring a retread buddy, I’m a doomsayer! Brilliant argument!
76lsjumb dateline='[url=tel:1764370835' Wrote: 1764370835[/url]']
MV72018 dateline='[url=tel:1764368667' Wrote: 1764368667[/url]']
Marty, why the exclamation point? Surely you can't be truly excited? From where I sit, this is a major disappointment. First Taylor, then Pritchard. Color me unimpressed, exclamation point. So much for the momentum that started to build up after the Big Game win.
I see; if one doesn’t express euphoria about hiring a retread, one is a doomsayer. Great argument!!!
Because you and your fellow doomsayers know so much more about Stanford football than Andrew Luck…
Thank you! I would have appreciated calling my comment simply brilliant, but brilliant AND great is even better. (Although it was really intended only as an observation, not an argument. Not much point in arguing with someone who’s made up his mind.)
[/quote]
I called your argument “great”? As long as you think you read that, that’s all that matters.
[/quote]
(11-28-2025, 08:26 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:21 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:04 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: [quote="MV72018" pid='441491' dateline='1764383580']
[quote="76lsjumb" pid='441405' dateline='1764370835']
Because you and your fellow doomsayers know so much more about Stanford football than Andrew Luck…
I see; because I am not euphoric about hiring a retread buddy, I’m a doomsayer! Brilliant argument!
76lsjumb dateline='[url=tel:1764370835' Wrote: 1764370835[/url]']
I see; if one doesn’t express euphoria about hiring a retread, one is a doomsayer. Great argument!!!
Because you and your fellow doomsayers know so much more about Stanford football than Andrew Luck…
Thank you! I would have appreciated calling my comment simply brilliant, but brilliant AND great is even better. (Although it was really intended only as an observation, not an argument. Not much point in arguing with someone who’s made up his mind.)
Quote:As long as you believe your comment was incisive, that’s all that matters. Mediocrity is not doom.
76lsjumb - 76lsjumb - 11-28-2025
MV72018 dateline='[url=tel:1764386516' Wrote: 1764386516[/url]']
76lsjumb dateline='[url=tel:1764385452' Wrote: 1764385452[/url]']
MV72018 dateline='[url=tel:1764383580' Wrote: 1764383580[/url]']
76lsjumb dateline='[url=tel:1764370835' Wrote: 1764370835[/url]']
MV72018 dateline='[url=tel:1764368667' Wrote: 1764368667[/url]']
Marty, why the exclamation point? Surely you can't be truly excited? From where I sit, this is a major disappointment. First Taylor, then Pritchard. Color me unimpressed, exclamation point. So much for the momentum that started to build up after the Big Game win.
Because you and your fellow doomsayers know so much more about Stanford football than Andrew Luck…
I see; because I am not euphoric about hiring a retread buddy, I’m a doomsayer! Brilliant argument!
76lsjumb dateline='[url=tel:1764370835' Wrote: 1764370835[/url]']
MV72018 dateline='[url=tel:1764368667' Wrote: 1764368667[/url]']
Marty, why the exclamation point? Surely you can't be truly excited? From where I sit, this is a major disappointment. First Taylor, then Pritchard. Color me unimpressed, exclamation point. So much for the momentum that started to build up after the Big Game win.
I see; if one doesn’t express euphoria about hiring a retread, one is a doomsayer. Great argument!!!
Because you and your fellow doomsayers know so much more about Stanford football than Andrew Luck…
Thank you! I would have appreciated calling my comment simply brilliant, but brilliant AND great is even better. (Although it was really intended only as an observation, not an argument. Not much point in arguing with someone who’s made up his mind.)
I can’t find where I called your argument “great”! Are you the POTUS?
Read your whole post. You said the same thing twice, once using “brilliant” and once using “great”… at least that’s how it appears in my CardBoard thread.
And, no, I’m not POTUS. But I gather you might have preferred him to Pritchard.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - dabigv13 - 11-28-2025
I don't love it, but I'm not sure we could've gotten anybody better. I would have preferred Chris Petersen but I don't think that was ever in the cards.
