Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - 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: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era (/thread-23794.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: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era (/thread-23794.html)
Pages:
1
2
Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - msqueri - 11-27-2022
1. This morning was like stepping into a new world for me. I took a redeye back from vacation last night and kept my phones off until I got home and could watch the game. I went through my normal routine with every intention of doing my normal Sunday Morning Thoughts: after I watched the game I pulled up Shaw's press conference, and I was going to follow that by dissecting the box score, PFF grades, etc. and going down whatever statistical/analytical rabbit holes struck me. My wife had seen the news as soon as we landed but kept it from me so it would be an earth-shaking surprise. Once I saw the press conference I knew that dissecting yesterday's game in my normal way would miss the point (if there's anything from those posts anybody is missing vis-a-vis BYU let me know, just seems kind of silly to be retrospective/2022 season-focused today), so instead I'll reflect on the end of the Shaw era.
2. We've been debating Shaw and his place in Stanford football history for over a decade and will continue to for decades more. I have no interest in re-litigating any of that here but do want to acknowledge the momentousness of moving on from a coach with such a long and dramatic tenure. He finishes with 96 wins at a program with nobody else in history with more than 71 (Pop Warner). Even with all of the losses of recent years (and as I've documented he's been one of the biggest losers in the nation for nearly half a decade), his career win percentage ends up being the best since 1941, and among coaches with more than two seasons the best since Pop Warner (1924-1932). He joins Warner and Claude Thornhill as the only Stanford coaches to get to three Rose Bowls and joins John Ralston as the only other coach to win two Rose Bowls. A Stanford legend - a maddening, lucky, flawed legend but a legend nonetheless. I don't want to let his stepping down pass without thanking him for the wins, top tier bowls, and other cherished memories.
3. Just as debates will continue on what he accomplished and how much credit he deserves, there will probably continue to be some debate on his classiness and character. For most of his tenure it seemed almost universally accepted that Stanford could not dream of a better representative. Over time, however, the luster wore off a bit on that image as well as the years of stubbornness, pride, lack off accountability, and excuse-making ground on. I've also wondered whether his mentorship/molder of men reputation may be more complicated than often presented, as I've caught wind that his imperiousness and/or aloofness hardly made him a close figure in the lives of many of his players. By and large, though, chalk me up on the side of the argument that thinks Shaw is a class act. He strikes me as a man of strong, honorable, admirable character who enhanced Stanford's reputation and was a model for many. Nobody is perfect and neither is David Shaw. But I still think he's a good man.
4. His departure could not have been announced in a classier way and it's possible that it couldn't have been done in a way that better set Stanford up for a return to relevance. Without taking the focus off his players or creating an in-season circus, he made the announcement without frills or any delay whatsoever once the season was over. The timing lets the administration pivot quickly to a crucial search for a replacement, gives players contemplating their future some time to sort things out, and did not leave his employees hanging while he deliberated on his plans. I also think he struck a very good tone and I really appreciated (nay, loved) that in a difficult and emotional moment for him he was crystal clear that he views Stanford football as much stronger than the record indicates, he still views Stanford as "we" and he would be as supportive of his successor as possible, going as far as to say he hopes his successor wins more than him. This could have gone the other way. He could have been self-pitying and emphasized the transfer portal, NIL, injuries, etc. as excuses and he even could have stoked a defeatist narrative that undermines his successor. Instead, he went out confidently, proud of his accomplishments and optimistic that better days are ahead. This is so much healthier for the program than either defeatism in the face of changes in the landscape or nostalgia that our best days are behind us.
