FB -- Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - 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: FB -- Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 (/thread-25206.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: FB -- Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 (/thread-25206.html)
FB -- Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - Row80Critic - 10-20-2024
Should Taylor get a third season?
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - paloalto - 10-20-2024
Absolutely. It's not the coach. Stanford's players do not match up to the opponents' players. Coaches have to work with the talent available to them. They can't go out on the field and play. Fans can debate some in-game coaching decisions, but the overriding issue is a talent imbalance.
Maybe it's time for the Stanford administration to think in terms of the ND model for the future. Stanford football comes back to the reformed PAC and the other sports stay in the ACC. With NIL and the ease of transferring Stanford is at too much of a disadvantage. Into the foreseeable future Stanford football would be near the bottom of any Power Four conference.
In the past the Stanford name was enough for appealing to some elite players. Now the culture of elite football players is more about NIL, money, and being part of a playoff bound team.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - msqueri - 10-20-2024
I will judge at the end of the season whether I think Taylor should keep his job, but based on how his first 19 games as our coach have been my answer would be no. We need to see a lot more these last five games. These results cannot be explained away as just being a function of the transfer portal and new order of college football. This is really bad, much worse than our roster talent should be. Time for Taylor to show something against the Charmin soft last five games of our schedule.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - Row80Critic - 10-20-2024
(10-20-2024, 12:49 PM)msqueri Wrote: I will judge at the end of the season whether I think Taylor should keep his job, but based on how his first 19 games as our coach have been my answer would be no. We need to see a lot more these last five games. These results cannot be explained away as just being a function of the transfer portal and new order of college football. This is really bad, much worse than our roster talent should be. Time for Taylor to show something against the Charmin soft last five games of our schedule.
This is my 55th season in the stands. Watched a lot of coaches (and players) come and go. By this point, they pretty much either showed promise or they didn't -- and I'm not personally seeing a lot of promise.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - needle - 10-20-2024
(10-20-2024, 12:49 PM)msqueri Wrote: Time for Taylor to show something against the Charmin soft last five games of our schedule.
You probably mean in total, but Louisville is No. 26 in the latest Sagarin ratings and, imo, on par with Va. Tech and SMU.
So, I'd say there are four games really (Wake, NC State, Kal and San Jose State) where 40-10 losses are unacceptable and, imo, fireable offenses.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - msqueri - 10-20-2024
(10-20-2024, 03:40 PM)needle Wrote:(10-20-2024, 12:49 PM)msqueri Wrote: Time for Taylor to show something against the Charmin soft last five games of our schedule.
You probably mean in total, but Louisville is No. 26 in the latest Sagarin ratings and, imo, on par with Va. Tech and SMU.
So, I'd say there are four games really (Wake, NC State, Kal and San Jose State) where 40-10 losses are unacceptable and, imo, fireable offenses.
Of course I mean in total. That is laughably soft for Louisville to be the best team a Power Four team plays in the last five games of its schedule. As I said "We just finished a stretch playing, in succession, the #55, #13, #28, #5, and #16 teams and are now going to play, in succession, the #88, #75, #26, #57, and #93 teams."
Of course we should not be losing remaining games by 24, 26, 30, 42 point type margins. But it's more than that. These are games that if this staff is worthy of coaching at this level there need to be some wins.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - Row80Critic - 10-20-2024
(10-20-2024, 12:49 PM)msqueri Wrote: ....and are now going to play, in succession, the #88, #75, #26, #57, and #93 teams."
And Stanford is #103, looking up at all of them...
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - Farm93 - 10-20-2024
This is rather difficult.
I think Stanford is in a real tough spot. There honestly is no way top flight coaches will take a Stanford opening with or without a salary in the top 10-20 range because of the portal and NIL constraints. At most places a new coach will lose a bunch of players to the portal but will immediately be able to shop in the portal for players that will work for them and their system. At Stanford it will be a multi-year process where attrition goes unaddressed for at least a year, if not two.