Will always have a soft spot for him after the SC upset, and I agree with others that in this NIL era, player management is more important to the job than X's and O's. With a good staff and AL behind him, I think there is a lot more upside than many here seem to think.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - Goose - 11-28-2025
(11-28-2025, 09:52 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I don't love it, but I'm not sure we could've gotten anybody better. I would have preferred Chris Petersen but I don't think that was ever in the cards.I tend to agree. It could work fine. Tavita seems to relate well to players. I also believe his X & O skills might be much better than he gets credit for. I do hope he gets an OC, if for no other reason than to get another point of view on what approach is needed with any given roster. That said, I do not at all agree this is a "high floor" hire. It could be a catastrophe if Stanford can't hire a staff and recruiting tanks. OTOH, if the opposite happens it could be a big "win". It will IMO be telling how many (and who) players stay and don't go to the portal. I am sure that more will leave than we wanted, but I think that is "normal" in today's world.
Will always have a soft spot for him after the SC upset, and I agree with others that in this NIL era, player management is more important to the job than X's and O's. With a good staff and AL behind him, I think there is a lot more upside than many here seem to think.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - fullmetal - 11-28-2025
A lot of former players are vocally supporting the hire. I see no reason why I should not do the same. The new head coach will make or break his first year on recruiting and assistant coach hiring, the latter of which are more important in the long run. With his connections in the NFL, Luck's connections, and perhaps Reich's connections, surely there will be many candidates for the coaching staff. And I hope Pritchard will retain as many coaches from this season as deserve to be retained. The defensive side of the ball was obviously coached well. Count me cautiously optimistic.
RE: 76lsjumb - MV72018 - 11-28-2025
(11-28-2025, 08:32 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:MV72018 dateline='[url=tel:1764386516' Wrote: 1764386516[/url]']
76lsjumb dateline='[url=tel:1764385452' Wrote: 1764385452[/url]']
MV72018 dateline='[url=tel:1764383580' Wrote: 1764383580[/url]']
76lsjumb dateline='[url=tel:1764370835' Wrote: 1764370835[/url]']
Because you and your fellow doomsayers know so much more about Stanford football than Andrew Luck…
I see; because I am not euphoric about hiring a retread buddy, I’m a doomsayer! Brilliant argument!
76lsjumb dateline='[url=tel:1764370835' Wrote: 1764370835[/url]']
I see; if one doesn’t express euphoria about hiring a retread, one is a doomsayer. Great argument!!!
Because you and your fellow doomsayers know so much more about Stanford football than Andrew Luck…
Thank you! I would have appreciated calling my comment simply brilliant, but brilliant AND great is even better. (Although it was really intended only as an observation, not an argument. Not much point in arguing with someone who’s made up his mind.)
I can’t find where I called your argument “great”! Are you the POTUS?
Read your whole post. You said the same thing twice, once using “brilliant” and once using “great”… at least that’s how it appears in my CardBoard thread.
And, no, I’m not POTUS. But I gather you might have preferred him to Pritchard.
You gather incorrectly. Carry on.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - KartyFan - 11-28-2025
(11-28-2025, 08:23 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:16 PM)KartyFan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 06:45 PM)calfan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 06:26 PM)norcard10 Wrote:I agree- I think Taylor was a reasonable hire (not outstanding, but reasonable) and there was a rational argument to celebrate. this is super weak(11-28-2025, 06:22 PM)calfan Wrote: Yikes guys. This is an awful hire for you all. Not sour grapes- just came over to the board to see what reactions would be (and they're pretty much in line with what I expected). Horrible hire, yikes
Some of the (few) positive posts here sound like the same posts made about Taylor. Starting to doubt Luck has the management experience needed to return y'all to glory. Seems like he just hired his buddy. This might be the worst hire of the coaching carousel so far. Sorry
watch cal hire petersen and this place explode. i was legitimately excited about troy taylor. this is such a move in the opposite direction. would have preferred reich to this as well.
Wait, but it turns out Taylor was a horrible hire, right? He did not improve the team and ended up with enough behavioral issues to have him fired off cycle?