5. Crucially, it appears that he's not just projecting a helpful posture about Stanford football's future but put in work to improve the program's competitive footing. Just as he politicked internally to find a healthy level of collaboration with the admissions department, bring in early enrollees, host spring official visits, and so forth, evidently he worked with the administration to reach decisions on the transfer portal and NIL that all are at least claiming will increase our competitiveness. If we take him at his word that the decision to leave was made just this past week, he was doing that politicking with no small amount of self interest. At earlier points he thought he'd benefit from changes in Stanford's approach. But now that he will no longer be Stanford's coach, I find it heart-warming and encouraging that he is taking on the posture of a relay runner handing off the baton rather than any sort of selfish or petulant alternative. He seems genuinely content with having put in work others can build on.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - msqueri - 11-27-2022
6. That's not to say he leaves the program in a peachy situation, of course. The reason we've come to this fork in the road in the first place is just how troubled recent years have been. As I've railed about at length on these boards, our program has a lot of problems, and no matter the magnanimous voice of enlightened agency Shaw chooses to project it's obvious that he wouldn't have stepped away had he not failed. One of the big mysteries is how much this departure was Shaw being pushed out versus voluntary versus mutual. Maybe we'll get insights into that in coming days. But except to the extent it has bearing on things like a buyout (and its size) I'm not sure that palace intrigue matters that much to me anymore. What was important to me is that we move on to a post-Shaw coach ASAP and, to the extent possible, that the transition happen in a way that did not set the program too much further back on the path to rebuilding. So far so great on those scores. The most interesting thing going forward, as vibrant threads already in motion on the boards attest, will be what happens next in the areas key to the transition: the hire of a new head coach, the composition of a new staff, navigating incoming and outgoing transfer portal dynamics and retention of key players, the 2023 recruiting cycle end game, etc.
7. I'll have much more to say on the hire of a new head coach but have already said a lot that I'll reiterate. Based on the track records of coaches who have succeeded in turning around Power Five programs in recent decades, I have a strong predisposition for proven winners and a strong aversion to people whose primary appeal is a connection to the university. Names like Chris Petersen, Dan Quinn, Brent Brennan, Troy Taylor, Dave Clawson, PJ Fleck, Chris Kleiman, Lance Leipold, Tom Herman, Jeff Brohm, Bronco Mendenhall, Paul Chryst, Jeff Traylor, Kalani Sitake, Deion Sanders, Jim Mora, and Jamey Chadwell do much more for me than names like Derek Mason, Mike Bloomgren, and Troy Walters. I have a general predisposition against guys whose top level of proving themselves come as coordinators, but I wouldn't rule it out and there are some with pedigrees worth considering, like Lance Taylor, Garret Riley, and of course Greg Roman. A special category given the recent interim head coach experience may be Jim Leonhard, as being jilted at the altar by his alma mater might put a candidate out there I had assumed was off limits.
8. Something that's been occurring to me is that there are literally dozens of plausible candidates who could deliver the turnaround we need but maybe as few as zero sure things. When I think of a hire that would give me extreme confidence of working out, it's a coach with a track record of spectacular success at multiple destinations still in his prime. Somebody like Kalen DeBoer last year, which I thought was just an outstanding hire by Washington. I'm not sure that candidate exists right now at the Group of Five level and it's unclear whether some of the more attractive Power Five guys (Lane Kiffin at the audacious end but also guys like Fleck and Kleiman) would give us the time of day. That's not to say we can't hit a grand slam with this pick, it's just a recognition of the uncertainty at play. I think if we make a generic hire we probably have about a 50 percent chance of it working out, if we make a great hire we might have a 75 percent chance, and if we make a bad hire we might have a 25 percent chance. The more I dug into the histories across Power Five football in recent months the more it struck me that a hire like what Stanford is about to undertake is about a coin flip. As I've said many times in recent months, I absolutely relish the chance to take that coin flip. We were going nowhere fast (and depressingly/boringly) under Shaw. Now there's hope. That's a great thing. I'm just not sure there's a sure thing. Even Petersen runs some risk of being a retread/not in the proper season of life.
9. My strongest-held conviction about the hiring of a new coach is that we should hire somebody with a strong theory of the case for why they'll be good and then empower them. This has many implications with regard to budget (including/especially for assistants and recruiting), transfer portal, and NIL but I want to foot stomp one in light of some discussions taking place on the boards: it is totally premature and inappropriate to have set views on which current Stanford assistants, if any, stay. This has to be at the discretion - truly, genuinely - of the new head coach. If Shaw brokered deals for the future treatment of Tavita Pritchard and/or Lance Anderson, or anybody else, that would be really unfortunate. The new coach needs to be able to bring in the staff he wants to bring in/thinks will constitute the best team. Here my predisposition would be to start totally fresh as I think the team is in need of a culture transplant and the failure of the team has been comprehensive and catastrophic, contrary to the tone in Shaw's press conference. My biggest worry going forward is a new coach is forced to retain numerous current assistants and starts at best without the optimal amount of autonomy and at worst with unhelpful/ineffective albatrosses around his neck. But if a new coach genuinely determines that some assistants should be back for continuity I'm open to it. I just don't think that should be decided first/yet.