The transfer portal is simply not going to work for Stanford. Even if Stanford becomes more lenient and pledges to take 10-20 players every year, the players would still need to apply and wait for admissions decisions. But most players in the portal are expecting to get viable offers for new squad in days, if not hours. And the best are likely looking for firm NIL terms in those initial 24 hours too. Given that Stanford can't properly participate in those important areas it will be so hard to get a good coach and almost impossible to keep a successful coach.
Since Stanford is not going to be a top choice for top coaches I can't imagine firing a coach after only 2 seasons will do anything to improve the chances of landing strong coaches. So I believe Muir willl stay with TT course for at least 4 full seasons no matter how poorly the team is playing.
Doubts? See Haase's tenure.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - newguy - 10-20-2024
in my opinion, yes. he's playing a fair number of true freshmen, in part because of injuries.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - chrisk - 10-20-2024
I doubt Stanford will try to exit the ACC in less than 3 years. The constraints on exiting make it unlikely anyway.
The best hope is that within 3-5 years the football establishment will reform itself and will come up with a new alignment in which Stanford can find a slot which aligns with its values.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - SkiBum80 - 10-21-2024
I think it would be a big mistake to fire Coach TT after a season and a half of Stanford head coaching.
Especially considering the decimated roster he inherited as Coach Shaw exited.
It would not suddenly improve the team nor the recruiting.
And would not make Stanford a more attractive place for a prospective coach to consider.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - Bampa - 10-21-2024
(10-21-2024, 06:47 AM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I think it would be a big mistake to fire Coach TT after a season and a half of Stanford head coaching.
Especially considering the decimated roster he inherited as Coach Shaw exited.
It would not suddenly improve the team nor the recruiting.
And would not make Stanford a more attractive place for a prospective coach to consider.
+1
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - StanUSwagU - 10-21-2024
(10-20-2024, 06:53 PM)Farm93 Wrote: This is rather difficult.
I think Stanford is in a real tough spot. There honestly is no way top flight coaches will take a Stanford opening with or without a salary in the top 10-20 range because of the portal and NIL constraints. At most places a new coach will lose a bunch of players to the portal but will immediately be able to shop in the portal for players that will work for them and their system. At Stanford it will be a multi-year process where attrition goes unaddressed for at least a year, if not two.
The transfer portal is simply not going to work for Stanford. Even if Stanford becomes more lenient and pledges to take 10-20 players every year, the players would still need to apply and wait for admissions decisions. But most players in the portal are expecting to get viable offers for new squad in days, if not hours. And the best are likely looking for firm NIL terms in those initial 24 hours too. Given that Stanford can't properly participate in those important areas it will be so hard to get a good coach and almost impossible to keep a successful coach.
Farm93: Your assessment of the situation, (as I & others have been stating on this board for many years now) with regard to StanU Football (and I might include StanU Mens Bball in this) , is correct:
As a StanU Alum, I present the following:
(1) In this new era of BigTime Football & Mens Basketball, the current 'Values' of Stanford University are not going to work !
(2) The 'Values' of Stanford University & Approach to Football & Mens Basketball .... MUST CHANGE to Solve all the Structural Problems Farm93 mentions above !
(3) The 'Values' of Stanford University relative to Football & Mens Basketball, are not some 'immutable, unchangeable feature ....they are wholly the product of certain peoples choices & decisions, and quite possibly peoples 'incorrect assessment of what values are good for a university in this Modern Era' ;
(4) Quite likely these 'Stanford Values' are not just inhibiting Stanford Football & Stanford Mens Basketball ...in the sense that we can't attract certain athletes ...but they are likely also inhibiting (and I know some on this board might be surprised to know or accept this) attracting certain students to want to 'apply to & attend' Stanford University. Would the great American Patriot Jackie Robinson have 'wanted to attend' Stanford University as it currently is ?
