Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - 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: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage (/thread-23175.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: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage (/thread-23175.html)
Pages:
1
2
Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - msqueri - 04-29-2022
Below are two rankings: today's current Power Five coaches ranked by career win percentages at the Power Five level, and the same coaches ranked by win percentage between 2019-2021.
Career Win Percentages
1. Ryan Day (Ohio State) - .895
2. Lincoln Riley (USC) - .846
3. Kirby Smart (Georgia) - .815
4. Dabo Swinney (Clemson) - .806
5. Nick Saban - .800
6. Jimbo Fisher (Texas A&M) - .760
7. Mario Cristobal (Miami) - .729
8. Brian Kelly (LSU) - .702
9. Mack Brown (North Carolina) - .691
10. Mike Gundy (Oklahoma State) - .683
11. David Shaw (Stanford) - .674
12. Jim Harbaugh (Michigan) - .667
12. Paul Chryst (Wisconsin) - .667
12. Chip Kelly (UCLA) - .667
15. James Franklin (Penn State) - .650
16. Lane Kiffin (Ole Miss) - .633
17. Kyle Whittingham (Utah) - .632
18. Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) - .618
19. Bret Bielema (Illinois) - .611
20. Dave Aranda (Baylor) - .609
21. PJ Fleck (Minnesota) - .603
22. Mike Leach (Mississippi State) - .593
23. Pat Narduzzi (Pitt) - .589
24. Herm Edwards (Arizona State) - .581
25. Dave Doeren (NC State) - .566
26. Mel Tucker (Michigan State) - .563
27. Chris Klieman (Kansas State) - .556
28. Matt Campbell (Iowa State) - .553
29. Pat Fitzgerald (Northwestern) - .548
29. Steve Sarkisian (Texas) - .548
31. Karl Dorrell (Colorado) - .538
[Shane Beamer (South Carolina) - .538 (only one season.....including for completeness)]
[Josh Heupel (Tennessee) - . 538 (only one season....including for completeness)]
32. Mark Stoops (Kentucky) - .527
33. Jeff Hafley (Boston College) - .522
33. Sam Pittman (Arkansas) - .522
35. Dave Clawson (Wake Forest) - .515
[Jake Dickert (Washington State) - .500 (half of a season....including for completeness)]
36. Jeff Brohm (Purdue) - .491
37. Scott Satterfield (Louisville) - .486
37. Neal Brown (West Virginia) - .486
39. Greg Schiano (Rutgers) - .484
40. Justin Wilcox (Cal) - .481
41. Eli Drinkwitz (Missouri) - .478
[Bryan Harsin (Auburn) - .462 (one season....including for completeness)]
42. Tom Allen (Indiana) - .448
43. Dino Babers (Syracuse) - .403
44. Sonny Dykes (TCU) - .388
45. Mike Norvell (Florida State) - .381
46. Jonathan Smith (Oregon State) - .364
47. Mike Locksley (Maryland) - .361
48. Scott Frost (Nebraska) - .341
49. Geoff Collins (Georgia Tech) - .265
[Jedd Fisch (Arizona) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Lance Leipold (Kansas) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Clark Lea (Vanderbilt) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Marcus Freeman (Notre Dame) - .000 (one career game, in the playoffs....including for completeness)]
Mike Elko (Duke) - N/A
Tony Elliott (Virginia) - N/A
Brent Pry (Virginia Tech) - N/A
Joey McGuire (Texas Tech) - N/A
Brent Venables (Oklahoma) - N/A
Dan Lanning (Oregon) - N/A
Kalen DeBoer (Washington) - N/A
Billy Napier (Florida) - N/A
2019-2021 Win Percentages
1. Nick Saban (Alabama) - .902
2. Ryan Day (Ohio State) - .886
3. Kirby Smart (Georgia) - .872
4. Brian Kelly (LSU) - .865
5. Dabo Swinney (Clemson) - .850
6. Lincoln Riley (USC) - .838
7. Mario Cristobal (Miami) - .765
8. Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) - .743
9. Mike Gundy (Oklahoma State) - .737
10. Kyle Whittingham (Utah) - .727
11. Jimbo Fisher (Texas A&M) - .714
12. Jim Harbaugh (Michigan) - .697
12. PJ Fleck (Minnesota) - .697
14. Paul Chryst (Wisconsin) - .676
15. Pat Narduzzi (Pitt) - .658
16. Lane Kiffin (Ole Miss) - .652
17. Mel Tucker (Michigan State) - .650
18. Dave Clawson (Wake Forest) - .639
19. James Franklin (Penn State) - .629
20. Mark Stoops (Kentucky) - .622
21. Dave Aranda (Baylor) - .609