10 A big question is what happens with the 2023 Stanford roster. There is some upside uncertainty produced by all the recent talk of competing in the transfer portal. Right now numerous positions look really problematic for 2023 (the entire defense save edge rushers, wide receiver, potentially interior line, running back if you don't have faith in brittle guys like I don't), but if we get key transfers that could alter the picture somewhat (and potentially considerably if big surprises are in store). Aside from that, we don't know what will happen with big retention/attrition decisions. At least for me this is pretty murky. I really don't know whether a coaching transition gives us a shot at stanching attrition bleeding, provides further license for guys on the way out, or is a wash. Something to watch in the coming weeks, and I'll be massively more interested in the decisions than I would have been had Shaw come back.
11. I don't even know the last time I felt this excited to see what's next for Stanford football. For all the nice things I said about Shaw above, the bottom line with regard to 2023 is that for all his best intentions, past accomplishments, and care for his players he was relentlessly killing the program. We had no hope with him at the helm. Now we have some. The pall has been lifted over the program. I'm so much more excited to follow the program than I was yesterday. What a wonderful early Christmas present. Thank you David Shaw!
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - BostonCard - 11-27-2022
Thanks, as always, for the “must read” post-mortem on Shaw’s departure. Glad you didn’t spend too much work on breaking down the BYU game, which was pretty much over after two possessions for each tema (two BYU touchdowns, one Karty field goal for Stanford, and we were down 14-3 and that was that).
I have many thoughts, but I wanted to give you credit for putting forth the idea that Shaw would leave rather than further hurt his legacy. I thought it was a bit of wishcasting on your part, but it turned out to be right (and I recognize that the “decision” could have ranged anywhere from an ultimatum from Muir to quit or be fired to a 100% pure Shaw decision, to, most likely, something in between, but regardless of the palace intrigue aspect, it’s done).
I look forward to your deep dive on future coaches. I will note that since I’ve been a fan (my freshman year was 1993), the year after a coach has been fired or retired when things weren’t working out (Walsh II to Willingham, Teavens to Harris, and Harris to Harbaugh), the team has improved an average of 2 2/3 wins, which is expected just due to reversion to the mean. The average improvement in winning percentage with such a change has been about .109 (1.3 wins per 12 games), almost all of it due to the Harris to Harbaugh transition.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - JohnR34231 - 11-27-2022
Anybody's guess how much of Shaw's departure was his decision or Stanford's. I did always think that if Shaw were fired, it would be presented to the public as though it was his decision.
I did find interesting his comment about how two weeks ago it wasn't even something he was contemplating. Did he suddenly have an epiphany or was it a notice from the University?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - msqueri - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 01:39 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Anybody's guess how much of Shaw's departure was his decision or Stanford's. I did always think that if Shaw were fired, it would be presented to the public as though it was his decision.
I did find interesting his comment about how two weeks ago it wasn't even something he was contemplating. Did he suddenly have an epiphany or was it a notice from the University?
I view that statement as a partial truth. I'm sure his thoughts became a lot more crystallized this week, but there's no way he hasn't been thinking about this for months or even years. I don't post my weekly breakdowns of his press conferences on this board, but those on the other boards will recall that I've been commenting for months just how much more wistful and zen (unstressed and unbothered was the phrase I used) Shaw has been compared to past years. I've had many examples showing the shift. I think the reality is he's been acclimating for some time to the idea that his time as head coach would eventually come to an end and a lot of the behavior we saw this year was part of his internal journey.
What I suspect happened this week is the pressure dramatically increased and he reached a decision stage that was indeed qualitatively much different than the kind of contemplation he's had before.