(5) To me, one has to question & review ones Values & Admissions/Transfer requirements as a university, ...if you do a 'thought exercise' & come to the conclusion that 1 of the greatest Americans of All-Time JackieRobinson, may not have 'been admitted to Your University!'
(6) I think it is a Bad reflection on a University that professes a commitment to 'Excellence in All Things' to present to the World, a FootballTeam & Mens Basketball Team that are not even close to being Top40 let alone Top20 ! [At the very least, it shows StanfordUniversity is not committed to adapting to a New Modern World & not committed to 'Excellence in All Things']
(7) Someone up above mentioned NotreDame (and us adopting their model), but got the details somewhat incorrect. The suggestion was that we be like NotreDame by dropping down to some smaller lower level conference for Football, but stay in the ACC for other sports. Actually that is not the NotreDame model. The NotreDame model is to be a Behemoth Top20 National Power in Football (at all costs, even if that means Changing/Modifying their Admissions & NIL & Transfer Policies, & Deciding whether to Stay Independent or Join a Power4 Conference for Football, based on BrandRevenue generation Potential), ...but stay in the ACC in all other Sports & Be Competitive in the ACC in all other Sports including Mens Basketball, at all costs !
(8) And NotreDame is a stellar 'academic institution' [And they are not having the problems with Football & Mens Basketball that we are having !]
(9) Yes, NotreDame is the Model for Admissions & Transfers & NIL we must move to, .... for Football !
Yes, Duke is the Model for Admissions & Transfers & NIL we must move to, ... for Mens Basketball !
(10) And Yes, making these Adaptations will not just be good for Football & Mens Basketball. ..but it might mean we attract a much more 'well rounded (non-nerdy) student body & faculty' ...which will be better for the University as a whole ! [Sorry I never liked or embraced the moniker 'Nerd Nation'. I dont think a Person or University should limit itself like that !]
Period !
(11) Just my opinion, and thanks Farm93 for identifying our Stanford University Infrastructure Problems ..which must Change ...unless Stanford University wants to become largely irrelevant like 'Cornell' & 'Dartmouth' & 'Bowdoin College' !
(12) Additionally to modifying our 'Admissions/Transfer' criteria/requirements; I would also look to increase our undergraduate population by 2000 undergraduate students ( 500 per class); This way we are 'adding' these differently unique students/student-athlete to our existing undergraduate class, not taking away any spots from any of traditional spots. [If 1000 of these 2000 new undergraduates are 'college football' & 'college mens basketball' fans, that will help our 'home attendance' as well, and they may even invite their non-stanford family & friends to attend these home football & mens basketball games ...thus solving 2 problems at once = (A) getting more great 4star football & mens basketball players admitted & (B) boosting our home attendance a little for football & mens basketball]
(13) In the ModernEra, its much better for a University's long term Relevance & Future, ... to be Michigan, NotreDame, Duke, & UCLA, ...rather than to be Cornell, BowdoinCollege or Dartmouth]
[no disrespect to anyone from those 3 colleges ]
(14) PS: Shout out to BostonCard & OutsiderFan !
(15) PS: Shout out to msqueri; If our Administration can be as committed to 'modernizing, updating, and broadening what its Outlook, Mission, & Values are for 2025 & Beyond, and what its Admissions definition is for what 'A Well Rounded Student-Servant-Leader' applicant looks like for 2025 & Beyond ...(as msqueri is to 'analyzing & assessing our StanU Football Team's performance, on the field') ...well our Future as a University & a Top20 Football Team would be great !
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - martyup - 10-21-2024
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fc.tenor.com%2F4V2iMnUtU...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fc.tenor.com%2F4V2iMnUtU4gAAAAC%2Fnerds-take-over.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=49159635efb5cd4b54668a0aec7a4e75d7421ce6b18551bd05ed9e4acb302e83&ipo=images)
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - Row80Critic - 10-21-2024
(10-21-2024, 07:49 AM)StanUSwagU Wrote:(10-20-2024, 06:53 PM)Farm93 Wrote: This is rather difficult.