So maybe any level of confidence in assessing this hire is misplaced, and we will see how it turns out?
I will also choose optimism because it’s more fun, and I like Tavita.
Taylor showed progress on the field with the scores (especially with the ACC transition in the second year) and a disastrous roster. His offense (does anyone remember the Colorado game?) has been more exciting to watch that whatever cluster shawvita rolled out during their last 4 years. This would have been a pivotal year for taylor with most of his key recruits as juniors. Pritchard was likely not a head coach cancidate for any of the myriad of college head coach openings out there. Nor should he be.
Troy Taylor's on-field results don't really matter since we had to fire him for behavioral reasons, right? He was a bad hire. Maybe there was no way of figuring that out before hiring him. All the more reason not to get too high or too low on any candidate before you see results.
I think Tavita is better suited for Stanford than anywhere else (that doesn't necessarily mean he will succeed!), so I'm not too concerned that nobody else was interested.
Recruiting and the portal will be very telling. If we somehow end up with a worse o-line this year than next year, we've got a problem on our hands. If we are solidly in the plus category in the transfer portal and close on a decent recruiting class, we might have a shot at a bowl next year.
I am not predicting greatness but am open to it!
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - norcard10 - 11-29-2025
(11-28-2025, 11:54 PM)KartyFan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:23 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:16 PM)KartyFan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 06:45 PM)calfan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 06:26 PM)norcard10 Wrote: watch cal hire petersen and this place explode. i was legitimately excited about troy taylor. this is such a move in the opposite direction. would have preferred reich to this as well.I agree- I think Taylor was a reasonable hire (not outstanding, but reasonable) and there was a rational argument to celebrate. this is super weak
Wait, but it turns out Taylor was a horrible hire, right? He did not improve the team and ended up with enough behavioral issues to have him fired off cycle?
So maybe any level of confidence in assessing this hire is misplaced, and we will see how it turns out?
I will also choose optimism because it’s more fun, and I like Tavita.
Taylor showed progress on the field with the scores (especially with the ACC transition in the second year) and a disastrous roster. His offense (does anyone remember the Colorado game?) has been more exciting to watch that whatever cluster shawvita rolled out during their last 4 years. This would have been a pivotal year for taylor with most of his key recruits as juniors. Pritchard was likely not a head coach cancidate for any of the myriad of college head coach openings out there. Nor should he be.
Troy Taylor's on-field results don't really matter since we had to fire him for behavioral reasons, right? He was a bad hire. Maybe there was no way of figuring that out before hiring him. All the more reason not to get too high or too low on any candidate before you see results.
I think Tavita is better suited for Stanford than anywhere else (that doesn't necessarily mean he will succeed!), so I'm not too concerned that nobody else was interested.
Recruiting and the portal will be very telling. If we somehow end up with a worse o-line this year than next year, we've got a problem on our hands. If we are solidly in the plus category in the transfer portal and close on a decent recruiting class, we might have a shot at a bowl next year.
I am not predicting greatness but am open to it!
The problem with Shawvita wasn't recruiting. They had top notch recruits but the offensive coaching was abysmal. I need to see a 180 from vanilla and uninspiring offense from tavita to be convinced. Hopefully he's learned his ways since the twilight of his tenure with Shaw.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - KartyFan - 11-29-2025
Fair point!
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - Mick - 11-29-2025
(11-29-2025, 12:10 AM)norcard10 Wrote:(11-28-2025, 11:54 PM)KartyFan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:23 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:16 PM)KartyFan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 06:45 PM)calfan Wrote: I agree- I think Taylor was a reasonable hire (not outstanding, but reasonable) and there was a rational argument to celebrate. this is super weak
Wait, but it turns out Taylor was a horrible hire, right? He did not improve the team and ended up with enough behavioral issues to have him fired off cycle?
So maybe any level of confidence in assessing this hire is misplaced, and we will see how it turns out?
I will also choose optimism because it’s more fun, and I like Tavita.