Put another way: in his heart he probably knew a while ago that his time was closer to the end than the beginning, but it was the cumulative effect of all the losing that forced his brain to come up with a specific exit ramp with Muir.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - Goose - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 01:39 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote: I did find interesting his comment about how two weeks ago it wasn't even something he was contemplating. Did he suddenly have an epiphany or was it a notice from the University?Or he was engaging in typical coach-speak. How would you feel if you were a player and found out your coach had decided at the beginning of the year he was leaving? That might be OK if he told everybody and it was a motivating factor to send him out with a good season, but keeping it quiet would always make one wonder if he had one foot out the door all year long. The idea he wasn't even contemplating it just isn't credible, especially for David Shaw who is a very deliberate decision-maker. I would buy the no final decision until recently, but not even thinking about it? No way.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - washingtonismoney - 11-27-2022
Probably just rumormongering or arrant speculation, but ESPN's Adam Rittenburg did float Dave Aranda. While I don't think connections per se to the university are helpful, I do think being in more selective-university environments is generally good. That's about the only downside I could think of if Aranda were a viable candidate.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - BostonCard - 11-27-2022
You have to be good at compartmentalizing, and even if Shaw had a general awareness at the beginning of the season that this one might be his last, doesn’t mean that he didn’t hope and or expect that he could turn things around. It was worth noting that before the game two weeks ago, we technically still had a shot at a bowl game, so maybe that was the benchmark. It’s possible that once we lost to Utah and were out of contention for a bowl game, he decided that it was time (or he knew that if he didn’t decide, someone would decide for him).
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - msqueri - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 01:58 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: Probably just rumormongering or arrant speculation, but ESPN's Adam Rittenburg did float Dave Aranda. While I don't think connections per se to the university are helpful, I do think being in more selective-university environments is generally good. That's about the only downside I could think of if Aranda were a viable candidate.
Very interesting name to be floated. At least for my money, a deeply enigmatic track record at Baylor. I'm not sure how I'd feel about that hire. I do think there are safer choices.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - washingtonismoney - 11-27-2022
I think the change was maybe in early 2022 or so. His twitter feed shifted from "promoting Stanford football" to "promoting Stanford NFL alums" and "promoting his son." Not to say the latter two priorities are awful or anything, but they're behaviors of someone who wants to reminisce rather than be a booster for the here-and-now.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - Austroturf - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 12:45 PM)msqueri Wrote: 11. I don't even know the last time I felt this excited to see what's next for Stanford football. For all the nice things I said about Shaw above, the bottom line with regard to 2023 is that for all his best intentions, past accomplishments, and care for his players he was relentlessly killing the program. We had no hope with him at the helm. Now we have some. The pall has been lifted over the program. I'm so much more excited to follow the program than I was yesterday. What a wonderful early Christmas present. Thank you David Shaw!
Thanks for these insights. It has been interesting reading the various reactions to Shaw's big announcement. By and large, the internet has been filled with glowing professional eulogies, which are justified to a large extent. But I find myself with a more ambivalent view of the man and his tenure and concur with your comments above.
Having closely and passionately followed every Shaw season since the inaugural one in 2011, I see three eras that I will call The Rose Bowl Era (2011-2015), The Sun Bowl Era (2016-2018) and the Toilet Bowl Era (2019-2022).
For the first of these eras, all praise and recognition are due to David Shaw. He took Harbaugh's machine, tweaked it a bit to suit his personality and cranked out a series of excellent, memorable seasons for which every Stanford football fan should be grateful. There were some ups and downs in this era (2014) and a few moments when the program appeared to be headed downward, but Shaw and the team found ways to bounce back and produce 3 Pac-12 Championships, 3 Rose Bowls, 1 Fiesta Bowl and Stanford's best ever ranking to close out a season (#3 after the drubbing of Iowa in the 2016 Rose Bowl -- still, in my view, his best game ever as a coach). In fact, at the conclusion of that 2016 Rose Bowl, I was never more sold on Shaw as a coach. But I did not realize at the time that we were already entering the Sun Bowl Era.