I think Stanford is in a real tough spot. There honestly is no way top flight coaches will take a Stanford opening with or without a salary in the top 10-20 range because of the portal and NIL constraints. At most places a new coach will lose a bunch of players to the portal but will immediately be able to shop in the portal for players that will work for them and their system. At Stanford it will be a multi-year process where attrition goes unaddressed for at least a year, if not two.
The transfer portal is simply not going to work for Stanford. Even if Stanford becomes more lenient and pledges to take 10-20 players every year, the players would still need to apply and wait for admissions decisions. But most players in the portal are expecting to get viable offers for new squad in days, if not hours. And the best are likely looking for firm NIL terms in those initial 24 hours too. Given that Stanford can't properly participate in those important areas it will be so hard to get a good coach and almost impossible to keep a successful coach.
Farm93: Your assessment of the situation, (as I & others have been stating on this board for many years now) with regard to StanU Football (and I might include StanU Mens Bball in this) , is correct:
As a StanU Alum, I present the following:
(1) In this new era of BigTime Football & Mens Basketball, the current 'Values' of Stanford University are not going to work !
(2) The 'Values' of Stanford University & Approach to Football & Mens Basketball .... MUST CHANGE to Solve all the Structural Problems Farm93 mentions above !
(3) The 'Values' of Stanford University relative to Football & Mens Basketball, are not some 'immutable, unchangeable feature ....they are wholly the product of certain peoples choices & decisions, and quite possibly peoples 'incorrect assessment of what values are good for a university in this Modern Era' ;
(4) Quite likely these 'Stanford Values' are not just inhibiting Stanford Football & Stanford Mens Basketball ...in the sense that we can't attract certain athletes ...but they are likely also inhibiting (and I know some on this board might be surprised to know or accept this) attracting certain students to want to 'apply to & attend' Stanford University. Would the great American Patriot Jackie Robinson have 'wanted to attend' Stanford University as it currently is ?
(5) To me, one has to question & review ones Values & Admissions/Transfer requirements as a university, ...if you do a 'thought exercise' & come to the conclusion that 1 of the greatest Americans of All-Time JackieRobinson, may not have 'been admitted to Your University!'
(6) I think it is a Bad reflection on a University that professes a commitment to 'Excellence in All Things' to present to the World, a FootballTeam & Mens Basketball Team that are not even close to being Top40 let alone Top20 ! [At the very least, it shows StanfordUniversity is not committed to adapting to a New Modern World & not committed to 'Excellence in All Things']
(7) Someone up above mentioned NotreDame (and us adopting their model), but got the details somewhat incorrect. The suggestion was that we be like NotreDame by dropping down to some smaller lower level conference for Football, but stay in the ACC for other sports. Actually that is not the NotreDame model. The NotreDame model is to be a Behemoth Top20 National Power in Football (at all costs, even if that means Changing/Modifying their Admissions & NIL & Transfer Policies, & Deciding whether to Stay Independent or Join a Power4 Conference for Football, based on BrandRevenue generation Potential), ...but stay in the ACC in all other Sports & Be Competitive in the ACC in all other Sports including Mens Basketball, at all costs !
(8) And NotreDame is a stellar 'academic institution' [And they are not having the problems with Football & Mens Basketball that we are having !]
(9) Yes, NotreDame is the Model for Admissions & Transfers & NIL we must move to, .... for Football !
Yes, Duke is the Model for Admissions & Transfers & NIL we must move to, ... for Mens Basketball !
(10) And Yes, making these Adaptations will not just be good for Football & Mens Basketball. ..but it might mean we attract a much more 'well rounded (non-nerdy) student body & faculty' ...which will be better for the University as a whole ! [Sorry I never liked or embraced the moniker 'Nerd Nation'. I dont think a Person or University should limit itself like that !]
Period !