Taylor showed progress on the field with the scores (especially with the ACC transition in the second year) and a disastrous roster. His offense (does anyone remember the Colorado game?) has been more exciting to watch that whatever cluster shawvita rolled out during their last 4 years. This would have been a pivotal year for taylor with most of his key recruits as juniors. Pritchard was likely not a head coach cancidate for any of the myriad of college head coach openings out there. Nor should he be.
Troy Taylor's on-field results don't really matter since we had to fire him for behavioral reasons, right? He was a bad hire. Maybe there was no way of figuring that out before hiring him. All the more reason not to get too high or too low on any candidate before you see results.
I think Tavita is better suited for Stanford than anywhere else (that doesn't necessarily mean he will succeed!), so I'm not too concerned that nobody else was interested.
Recruiting and the portal will be very telling. If we somehow end up with a worse o-line this year than next year, we've got a problem on our hands. If we are solidly in the plus category in the transfer portal and close on a decent recruiting class, we might have a shot at a bowl next year.
I am not predicting greatness but am open to it!
The problem with Shawvita wasn't recruiting. They had top notch recruits but the offensive coaching was abysmal. I need to see a 180 from vanilla and uninspiring offense from tavita to be convinced. Hopefully he's learned his ways since the twilight of his tenure with Shaw.
I support the hire. I think it is the best that Stanford could do under the circumstances, and if Pritchard can ramp up the recruiting and introduce an exceptional offensive scheme, then I think it can really work.
I do hope that half-a-dozen versions of the question "How did David Shaw fail, and how will you succeed in his place" was asked and answered in depth. But I am as optimistic as when Stanford hired an FCS coach from the Pioneer Football League as their head coach.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - Goose - 11-29-2025
(11-29-2025, 12:10 AM)norcard10 Wrote: The problem with Shawvita wasn't recruiting. They had top notch recruits but the offensive coaching was abysmal. I need to see a 180 from vanilla and uninspiring offense from tavita to be convinced. Hopefully he's learned his ways since the twilight of his tenure with Shaw.I totally disagree. Recruiting was a massive part of the problem. Shavita wanted to run the ball, but they lost the ability to recruit an OL that could run block. For a while, they still had OLs that could pass block at least a bit, but subsequently even that became impossible. Both Stanford and Kal have suffered from the inability to recruit and coach up competent offensive lines for "many" years at this point. Even when Bryce Love was putting up his gaudy numbers the Stanford OL wasn't good. The statement about BL was that all he needed was a crack and he was gone. His OL generally couldn't produce even that crack, and that is why BL also has lots of < 3 yard runs. From 2017 on Stanford's OL became an increasingly severe problem.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - norcard10 - 11-29-2025
(11-29-2025, 08:06 AM)Goose Wrote:(11-29-2025, 12:10 AM)norcard10 Wrote: The problem with Shawvita wasn't recruiting. They had top notch recruits but the offensive coaching was abysmal. I need to see a 180 from vanilla and uninspiring offense from tavita to be convinced. Hopefully he's learned his ways since the twilight of his tenure with Shaw.I totally disagree. Recruiting was a massive part of the problem. Shavita wanted to run the ball, but they lost the ability to recruit an OL that could run block. For a while, they still had OLs that could pass block at least a bit, but subsequently even that became impossible. Both Stanford and Kal have suffered from the inability to recruit and coach up competent offensive lines for "many" years at this point. Even when Bryce Love was putting up his gaudy numbers the Stanford OL wasn't good. The statement about BL was that all he needed was a crack and he was gone. His OL generally couldn't produce even that crack, and that is why BL also has lots of < 3 yard runs. From 2017 on Stanford's OL became an increasingly severe problem.
Good luck getting higher rated recruits than Myles Hinton, Walker Little, Foster Sarrell. That Oline coupled with the countless number of high ranked QB recruits (Keller Chryst, KJ Costello, Davis Mills, Tanner McKee) that went limited sucess on the field due to lack of development and effective coaching. Shawvita did nothing with highly ranked recruits at the end. They'll now be expected to do more with less. I hope Tavita proves me wrong but I won't be surprised if he doesn't after 3 years on the job.