Yes, those were the last roses we would sniff in Shaw's tenure. I have dubbed this span of three years the Sun Bowl Era because it is book-ended by two Sun Bowl appearances with an Alamo Bowl in the middle. During these three years, we ceded the top of the Pac-12 to Washington (2016, 2018) and USC (2017). And though we came painfully close to another Pac-12 championship in 2017 (31-28 loss to the Trojans in the championship game), we were no longer a top ten team and, in fact, ended 2018 unranked at 9-4. No more New Year's 6 Bowls, just a pair of Sun Bowl squeakers vs. North Carolina (2016) and Pitt (2018) and a frustrating Alamo Bowl loss to TCU (2017). The 14-13 win vs. Pitt in the 2018 Sun Bowl would be Shaw's final post-season game.
Then we entered the period I have dubbed the Toilet Bowl Era. This is when, in my view, Shaw's staffing decisions finally came home to roost with a vengeance. Pritchard was in his 2nd season as offensive coordinator, and the entire coaching crew was back from the 2018 season, with Lance Anderson now a fixture at DC since 2014. We were 4-4 after 8 games, then proceeded to lose the final 4 to finish at 4-8, including our first loss to Cal since the 2009 season. The Covid-shortened year and some close victories with Mills in his final season got us to 4-2; but then came two successive 3-9 seasons that we are all too painfully familiar with. For this era, Shaw deserves immense criticism. It happened fully on his watch, and he steadfastly refused to make any changes to his regime. All the glory of the Rose Bowl Era is now tarnished by a program in tatters; and the new HC, whoever it is, will have to pick up the shattered pieces and try to reassemble a functional football program.
This leaves me wondering whether Shaw resigned because he simply could not bring himself to clean house and part ways with his loyal lieutenants. We will never know. But all the plaudits Shaw is justifiably receiving at the announcement of his departure need to be placed in the context of these final four years of failure. They are also his legacy.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - washingtonismoney - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 02:03 PM)msqueri Wrote:(11-27-2022, 01:58 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: Probably just rumormongering or arrant speculation, but ESPN's Adam Rittenburg did float Dave Aranda. While I don't think connections per se to the university are helpful, I do think being in more selective-university environments is generally good. That's about the only downside I could think of if Aranda were a viable candidate.
Very interesting name to be floated. At least for my money, a deeply enigmatic track record at Baylor. I'm not sure how I'd feel about that hire. I do think there are safer choices.
Kind of hard for me to say who's available and what the reaction would be. Take Tom Herman for example. Exemplary W-L record. Very smart guy -- I have little doubt he'd be intrigued by a more academic environment. An absolute, nuclear-powered dynamo of a recruiter in Houston. The question I have with him would be: do people (specifically in Texas) think he's still a good coach? The way his UT tenure ended, I know a large part of the state thought (fairly or not) that he was an incompetent. And while I think a lot of that is unfair and a product of the Longhorns' bonkers internal politics, the perception is nevertheless important if you're gonna roll into one of these TX high schools and try and land a Walker Little redux.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - BostonCard - 11-27-2022
Your line about Leonhard caught my attention, because I thought the whole point of firing Chryst was to not have someone poach Leonhard. I guess Fickell was irresistible (https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35121689/sources-wisconsin-makes-push-hire-luke-fickell-coach) but still, I’m surprised they didn’t make Leonhard the permanent head coach. Poor Cincinnati, they keep getting their head coaches poached.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - Goose - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 02:09 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Your line about Leonhard caught my attention, because I thought the whole point of firing Chryst was to not have someone poach Leonhard. I guess Fickell was irresistible (https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35121689/sources-wisconsin-makes-push-hire-luke-fickell-coach) but still, I’m surprised they didn’t make Leonhard the permanent head coach. Poor Cincinnati, they keep getting their head coaches poached.Leonhard was not sexy enough. He was associated with the past regime. The firing of Chryst IMHO sent the message that there were big aspirations that could only be met by big changes. Whether that will work out or not is the question. Chryst was a good coach, but he wasn't likely to win the Big-10. They needed somebody that they could at least argue would do so.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - SkiBum80 - 11-27-2022
Thanks msqueri a most excellent write up as usual. I too feel somewhat hopeful which is vast improvement on the hopelessness before & during byu game. I agree on balance coach Shaw a mostly admirable and effective coach from a fan/alumni view until recent years when the spiraling down occurred. Insightful take on calling it palace intrigue into whether truly his solo decision to step down or whether some encouragement or even buyout offer from Muir et al. As you well said, while peeking some curiosity in the end it doesn’t matter more than possibly some buyout pay. Either way time to turn the page and yes coach Shaw seems to have left SU in best possible way to turn that page successfully. Tip of cap to coach for all the years and for the graceful exit.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - SamuelMcF - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 02:08 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: Kind of hard for me to say who's available and what the reaction would be. Take Tom Herman for example. Exemplary W-L record. Very smart guy -- I have little doubt he'd be intrigued by a more academic environment. An absolute, nuclear-powered dynamo of a recruiter in Houston. The question I have with him would be: do people (specifically in Texas) think he's still a good coach? The way his UT tenure ended, I know a large part of the state thought (fairly or not) that he was an incompetent. And while I think a lot of that is unfair and a product of the Longhorns' bonkers internal politics, the perception is nevertheless important if you're gonna roll into one of these TX high schools and try and land a Walker Little redux.