(11) Just my opinion, and thanks Farm93 for identifying our Stanford University Infrastructure Problems ..which must Change ...unless Stanford University wants to become largely irrelevant like 'Cornell' & 'Dartmouth' & 'Bowdoin College' !
(12) In the ModernEra, its much better for a University's long term Relevance & Future, ... to be Michigan, NotreDame, Duke, & UCLA, ...rather than to be Cornell, BowdoinCollege or Dartmouth]
[no disrespect to anyone from those 3 colleges ]
(13) PS: Shout out to BostonCard & OutsiderFan !
(14) PS: Shout out to msqueri; If our Administration can be as committed to 'modernizing, updating, and broadening what its Outlook, Mission, & Values are for 2025 & Beyond, and what its Admissions definition is for what 'A Well Rounded Student-Servant-Leader' applicant looks like for 2025 & Beyond ...(as msqueri is to 'analyzing & assessing our StanU Football Team's performance, on the field') ...well our Future as a University & a Top20 Football Team would be great !
Bam, hit the nail on the head. The administration seems willing to bend those values more for the world's best when it comes to country club sports. See, e.g., the '24 Olympics, where Stanford has more medals than the vast majority of countries! Is it credible to think nearly 30% of US medal winners were academic elites? Or does the University just prefer the 'look and feel' of a star tennis player over a star cornerback? Is John McEnroe just better for the Stanford image than Lester Hayes?
Institutional roadblocks aside, I still think Taylor's seat-heater deserves to be clicked on. Harbaugh would have more wins and show more promise at this point, as would Walsh and Green. Coming into the season, Taylor had the lowest overall winning percentage of any Stanford head coach in the 130-year history of the program. Dead last. He's in a virtual tie for last place right now with Walt Harris, but will regain sole possession of last place with a loss to Wake Forrest this weekend (and, yes, WF is favored -- as is every remaining opponent on the schedule). If he can find 3 more wins this year, then I could see giving him another year. Otherwise, it just seems like delaying the inevitable. I'm thinking Nick Saban might really enough Palo Alto, just say'n.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - BostonCard - 10-21-2024
No, I don’t think that there is a bias for Olympic sports; I think the makeup of “country club” sports is different than the revenue sports, for a few reasons. First and foremost, most of the non-revenue sports have a much weaker path to a professional career, especially for collegiate athletes. For football the NFL draft selects almost exclusively from collegiate athletes; the NBA draft selects mostly from collegiate athletes plus some foreign players. Thus, for many players, football and basketball is a means to an end (playing professionally). The value of a Stanford education is not clear under those circumstances. Most other sports don’t require college, so those who most value playing professionally will skip college athletics entirely. Moreover, for many country club athletes, the athletics is a means to get into a prestigious education. Many of those athletes go into sports in order to improve their chances at getting into Stanford, not vice versa. Finally, for better or worse, the demographics of who plays certain sports is different, and sports like tennis, golf, soccer, etc. tend to attract the very upper middle class demographic who most values an elite education, and who has the resources to improve their chances of getting it (stuff like tutoring, college counselors, etc.). Now that latter one might be a good reason to “bend” admissions further for sports like football, but it does explain why it is easier to admit elite volleyball and tennis players than it is to admit elite football players.
BC
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - marchballer - 10-21-2024
I think Taylor needs a win over either Cal or San Jose St to save his job assuming we don’t win 2 of the next 3.
I can’t imagine heading into next year with any sort of optimism if we lost the rest of our games this year.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - Row80Critic - 10-21-2024
(10-21-2024, 04:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: No, I don’t think that there is a bias for Olympic sports; I think the makeup of “country club” sports is different than the revenue sports, for a few reasons. First and foremost, most of the non-revenue sports have a much weaker path to a professional career, especially for collegiate athletes. For football the NFL draft selects almost exclusively from collegiate athletes; the NBA draft selects mostly from collegiate athletes plus some foreign players. Thus, for many players, football and basketball is a means to an end (playing professionally). The value of a Stanford education is not clear under those circumstances. Most other sports don’t require college, so those who most value playing professionally will skip college athletics entirely. Moreover, for many country club athletes, the athletics is a means to get into a prestigious education. Many of those athletes go into sports in order to improve their chances at getting into Stanford, not vice versa. Finally, for better or worse, the demographics of who plays certain sports is different, and sports like tennis, golf, soccer, etc. tend to attract the very upper middle class demographic who most values an elite education, and who has the resources to improve their chances of getting it (stuff like tutoring, college counselors, etc.). Now that latter one might be a good reason to “bend” admissions further for sports like football, but it does explain why it is easier to admit elite volleyball and tennis players than it is to admit elite football players.