22. Matt Campbell (Iowa State) - .605
23. Herm Edwards (Arizona State) - .600
24. Dave Doeren (NC State) - .583
25. Chris Klieman (Kansas State) - .556
26. Mack Brown (North Carolina) - .553
[Shane Beamer (South Carolina) - .538 (only one season.....including for completeness)]
[Josh Heupel (Tennessee) - . 538 (only one season....including for completeness)]
27. Jeff Hafley (Boston College) - .522
27. Sam Pittman (Arkansas) - .522
29. Scott Satterfield (Louisville) - .486
29. Neal Brown (West Virginia) - .486
31. Tom Allen (Indiana) - .485
32. Jeff Brohm (Purdue) - .484
32. Chip Kelly (UCLA) - .484
34. Justin Wilcox (Cal) - .483
35. Eli Drinkwitz (Missouri) - .478
[Bryan Harsin (Auburn) - .462 (one season....including for completeness)]
36. Mike Leach (Mississippi State) - .459
37. Karl Dorrell (Colorado) - .444
38. Jonathan Smith (Oregon State) - .438
[Bret Bielema (Illinois) - .417 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Steve Sarkisian (Texas) - .417 (one season.....including for completeness)]
39. Mike Locksley (Maryland) - .400
40. Pat Fitzgerald (Northwestern) - .394
41. Mike Norvell (Florida State) - .381
42. David Shaw (Stanford) - .367
43. Greg Schiano (Rutgers) - .364
44. Scott Frost (Nebraska) - .344
45. Dino Babers (Syracuse) - .314
46. Geoff Collins (Georgia Tech) - .265
[Jedd Fisch (Arizona) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Lance Leipold (Kansas) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Clark Lea (Vanderbilt) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Marcus Freeman (Notre Dame) - .000 (one career game, in the playoffs....including for completeness only)]
Mike Elko (Duke) - N/A
Tony Elliott (Virginia) - N/A
Brent Pry (Virginia Tech) - N/A
Sonny Dykes (TCU) - N/A
Joey McGuire (Texas Tech) - N/A
Brent Venables (Oklahoma) - N/A
Dan Lanning (Oregon) - N/A
Kalen DeBoer (Washington) - N/A
Billy Napier (Florida) - N/A
I am sure there are errors here as I did this on my patio after work while having a few beers, but hopefully it's mostly right. It's interesting to visualize how high Shaw still ranks on the career list as well as as how low he ranks on the last three years list.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - qwerty49 - 04-29-2022
(04-29-2022, 02:57 PM)msqueri Wrote: Below are two rankings: today's current Power Five coaches ranked by career win percentages at the Power Five level, and the same coaches ranked by win percentage between 2019-2021.
Career Win Percentages
1. Ryan Day (Ohio State) - .895
2. Lincoln Riley (USC) - .846
3. Kirby Smart (Georgia) - .815
4. Dabo Swinney (Clemson) - .806
5. Nick Saban - .800
6. Jimbo Fisher (Texas A&M) - .760
7. Mario Cristobal (Miami) - .729
8. Brian Kelly (LSU) - .702
9. Mack Brown (North Carolina) - .691
10. Mike Gundy (Oklahoma State) - .683
11. David Shaw (Stanford) - .674
12. Jim Harbaugh (Michigan) - .667
12. Paul Chryst (Wisconsin) - .667
12. Chip Kelly (UCLA) - .667
15. James Franklin (Penn State) - .650
16. Lane Kiffin (Ole Miss) - .633
17. Kyle Whittingham (Utah) - .632
18. Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) - .618
19. Bret Bielema (Illinois) - .611
20. Dave Aranda (Baylor) - .609
21. PJ Fleck (Minnesota) - .603
22. Mike Leach (Mississippi State) - .593
23. Pat Narduzzi (Pitt) - .589
24. Herm Edwards (Arizona State) - .581
25. Dave Doeren (NC State) - .566
26. Mel Tucker (Michigan State) - .563
27. Chris Klieman (Kansas State) - .556
28. Matt Campbell (Iowa State) - .553
29. Pat Fitzgerald (Northwestern) - .548
29. Steve Sarkisian (Texas) - .548
31. Karl Dorrell (Colorado) - .538
[Shane Beamer (South Carolina) - .538 (only one season.....including for completeness)]
[Josh Heupel (Tennessee) - . 538 (only one season....including for completeness)]
32. Mark Stoops (Kentucky) - .527
33. Jeff Hafley (Boston College) - .522
33. Sam Pittman (Arkansas) - .522
35. Dave Clawson (Wake Forest) - .515
[Jake Dickert (Washington State) - .500 (half of a season....including for completeness)]
36. Jeff Brohm (Purdue) - .491