Tom Herman is widely considered a MASSIVE asshole, and UT fans couldn't wait til he was gone.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - Austroturf - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 02:22 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(11-27-2022, 02:08 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: Kind of hard for me to say who's available and what the reaction would be. Take Tom Herman for example. Exemplary W-L record. Very smart guy -- I have little doubt he'd be intrigued by a more academic environment. An absolute, nuclear-powered dynamo of a recruiter in Houston. The question I have with him would be: do people (specifically in Texas) think he's still a good coach? The way his UT tenure ended, I know a large part of the state thought (fairly or not) that he was an incompetent. And while I think a lot of that is unfair and a product of the Longhorns' bonkers internal politics, the perception is nevertheless important if you're gonna roll into one of these TX high schools and try and land a Walker Little redux.
Tom Herman is widely considered a MASSIVE asshole, and UT fans couldn't wait til he was gone.
That is definitely NOT an endorsement....
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - qwerty49 - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 02:05 PM)Austroturf Wrote:(11-27-2022, 12:45 PM)msqueri Wrote: 11. I don't even know the last time I felt this excited to see what's next for Stanford football. For all the nice things I said about Shaw above, the bottom line with regard to 2023 is that for all his best intentions, past accomplishments, and care for his players he was relentlessly killing the program. We had no hope with him at the helm. Now we have some. The pall has been lifted over the program. I'm so much more excited to follow the program than I was yesterday. What a wonderful early Christmas present. Thank you David Shaw!
Thanks for these insights. It has been interesting reading the various reactions to Shaw's big announcement. By and large, the internet has been filled with glowing professional eulogies, which are justified to a large extent. But I find myself with a more ambivalent view of the man and his tenure and concur with your comments above.
Having closely and passionately followed every Shaw season since the inaugural one in 2011, I see three eras that I will call The Rose Bowl Era (2011-2015), The Sun Bowl Era (2016-2018) and the Toilet Bowl Era (2019-2022).
For the first of these eras, all praise and recognition are due to David Shaw. He took Harbaugh's machine, tweaked it a bit to suit his personality and cranked out a series of excellent, memorable seasons for which every Stanford football fan should be grateful. There were some ups and downs in this era (2014) and a few moments when the program appeared to be headed downward, but Shaw and the team found ways to bounce back and produce 3 Pac-12 Championships, 3 Rose Bowls, 1 Fiesta Bowl and Stanford's best ever ranking to close out a season (#3 after the drubbing of Iowa in the 2016 Rose Bowl -- still, in my view, his best game ever as a coach). In fact, at the conclusion of that 2016 Rose Bowl, I was never more sold on Shaw as a coach. But I did not realize at the time that we were already entering the Sun Bowl Era.