Incase people forget, Tavita was also the QB coach in addition to offensive coordinator for the last 4 years of Shaw's tenure (see coaches roster here):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Stanford_Cardinal_football_team
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - StanUSwagU - 11-29-2025
To be able to evaluate this hire, one has to hear what :
(1) The Goals or Aspirations of the Stanford Football program are (in terms of # of Wins per year):
-If the goal is to be a Perennial Top15, 10+ win, Regularly win the ACC conference team.
Or
-If the goal is merely to be a perennial 7 win team.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - norcard10 - 11-29-2025
(11-29-2025, 09:17 AM)StanUSwagU Wrote: To be able to evaluate this hire, one has to hear what :
(1) The Goals or Aspirations of the Stanford Football program are (in terms of # of Wins per year):
-If the goal is to be a Perennial Top15, 10+ win, Regularly win the ACC conference team.
Or
-If the goal is merely to be a perennial 7 win team.
For a $50M donation, it better be the former.
lex24 - lex24 - 11-29-2025
Lol. Im trying to remember the response when Taylor was hired. I think it was generally positive. No clue how he will do. Hope he can buy sone talent.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - Farm93 - 11-29-2025
(11-29-2025, 09:19 AM)norcard10 Wrote:$50 million doesn't go quite as far as it used to.(11-29-2025, 09:17 AM)StanUSwagU Wrote: To be able to evaluate this hire, one has to hear what :
(1) The Goals or Aspirations of the Stanford Football program are (in terms of # of Wins per year):
-If the goal is to be a Perennial Top15, 10+ win, Regularly win the ACC conference team.
Or
-If the goal is merely to be a perennial 7 win team.
For a $50M donation, it better be the former.
In 2026 $50M could get you a good coach that has never won a Power 4 conference title (Kiffin, Franklin, etc.) for about 5 years. If a program wanted a coach with a few conference titles that would likely require another step up in money with something close to $50M sitting around if the coach was fired without cause at any point in their 5-8 year contract.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47051181/james-franklin-deal-virginia-tech-worth-4175m-5-years
And that $50Milllion wouldn't include any assistant coaches.
Given Stanford plays in high tax California, and lacks any real potential for the coach to earn endorsement deal money on the side, I fear as we approach 2026 $50Million gets the program a CHANCE at a 6-8 win level coach with a very low ceiling or an unproven coach with an unknown ceiling.
I would guess if Stanford wanted to compete for someone with real CFP credentials they would need to pay 20%-40% more than whatever LSU is about to pay to get Kiffin.
Pritchard is a good hire for Stanford's current level of support. Those dreaming of better should quickly find 35,000 fans and force them to buy season tickets for 2026 and pay another few million fans to watch Stanford football in 2026. Without that elite level of fan support (45K+ butts in the seats and millions of eyes on the screens at home) Stanford probably has a hiring ceiling that excludes proven CFP-level coaches.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - paloalto - 11-29-2025
I never liked the idea of a head coach with no HC experience and track record although it often works out. A HC has to make tough decisions with confidence and sometimes reprimand subordinates who are not getting the job done. Hopefully Pritchard is up to that. At 35 he may be Stanford's coach for the next three decades. I hope it works out.
I was watching ACC Huddle on ACCN. The guys were saying in today's world money for player acquisition/retention is more important than the head coach.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - norcard10 - 11-29-2025
(11-29-2025, 10:27 AM)Farm93 Wrote:(11-29-2025, 09:19 AM)norcard10 Wrote:$50 million doesn't go quite as far as it used to.(11-29-2025, 09:17 AM)StanUSwagU Wrote: To be able to evaluate this hire, one has to hear what :
(1) The Goals or Aspirations of the Stanford Football program are (in terms of # of Wins per year):
-If the goal is to be a Perennial Top15, 10+ win, Regularly win the ACC conference team.
Or
-If the goal is merely to be a perennial 7 win team.
For a $50M donation, it better be the former.