37. Scott Satterfield (Louisville) - .486
37. Neal Brown (West Virginia) - .486
39. Greg Schiano (Rutgers) - .484
40. Justin Wilcox (Cal) - .481
41. Eli Drinkwitz (Missouri) - .478
[Bryan Harsin (Auburn) - .462 (one season....including for completeness)]
42. Tom Allen (Indiana) - .448
43. Dino Babers (Syracuse) - .403
44. Sonny Dykes (TCU) - .388
45. Mike Norvell (Florida State) - .381
46. Jonathan Smith (Oregon State) - .364
47. Mike Locksley (Maryland) - .361
48. Scott Frost (Nebraska) - .341
49. Geoff Collins (Georgia Tech) - .265
[Jedd Fisch (Arizona) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Lance Leipold (Kansas) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Clark Lea (Vanderbilt) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Marcus Freeman (Notre Dame) - .000 (one career game, in the playoffs....including for completeness)]
Mike Elko (Duke) - N/A
Tony Elliott (Virginia) - N/A
Brent Pry (Virginia Tech) - N/A
Joey McGuire (Texas Tech) - N/A
Brent Venables (Oklahoma) - N/A
Dan Lanning (Oregon) - N/A
Kalen DeBoer (Washington) - N/A
Billy Napier (Florida) - N/A
2019-2021 Win Percentages
1. Nick Saban (Alabama) - .902
2. Ryan Day (Ohio State) - .886
3. Kirby Smart (Georgia) - .872
4. Brian Kelly (LSU) - .865
5. Dabo Swinney (Clemson) - .850
6. Lincoln Riley (USC) - .838
7. Mario Cristobal (Miami) - .765
8. Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) - .743
9. Mike Gundy (Oklahoma State) - .737
10. Kyle Whittingham (Utah) - .727
11. Jimbo Fisher (Texas A&M) - .714
12. Jim Harbaugh (Michigan) - .697
12. PJ Fleck (Minnesota) - .697
14. Paul Chryst (Wisconsin) - .676
15. Pat Narduzzi (Pitt) - .658
16. Lane Kiffin (Ole Miss) - .652
17. Mel Tucker (Michigan State) - .650
18. Dave Clawson (Wake Forest) - .639
19. James Franklin (Penn State) - .629
20. Mark Stoops (Kentucky) - .622
21. Dave Aranda (Baylor) - .609
22. Matt Campbell (Iowa State) - .605
23. Herm Edwards (Arizona State) - .600
24. Dave Doeren (NC State) - .583
25. Chris Klieman (Kansas State) - .556
26. Mack Brown (North Carolina) - .553
[Shane Beamer (South Carolina) - .538 (only one season.....including for completeness)]
[Josh Heupel (Tennessee) - . 538 (only one season....including for completeness)]
27. Jeff Hafley (Boston College) - .522
27. Sam Pittman (Arkansas) - .522
29. Scott Satterfield (Louisville) - .486
29. Neal Brown (West Virginia) - .486
31. Tom Allen (Indiana) - .485
32. Jeff Brohm (Purdue) - .484
32. Chip Kelly (UCLA) - .484
34. Justin Wilcox (Cal) - .483
35. Eli Drinkwitz (Missouri) - .478
[Bryan Harsin (Auburn) - .462 (one season....including for completeness)]
36. Mike Leach (Mississippi State) - .459
37. Karl Dorrell (Colorado) - .444
38. Jonathan Smith (Oregon State) - .438
[Bret Bielema (Illinois) - .417 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Steve Sarkisian (Texas) - .417 (one season.....including for completeness)]
39. Mike Locksley (Maryland) - .400
40. Pat Fitzgerald (Northwestern) - .394
41. Mike Norvell (Florida State) - .381
42. David Shaw (Stanford) - .367
43. Greg Schiano (Rutgers) - .364
44. Scott Frost (Nebraska) - .344
45. Dino Babers (Syracuse) - .314
46. Geoff Collins (Georgia Tech) - .265
[Jedd Fisch (Arizona) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Lance Leipold (Kansas) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Clark Lea (Vanderbilt) - .167 (one season.....including for completeness)]
[Marcus Freeman (Notre Dame) - .000 (one career game, in the playoffs....including for completeness only)]
Mike Elko (Duke) - N/A
Tony Elliott (Virginia) - N/A
Brent Pry (Virginia Tech) - N/A
Sonny Dykes (TCU) - N/A
Joey McGuire (Texas Tech) - N/A
Brent Venables (Oklahoma) - N/A
Dan Lanning (Oregon) - N/A
Kalen DeBoer (Washington) - N/A
Billy Napier (Florida) - N/A
I am sure there are errors here as I did this on my patio after work while having a few beers, but hopefully it's mostly right. It's interesting to visualize how high Shaw still ranks on the career list as well as as how low he ranks on the last three years list.