Yes, those were the last roses we would sniff in Shaw's tenure. I have dubbed this span of three years the Sun Bowl Era because it is book-ended by two Sun Bowl appearances with an Alamo Bowl in the middle. During these three years, we ceded the top of the Pac-12 to Washington (2016, 2018) and USC (2017). And though we came painfully close to another Pac-12 championship in 2017 (31-28 loss to the Trojans in the championship game), we were no longer a top ten team and, in fact, ended 2018 unranked at 9-4. No more New Year's 6 Bowls, just a pair of Sun Bowl squeakers vs. North Carolina (2016) and Pitt (2018) and a frustrating Alamo Bowl loss to TCU (2017). The 14-13 win vs. Pitt in the 2018 Sun Bowl would be Shaw's final post-season game.
Then we entered the period I have dubbed the Toilet Bowl Era. This is when, in my view, Shaw's staffing decisions finally came home to roost with a vengeance. Pritchard was in his 2nd season as offensive coordinator, and the entire coaching crew was back from the 2018 season, with Lance Anderson now a fixture at DC since 2014. We were 4-4 after 8 games, then proceeded to lose the final 4 to finish at 4-8, including our first loss to Cal since the 2009 season. The Covid-shortened year and some close victories with Mills in his final season got us to 4-2; but then came two successive 3-9 seasons that we are all too painfully familiar with. For this era, Shaw deserves immense criticism. It happened fully on his watch, and he steadfastly refused to make any changes to his regime. All the glory of the Rose Bowl Era is now tarnished by a program in tatters; and the new HC, whoever it is, will have to pick up the shattered pieces and try to reassemble a functional football program.
This leaves me wondering whether Shaw resigned because he simply could not bring himself to clean house and part ways with his loyal lieutenants. We will never know. But all the plaudits Shaw is justifiably receiving at the announcement of his departure need to be placed in the context of these final four years of failure. They are also his legacy.
Nice analyses Matt and also Austroturf.
I was comparing the Shaw Era to Walsh1 and Walsh2, but Austro’s parsing into Shaw1a, 1b and 1c seems most apt.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - gailtate - 11-27-2022
(11-27-2022, 12:45 PM)msqueri Wrote: 6. That's not to say he leaves the program in a peachy situation, of course. The reason we've come to this fork in the road in the first place is just how troubled recent years have been. As I've railed about at length on these boards, our program has a lot of problems, and no matter the magnanimous voice of enlightened agency Shaw chooses to project it's obvious that he wouldn't have stepped away had he not failed. One of the big mysteries is how much this departure was Shaw being pushed out versus voluntary versus mutual. Maybe we'll get insights into that in coming days. But except to the extent it has bearing on things like a buyout (and its size) I'm not sure that palace intrigue matters that much to me anymore. What was important to me is that we move on to a post-Shaw coach ASAP and, to the extent possible, that the transition happen in a way that did not set the program too much further back on the path to rebuilding. So far so great on those scores. The most interesting thing going forward, as vibrant threads already in motion on the boards attest, will be what happens next in the areas key to the transition: the hire of a new head coach, the composition of a new staff, navigating incoming and outgoing transfer portal dynamics and retention of key players, the 2023 recruiting cycle end game, etc.
7. I'll have much more to say on the hire of a new head coach but have already said a lot that I'll reiterate. Based on the track records of coaches who have succeeded in turning around Power Five programs in recent decades, I have a strong predisposition for proven winners and a strong aversion to people whose primary appeal is a connection to the university. Names like Chris Petersen, Dan Quinn, Brent Brennan, Troy Taylor, Dave Clawson, PJ Fleck, Chris Kleiman, Lance Leipold, Tom Herman, Jeff Brohm, Bronco Mendenhall, Paul Chryst, Jeff Traylor, Kalani Sitake, Deion Sanders, Jim Mora, and Jamey Chadwell do much more for me than names like Derek Mason, Mike Bloomgren, and Troy Walters. I have a general predisposition against guys whose top level of proving themselves come as coordinators, but I wouldn't rule it out and there are some with pedigrees worth considering, like Lance Taylor, Garret Riley, and of course Greg Roman. A special category given the recent interim head coach experience may be Jim Leonhard, as being jilted at the altar by his alma mater might put a candidate out there I had assumed was off limits.