BC
Can't disagree with any of that, all true. However, I'd argue it's also a convenient truth -- a neatly packaged set of arguments for maintaining a status quo that accepts well-healed kids with curated resumes and the right image, and rejects extraordinarily talented kids because they lack the same.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 10-21-2024
(10-20-2024, 06:53 PM)Farm93 Wrote: This is rather difficult.Very Well said. If TT had been able to win six games with this squad, he should have gone directly to the hall of fame. He may or may not be a great coach but you can’t tell until he has a lot of at least good players . He really can’t use the portal and Stanford was asleep at the switch on NIL because “ our degree is so valuable we don’t need to do that “
I think Stanford is in a real tough spot. There honestly is no way top flight coaches will take a Stanford opening with or without a salary in the top 10-20 range because of the portal and NIL constraints. At most places a new coach will lose a bunch of players to the portal but will immediately be able to shop in the portal for players that will work for them and their system. At Stanford it will be a multi-year process where attrition goes unaddressed for at least a year, if not two.
The transfer portal is simply not going to work for Stanford. Even if Stanford becomes more lenient and pledges to take 10-20 players every year, the players would still need to apply and wait for admissions decisions. But most players in the portal are expecting to get viable offers for new squad in days, if not hours. And the best are likely looking for firm NIL terms in those initial 24 hours too. Given that Stanford can't properly participate in those important areas it will be so hard to get a good coach and almost impossible to keep a successful coach.
Since Stanford is not going to be a top choice for top coaches I can't imagine firing a coach after only 2 seasons will do anything to improve the chances of landing strong coaches. So I believe Muir willl stay with TT course for at least 4 full seasons no matter how poorly the team is playing.
Doubts? See Haase's tenure.
We need to either get serious and find a way to compete (NIL , transfer portal, graduate programs, or get out. If anyone thinks this is just about football, you are still living in a lalaland world. Just look at womens BB, Volleyball, Soccer and Softball. look at baseball and mens basketball as well. WE ARE NOT ATTRACTING TALENT to win.
And no Virginia, finding a comfortable local league where everyone will play nice and let us win some games won’t work either. Stanford needs to either figure out what it takes to be excellent and do it or drop out of the competitive sports that everyone cares about. We wouldn’t have a half assed physics department or a no name Humanities school.. we would either be ecxcellent or not be.
I am obviously biased; a Stanford without quality, Big time athletics is like Harvard/Yale without the tradition. Who cares ? But it’s a legitimate option whether it’s my choice or not . Let’s make it and get on with it. Remaining where we are and tsk tsking other schools with successful programs is a losing strategy.
RE: Team is getting worse -- shades of 2006 - GK3 - 10-21-2024
(10-21-2024, 07:24 AM)Bampa Wrote:(10-21-2024, 06:47 AM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I think it would be a big mistake to fire Coach TT after a season and a half of Stanford head coaching.
Especially considering the decimated roster he inherited as Coach Shaw exited.
It would not suddenly improve the team nor the recruiting.
And would not make Stanford a more attractive place for a prospective coach to consider.
+1
+1 also. You can't compare how things went after Harbaugh was hired and now. I think there is going to be a major risk of losing a good player when one of your recruits blows up in his Freshman year. How much NIL money would be tossed in the direction of a McCaffery or Love type player.