Very interesting indeed, thanks Matt. I'm sure that's a classic illustration for "what have you done for me lately?" -- but I'm equally sure nobody in the hierarchy that matters is asking it.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - fullmetal - 04-29-2022
More nuanced -- "why aren't you doing lately what you used to do so well before?" I feel like the reasons are obvious. But the solutions that address the elephants in the room have not been forthcoming.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - BostonCard - 04-30-2022
Please do tell. I am genuinely trying to distinguish between a plethora of plausible hypotheses, none of which fit the data perfectly. Most importantly, how much of this is temporary and fixable by our current coach, how much of it is temporary but only fixable by a new coach, and how much of it reflects broader trends in college football (and college athletics) that is not fixable by Shaw or anybody else.
BC
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - gailtate - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 12:18 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Please do tell. I am genuinely trying to distinguish between a plethora of plausible hypotheses, none of which fit the data perfectly. Most importantly, how much of this is temporary and fixable by our current coach, how much of it is temporary but only fixable by a new coach, and how much of it reflects broader trends in college football (and college athletics) that is not fixable by Shaw or anybody else.
BC
What these numbers reveal is that Shaw was a skilled sailor in fair weather. He was at his best when the going was good (2011-2017). And make no mistake, it was pretty damn good. Suddenly left to his own devices, however, as circumstances changed (starkly in the recruiting process) he found himself bereft of adequate talent on the field and dwindling skill on his staff. What had served him so well during the Rose Bowl years steadily lost its magic. We all know the stats. I've been waiting in vain for evidence of his ability to fully adapt to the reality of his situation. What I've seen thus far is not encouraging.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - JohnR34231 - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 12:18 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Please do tell. I am genuinely trying to distinguish between a plethora of plausible hypotheses, none of which fit the data perfectly. Most importantly, how much of this is temporary and fixable by our current coach, how much of it is temporary but only fixable by a new coach, and how much of it reflects broader trends in college football (and college athletics) that is not fixable by Shaw or anybody else.
BC
IMO, getting back to where we were in 2016-2018 is doable by at least someone. Not sure whether it is Shaw or not but it looks like we are going to find out. Getting back to where we were in 2010-2015 looks like a real long shot no matter who the coach is. Of course a lot of coaches who accomplished what we did from, say, 2010-2012 wouldn't have stuck around for 2013-2015.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - SamuelMcF - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 09:21 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(04-30-2022, 12:18 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Please do tell. I am genuinely trying to distinguish between a plethora of plausible hypotheses, none of which fit the data perfectly. Most importantly, how much of this is temporary and fixable by our current coach, how much of it is temporary but only fixable by a new coach, and how much of it reflects broader trends in college football (and college athletics) that is not fixable by Shaw or anybody else.
BC
IMO, getting back to where we were in 2016-2018 is doable by at least someone. Not sure whether it is Shaw or not but it looks like we are going to find out. Getting back to where we were in 2010-2015 looks like a real long shot no matter who the coach is. Of course a lot of coaches who accomplished what we did from, say, 2010-2012 wouldn't have stuck around for 2013-2015.
I agree with this. Even though transfer portal-mania and NIL likely put a ceiling on the program, it's a high ceiling. We could feasibly get back to consistent 8-10 win seasons here with some relatively simple changes. (I don't think 2010-15 was sustainable either.)
Here is what a new coach could do, perfectly legitimately, to keep the program competitive (as you can probably tell, I believe Shaw will not do any of this):
From a recruiting/roster management standpoint:
- Sign full 20+ classes every year that address every single position. The Stanford brand is enough to recruit top-25 classes on its own, and there are easily enough 4* or high 3* guys out there with the grades. (Not all will be interested, but TRY.)