In 2026 $50M could get you a good coach that has never won a Power 4 conference title (Kiffin, Franklin, etc.) for about 5 years. If a program wanted a coach with a few conference titles that would likely require another step up in money with something close to $50M sitting around if the coach was fired without cause at any point in their 5-8 year contract.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47051181/james-franklin-deal-virginia-tech-worth-4175m-5-years
And that $50Milllion wouldn't include any assistant coaches.
Given Stanford plays in high tax California, and lacks any real potential for the coach to earn endorsement deal money on the side, I fear as we approach 2026 $50Million gets the program a CHANCE at a 6-8 win level coach with a very low ceiling or an unproven coach with an unknown ceiling.
I would guess if Stanford wanted to compete for someone with real CFP credentials they would need to pay 20%-40% more than whatever LSU is about to pay to get Kiffin.
Pritchard is a good hire for Stanford's current level of support. Those dreaming of better should quickly find 35,000 fans and force them to buy season tickets for 2026 and pay another few million fans to watch Stanford football in 2026. Without that elite level of fan support (45K+ butts in the seats and millions of eyes on the screens at home) Stanford probably has a hiring ceiling that excludes proven CFP-level coaches.
$200M is the rumored total fund raising amount. More than enough. And did people forget Shaw was getting paid $9M?
There's no reason Stanford couldn't pay competitively for an actual top coach.
https://sportsdata.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach
$9M would be top 13. I can't come to terms that we settled with Tavita for monetary reasons. More likely this was a character safe hire post the Taylor mess. It certainly isn't based on coaching accomplishments.
I'm not even asking for a CFP level coach however. I would have been thrilled with someone that had proven head coaching success at any level. San Diego State, Tulane, or Vandy headcoach as an example. Vandy's head coach was only receiving $3.7M before the extension he just signed.
RE: It's Tavita Pritchard! - MV72018 - 11-29-2025
(11-29-2025, 06:49 AM)Mick Wrote:(11-29-2025, 12:10 AM)norcard10 Wrote:(11-28-2025, 11:54 PM)KartyFan Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:23 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(11-28-2025, 08:16 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Wait, but it turns out Taylor was a horrible hire, right? He did not improve the team and ended up with enough behavioral issues to have him fired off cycle?
So maybe any level of confidence in assessing this hire is misplaced, and we will see how it turns out?
I will also choose optimism because it’s more fun, and I like Tavita.
Taylor showed progress on the field with the scores (especially with the ACC transition in the second year) and a disastrous roster. His offense (does anyone remember the Colorado game?) has been more exciting to watch that whatever cluster shawvita rolled out during their last 4 years. This would have been a pivotal year for taylor with most of his key recruits as juniors. Pritchard was likely not a head coach cancidate for any of the myriad of college head coach openings out there. Nor should he be.
Troy Taylor's on-field results don't really matter since we had to fire him for behavioral reasons, right? He was a bad hire. Maybe there was no way of figuring that out before hiring him. All the more reason not to get too high or too low on any candidate before you see results.
I think Tavita is better suited for Stanford than anywhere else (that doesn't necessarily mean he will succeed!), so I'm not too concerned that nobody else was interested.
Recruiting and the portal will be very telling. If we somehow end up with a worse o-line this year than next year, we've got a problem on our hands. If we are solidly in the plus category in the transfer portal and close on a decent recruiting class, we might have a shot at a bowl next year.
I am not predicting greatness but am open to it!
The problem with Shawvita wasn't recruiting. They had top notch recruits but the offensive coaching was abysmal. I need to see a 180 from vanilla and uninspiring offense from tavita to be convinced. Hopefully he's learned his ways since the twilight of his tenure with Shaw.
I support the hire. I think it is the best that Stanford could do under the circumstances, and if Pritchard can ramp up the recruiting and introduce an exceptional offensive scheme, then I think it can really work.
I do hope that half-a-dozen versions of the question "How did David Shaw fail, and how will you succeed in his place" was asked and answered in depth. But I am as optimistic as when Stanford hired an FCS coach from the Pioneer Football League as their head coach.
“…And if Pritchard can…introduce an exceptional offensive scheme …” That’s a nice hope and a massive IF. Are there ANY grounds for thinking it’s more than a pipe dream? I’m not aware of any.