8. Something that's been occurring to me is that there are literally dozens of plausible candidates who could deliver the turnaround we need but maybe as few as zero sure things. When I think of a hire that would give me extreme confidence of working out, it's a coach with a track record of spectacular success at multiple destinations still in his prime. Somebody like Kalen DeBoer last year, which I thought was just an outstanding hire by Washington. I'm not sure that candidate exists right now at the Group of Five level and it's unclear whether some of the more attractive Power Five guys (Lane Kiffin at the audacious end but also guys like Fleck and Kleiman) would give us the time of day. That's not to say we can't hit a grand slam with this pick, it's just a recognition of the uncertainty at play. I think if we make a generic hire we probably have about a 50 percent chance of it working out, if we make a great hire we might have a 75 percent chance, and if we make a bad hire we might have a 25 percent chance. The more I dug into the histories across Power Five football in recent months the more it struck me that a hire like what Stanford is about to undertake is about a coin flip. As I've said many times in recent months, I absolutely relish the chance to take that coin flip. We were going nowhere fast (and depressingly/boringly) under Shaw. Now there's hope. That's a great thing. I'm just not sure there's a sure thing. Even Petersen runs some risk of being a retread/not in the proper season of life.
9. My strongest-held conviction about the hiring of a new coach is that we should hire somebody with a strong theory of the case for why they'll be good and then empower them. This has many implications with regard to budget (including/especially for assistants and recruiting), transfer portal, and NIL but I want to foot stomp one in light of some discussions taking place on the boards: it is totally premature and inappropriate to have set views on which current Stanford assistants, if any, stay. This has to be at the discretion - truly, genuinely - of the new head coach. If Shaw brokered deals for the future treatment of Tavita Pritchard and/or Lance Anderson, or anybody else, that would be really unfortunate. The new coach needs to be able to bring in the staff he wants to bring in/thinks will constitute the best team. Here my predisposition would be to start totally fresh as I think the team is in need of a culture transplant and the failure of the team has been comprehensive and catastrophic, contrary to the tone in Shaw's press conference. My biggest worry going forward is a new coach is forced to retain numerous current assistants and starts at best without the optimal amount of autonomy and at worst with unhelpful/ineffective albatrosses around his neck. But if a new coach genuinely determines that some assistants should be back for continuity I'm open to it. I just don't think that should be decided first/yet.
10 A big question is what happens with the 2023 Stanford roster. There is some upside uncertainty produced by all the recent talk of competing in the transfer portal. Right now numerous positions look really problematic for 2023 (the entire defense save edge rushers, wide receiver, potentially interior line, running back if you don't have faith in brittle guys like I don't), but if we get key transfers that could alter the picture somewhat (and potentially considerably if big surprises are in store). Aside from that, we don't know what will happen with big retention/attrition decisions. At least for me this is pretty murky. I really don't know whether a coaching transition gives us a shot at stanching attrition bleeding, provides further license for guys on the way out, or is a wash. Something to watch in the coming weeks, and I'll be massively more interested in the decisions than I would have been had Shaw come back.
11. I don't even know the last time I felt this excited to see what's next for Stanford football. For all the nice things I said about Shaw above, the bottom line with regard to 2023 is that for all his best intentions, past accomplishments, and care for his players he was relentlessly killing the program. We had no hope with him at the helm. Now we have some. The pall has been lifted over the program. I'm so much more excited to follow the program than I was yesterday. What a wonderful early Christmas present. Thank you David Shaw!
One point: NO exceptions re finding homes for legacy assistants. Indeed, it would be a deal breaker for signing the caliber of coach Stanford desperately needs at this moment. We need a Five-Star stud, complete with a presumably sterling entourage.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - End of an Era - BostonCard - 11-27-2022
I have never seen a deal where a departing goal insists on assistants staying on. I expect Shaw will help his now former assistants find a decent landing spot, but I’d be surprised if that is at Stanford, with maybe one or two exceptions (at the discretion of the incoming coach) for continuity and to maintain the 2023 recruiting class. It does help to have someone on the staff who knows things like admissions, though that could be someone like Mike Eubanks who is an employee of the AD and not the football team.
BC