- As a subset of this, the trenches are the most important position on the field besides QB. Recruit 3-4 OL and 2-3 DL every single year. Period.
- I do think the staff is starting to do this now.
- Actively pursue a handful of high-academic grad transfers every year at positions of need. The goal should be to sign 1-2 guys that can immediately contribute and address glaring depth issues we've continued to see. Leverage the Master of Liberal Arts program to get them in. (Tara did this with the Northwestern grad transfer.) Stop relying on non-mega-whale freshmen to be immediate depth. That's not how college football works.
- This one may be a bit controversial, but recruit players who are football first and happen to be smart. The team is currently full of guys who are primarily smart and happen to play football. We're seeing the difference.
From a coaching standpoint:
- Hire good coordinators and let them call everything. The best thing a CEO can do is adapt and adjust strategy to follow where the puck is going.
- Fire assistants who aren't recruiting P5-level guys or whose position rooms have horrifically underperformed (unless there's a good explanation/it's a one-year aberration type of thing). Replace them with hungry G5 coaches or NFL assistants with previous P5 experience who know how to recruit.
- As a corollary to the above two points: if you're the HC and you're making 6+M a year, and the AD won't give you a bigger assistant salary pool, take a pay cut to fund the above and attract great assistant and support staff. Making 5M a year for 10 years sounds way better than making 6+ for 4, but that's just me.
- Seniority should mean nothing in a position battle, unless knowledge of playbook/scheme legitimately moves the needle between two guys who are neck and neck. (And that second younger guy should still see some backup snaps and breathe down the older guy's neck. If he makes more plays in fewer snaps, guess who's gonna get more snaps?) Every position battle should be a real battle. Every season.
From a broader NIL and campus/community standpoint:
- Give free tickets to surrounding high schools. Get butts in seats. It's not like they're filling up anyways (and obviously winning would help in the first place).
- Leverage Stanford's Silicon Valley connections to create a relatively small NIL fund for players. A few grand here and there to promote an alum VC's portfolio startups, for example. Have Chris Marinelli sponsor the Tunnel Worker's Union. We don't need to be throwing Miami $$$ around, IMO (and really shouldn't, though our alums probably could if they wanted), and it's more of a nice to have since the guys coming here aren't coming for the NIL in the first place.
Of course, all the above relies on having an AD who actually gives a shit about on-field performance, which we don't have either.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - BostonCard - 04-30-2022
Thanks, Sam, that was a good response (far more useful to readers than those who just repeat “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo” like some mantra). I agree with most of it.
BC
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - gailtate - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 10:08 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(04-30-2022, 09:21 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(04-30-2022, 12:18 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Please do tell. I am genuinely trying to distinguish between a plethora of plausible hypotheses, none of which fit the data perfectly. Most importantly, how much of this is temporary and fixable by our current coach, how much of it is temporary but only fixable by a new coach, and how much of it reflects broader trends in college football (and college athletics) that is not fixable by Shaw or anybody else.
BC
IMO, getting back to where we were in 2016-2018 is doable by at least someone. Not sure whether it is Shaw or not but it looks like we are going to find out. Getting back to where we were in 2010-2015 looks like a real long shot no matter who the coach is. Of course a lot of coaches who accomplished what we did from, say, 2010-2012 wouldn't have stuck around for 2013-2015.
I agree with this. Even though transfer portal-mania and NIL likely put a ceiling on the program, it's a high ceiling. We could feasibly get back to consistent 8-10 win seasons here with some relatively simple changes. (I don't think 2010-15 was sustainable either.)
Here is what a new coach could do, perfectly legitimately, to keep the program competitive (as you can probably tell, I believe Shaw will not do any of this):
From a recruiting/roster management standpoint:
- Sign full 20+ classes every year that address every single position. The Stanford brand is enough to recruit top-25 classes on its own, and there are easily enough 4* or high 3* guys out there with the grades. (Not all will be interested, but TRY.)
- As a subset of this, the trenches are the most important position on the field besides QB. Recruit 3-4 OL and 2 DL every single year. Period.
- I do think the staff is starting to do this now.
- Actively pursue a handful of high-academic grad transfers every year at positions of need. The goal should be to sign 1-2 guys that can immediately contribute and address glaring depth issues we've continued to see. Leverage the Master of Liberal Arts program to get them in. (Tara did this with the Northwestern grad transfer.) Stop relying on non-mega-whale freshmen to be immediate depth. That's not how college football works.
- This one may be a bit controversial, but recruit players who are football first and happen to be smart. The team is currently full of guys who are primarily smart and happen to play football. We're seeing the difference.
From a coaching standpoint:
- Hire good coordinators and let them call everything. The best thing a CEO can do is adapt and adjust strategy to follow where the puck is going.
- Fire assistants who aren't recruiting P5-level guys or whose position rooms have horrifically underperformed. Replace them with hungry G5 coaches or NFL assistants with previous P5 experience who know how to recruit.
- As a corollary to the above two points: if you're the HC and you're making 6+M a year, and the AD won't give you a bigger assistant salary pool, take a pay cut to fund the above and attract great assistant talent. Making 5M a year for 10 years sounds way better than making 6+ for 4, but that's just me.
- Seniority should mean nothing in a position battle, unless knowledge of playbook/scheme legitimately moves the needle between two guys who are neck and neck. Every position battle should be a real battle. Every season.
From a broader NIL and campus/community standpoint:
- Give free tickets to surrounding high schools. Get butts in seats. It's not like they're filling up anyways (and obviously winning would help in the first place).
- Leverage Stanford's Silicon Valley connections to create a relatively small NIL fund for players. A few grand here and there to promote an alum VC's portfolio startups, for example. Have Chris Marinelli sponsor the Tunnel Worker's Union. We don't need to be throwing Miami $$$ around, IMO (and really shouldn't, though our alums probably could if they wanted), and it's more of a nice to have since the guys coming here aren't coming for the NIL in the first place.
Of course, all the above relies on having an AD who actually gives a shit about on-field performance, which we don't have either.
This whole cluster**** rolls right up to MTL's office. When Hennessy got religion, football was transmogrified. As long as MTL accepts Muir/Shaw, we are collectively stuck with Muir/Shaw. #MuirAndShawMustGo.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - old spanish trail - 04-30-2022
Yes, Sam. Totally agree.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - BostonCard - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 01:02 PM)gailtate Wrote: This whole cluster**** rolls right up to MTL's office. When Hennessy got religion, football was transmogrified. As long as MTL accepts Muir/Shaw, we are collectively stuck with Muir/Shaw. #MuirAndShawMustGo.
Given the premise of your post, shouldn’t your hashtag be #MTLAndDrellMustGo?
BC
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - Brickcity - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 12:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Thanks, Sam, that was a good response (far more useful to readers than those who just repeat “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo” like some mantra). I agree with most of it.
BC
I agree. Sam's take was far more detailed, interesting and insightful than my comment that “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo." That said, the mantra still holds true.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - JohnR34231 - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 02:07 PM)Brickcity Wrote:(04-30-2022, 12:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Thanks, Sam, that was a good response (far more useful to readers than those who just repeat “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo” like some mantra). I agree with most of it.
BC
I agree. Sam's take was far more detailed, interesting and insightful than my comment that “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo." That said, the mantra still holds true.
Perhaps it's true, but it is really starting to get old.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - PAsportsfan - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 02:09 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(04-30-2022, 02:07 PM)Brickcity Wrote:(04-30-2022, 12:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Thanks, Sam, that was a good response (far more useful to readers than those who just repeat “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo” like some mantra). I agree with most of it.
BC
I agree. Sam's take was far more detailed, interesting and insightful than my comment that “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo." That said, the mantra still holds true.
Perhaps it's true, but it is really starting to get old.
It’s getting old because all those posters defending Shaw with: all time wins at Stanford, Rose Bowls, coach of the year….now see the light.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - BostonCard - 04-30-2022
The reason this is important and the reason I framed my question the way I did is that it matters via a vis Shaw’s future.
If the current struggles are due to temporary factors and are fixable by Shaw, then I would rather that Shaw keep the job and fix the issues. The Rose bowls are relevant, because all else equal, you would rather a person at the helm who has already demonstrated that they can take Stanford to the Rose Bowl than a complete unknown.
If the current struggles are fixable, but not by Shaw, that is a strong argument for getting rid of Shaw and bringing in a coach who can fix the issues that need to be fixed. I am not automatically opposed to calling for Shaw’s head, but before I do, I’d like a more thorough analysis than just #MuirAndShawMustGo. It makes little sense to fire Shaw if you don’t know what Shaw did wrong and what the next guy is going to need to do to right the ship.
If the current struggles reflect long term changes to college football that no coach will be able to fix, it probably does make sense to rid ourselves of Shaw once his contract runs out, if only because in that environment it doesn’t make sense to pay any coach multi-million dollars to coach in an environment that they can’t succeed.
That the Stanford program is sick is not in doubt. But an accurate diagnosis of the problem is important less the treatment be ineffective, or worse, harmful.
BC
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - old spanish trail - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 02:57 PM)PAsportsfan Wrote:(04-30-2022, 02:09 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(04-30-2022, 02:07 PM)Brickcity Wrote:(04-30-2022, 12:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Thanks, Sam, that was a good response (far more useful to readers than those who just repeat “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo” like some mantra). I agree with most of it.
BC
I agree. Sam's take was far more detailed, interesting and insightful than my comment that “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo." That said, the mantra still holds true.
Perhaps it's true, but it is really starting to get old.
It’s getting old because all those posters defending Shaw with: all time wins at Stanford, Rose Bowls, coach of the year….now see the light.
Meh
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - gailtate - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 02:09 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(04-30-2022, 02:07 PM)Brickcity Wrote:(04-30-2022, 12:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Thanks, Sam, that was a good response (far more useful to readers than those who just repeat “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo” like some mantra). I agree with most of it.
BC
I agree. Sam's take was far more detailed, interesting and insightful than my comment that “Shaw inherited a Ferrari and turned it into a Yugo." That said, the mantra still holds true.
Perhaps it's true, but it is really starting to get old.
What's getting old is crap football.
(04-30-2022, 01:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-30-2022, 01:02 PM)gailtate Wrote: This whole cluster**** rolls right up to MTL's office. When Hennessy got religion, football was transmogrified. As long as MTL accepts Muir/Shaw, we are collectively stuck with Muir/Shaw. #MuirAndShawMustGo.
Given the premise of your post, shouldn’t your hashtag be #MTLAndDrellMustGo?
BC
No. Muir and Shaw.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - DC 86 - 04-30-2022
(04-30-2022, 03:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The reason this is important and the reason I framed my question the way I did is that it matters via a vis Shaw’s future.
If the current struggles are due to temporary factors and are fixable by Shaw, then I would rather that Shaw keep the job and fix the issues. The Rose bowls are relevant, because all else equal, you would rather a person at the helm who has already demonstrated that they can take Stanford to the Rose Bowl than a complete unknown.
If the current struggles are fixable, but not by Shaw, that is a strong argument for getting rid of Shaw and bringing in a coach who can fix the issues that need to be fixed. I am not automatically opposed to calling for Shaw’s head, but before I do, I’d like a more thorough analysis than just #MuirAndShawMustGo. It makes little sense to fire Shaw if you don’t know what Shaw did wrong and what the next guy is going to need to do to right the ship.
If the current struggles reflect long term changes to college football that no coach will be able to fix, it probably does make sense to rid ourselves of Shaw once his contract runs out, if only because in that environment it doesn’t make sense to pay any coach multi-million dollars to coach in an environment that they can’t succeed.
That the Stanford program is sick is not in doubt. But an accurate diagnosis of the problem is important less the treatment be ineffective, or worse, harmful.
BC
I hold Shaw responsible for the state of the program and his inertia and failure to address obvious problems is very frustrating to me as a four decade Stanford football fan.
Having said that, it's overly facile to simply scream "Shaw must go" as if that solves the program's problems. If Shaw is unwilling or unable to fix what needs to be fixed then he must go, but if he's reached the point where he's compelled to take action he may still be the best person to turn things around.
I'm not sure that a new coach would have had the institutional capital to reverse our policy on early admits, for example. And I assume he's built credibility with the admissions department which is critical to getting borderline recruits admitted. Those things are valuable, in addition to the relationships he's developed with administrators, boosters, faculty, etc. If Shaw accepted more of a CEO role he could be an extremely effective head coach given how well he understands the university and navigates Stanford's unique characteristics.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - msqueri - 05-02-2022
(04-30-2022, 03:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The reason this is important and the reason I framed my question the way I did is that it matters via a vis Shaw’s future.
If the current struggles are due to temporary factors and are fixable by Shaw, then I would rather that Shaw keep the job and fix the issues. The Rose bowls are relevant, because all else equal, you would rather a person at the helm who has already demonstrated that they can take Stanford to the Rose Bowl than a complete unknown.
If the current struggles are fixable, but not by Shaw, that is a strong argument for getting rid of Shaw and bringing in a coach who can fix the issues that need to be fixed. I am not automatically opposed to calling for Shaw’s head, but before I do, I’d like a more thorough analysis than just #MuirAndShawMustGo. It makes little sense to fire Shaw if you don’t know what Shaw did wrong and what the next guy is going to need to do to right the ship.
If the current struggles reflect long term changes to college football that no coach will be able to fix, it probably does make sense to rid ourselves of Shaw once his contract runs out, if only because in that environment it doesn’t make sense to pay any coach multi-million dollars to coach in an environment that they can’t succeed.
That the Stanford program is sick is not in doubt. But an accurate diagnosis of the problem is important less the treatment be ineffective, or worse, harmful.
BC
I view Stanford's struggles as the product of numerous factors. To name a few:
* A change to the type of players recruited such that the composition of the roster now more closely mirrors the historical Stanford norm of "Stanford Men" (well-rounded and academically serious outweighing football-first and nasty) than what made the teams successful in the Harbaugh years and early Shaw years
* A change to the football culture such that competition and continuous improvement is less fundamental than it was previously (for instance, a less cutthroat mentality with respect to players moving away from the derision of steak eaters and bus riders, and a less urgent mentality among the coaches produced by years of operating under a coach who will never throw his assistants under the bus.....aka hold people accountable)
* A defensive coaching staff that steadily produced worse results as the distance from Mason/Hart/Turley increased
* A change to strength and conditioning personified by the loss of Turley
* A deterioration in recruiting at numerous positions that powered the previous success (offensive line and front seven especially but arguments can be made at tight end and running back too)
Are these things fixable by Shaw? I guess theoretically but it seems much more the case that they're a reflection of him. His alchemy worked from 2011-2017 when he was applying his personality and approach to a deeply-ingrained culture to which he could augment with his personal strengths (e.g., the spectacular 2012 and 2014 recruiting that I don't think Harbaugh could/would have been able to pull off, or the steadiness and stability Shaw lent that Harbaugh or any other ambitious coach never would have sustained as other opportunities came calling). But over the last half decade Shaw's alchemy ran its course in augmenting what we previously had and turned the corner to actually shaping the culture (that is, over time, creating a new culture). Now the program reflects Shaw top to bottom. Instead of putting some nice gold leaf on our furnishings, Midas has turned the pipes into solid gold, preventing the water from flowing, to torture the metaphor.
We have players more likely to be recognized for the Wuerrfel Trophy than the Outland Trophy. We have a family-oriented coaching staff that doesn't treat recruiting maniacally or throw under-performing members of the family overboard. We have players that will move on with their lives after four years to move on to the work world or get a master's than to try to reach their athletic peak with their brothers-in-arms.
If I'm right that there's a cultural change that explains much of this, the head man isn't failing because of circumstances he can easily fix but rather because of fundamental aspects of who he is and how he leads. That calls for a change at the top in my view.
Were one to disagree with that and/or seek a way to fix this while keeping Shaw, the solution has to begin with far, far better play up front in the trenches. That means recruiting these positions at a high level (our recent OL and DL recruiting has been markedly worse than it was when Shaw was successful), hiring and retaining the best strength and conditioning coaches and position coaches (the strength team is unproven/hasn't had a good track record on paper post-Turley and the DL coach has a terrible resume since taking over at Stanford), and retaining players such that Stanford gets their best years, which in the trenches usually means fourth, fifth, and sixth years (we've seen Dalman, Little, Sarell, Hamilton, Booker, Wade-Perry, Fisk, Johnson, Williams, Swann, and others leave eligibility on the table). There is a lot that needs changing if we want to re-establish dominance in the trenches, which we're currently a long way away from. Even if one doesn't think culture is the explanation, it is arguably easier to bring in a new staff to focus on this transformation than to expect Shaw and his crew to fix this daunting list of what needs fixing.
RE: Power Five coaches ranked by win percentage - gailtate - 05-02-2022
As Stanford's, i.e. Shaw's, Last Great Victory fades further into the rearview mirror, it fun to recall what happened in Eugene on September 22, 2018 in a thriller. Who can forget Joey Alfieri's stunning scoop-and-score that handed the Ducks a bitter loss and sent Cardinal fans over the moon? Problem was it would be the turning point for the Program. In '18, after a promising 4-0 start, Stanford stumbled to .500 over the next eight regular season games before edging Pitt 14-13 in the Sun Bowl. During the next three years Stanford would go 11-19.