[BostonCard]

Why, so everyone can indulge in speculation about what changes are coming and whose job is going to be gone?  It should be clear after 11 years of Shaw that if he had his druthers, he wouldn’t have to talk to the press, and if he did, he’d rather not have to say anything substantive.

I have no insight on whether changes are coming or not.  I do hope they do, because I do see a need for some changes.  The two things that stand out to me as being problematic are the poor fundamentals in all facets of the game (blocking, tackling, positioning, angles, etc.) and the fact that the team has regressed as the season has progressed.

But we will see changes when it is announced in a non-descript press release, not because Shaw announces it in a press conference.

BC

[BostonCard]

Why, so everyone can indulge in speculation about what changes are coming and whose job is going to be gone?  It should be clear after 11 years of Shaw that if he had his druthers, he wouldn’t have to talk to the press, and if he did, he’d rather not have to say anything substantive.

I have no insight on whether changes are coming or not.  I do hope they do, because I do see a need for some changes.  The two things that stand out to me as being problematic are the poor fundamentals in all facets of the game (blocking, tackling, positioning, angles, etc.) and the fact that the team has regressed as the season has progressed.

But we will see changes when it is announced in a non-descript press release, not because Shaw announces it in a press conference.

BC

[French Rage]

Oh man, a Bay Area team doing poorly, I'd hate to be the person who has to wash Wilner's drawers.

[French Rage]

Oh man, a Bay Area team doing poorly, I'd hate to be the person who has to wash Wilner's drawers.

[gailtate]

Oh man, a Bay Area team doing poorly, I'd hate to be the person who has to wash Wilner's drawers.

Huh?

---

Why, so everyone can indulge in speculation about what changes are coming and whose job is going to be gone?  It should be clear after 11 years of Shaw that if he had his druthers, he wouldn’t have to talk to the press, and if he did, he’d rather not have to say anything substantive.

I have no insight on whether changes are coming or not.  I do hope they do, because I do see a need for some changes.  The two things that stand out to me as being problematic are the poor fundamentals in all facets of the game (blocking, tackling, positioning, angles, etc.) and the fact that the team has regressed as the season has progressed.

But we will see changes when it is announced in a non-description press release, not because Shaw announces it in a press conference.

BC

"...and if he did, he’d rather not have to say anything substantive."

He already has "his druthers" on this one. Indeed, it's the part of coaching he has absolutely mastered.

[gailtate]

Oh man, a Bay Area team doing poorly, I'd hate to be the person who has to wash Wilner's drawers.

Huh?

---

Why, so everyone can indulge in speculation about what changes are coming and whose job is going to be gone?  It should be clear after 11 years of Shaw that if he had his druthers, he wouldn’t have to talk to the press, and if he did, he’d rather not have to say anything substantive.

I have no insight on whether changes are coming or not.  I do hope they do, because I do see a need for some changes.  The two things that stand out to me as being problematic are the poor fundamentals in all facets of the game (blocking, tackling, positioning, angles, etc.) and the fact that the team has regressed as the season has progressed.

But we will see changes when it is announced in a non-description press release, not because Shaw announces it in a press conference.

BC

"...and if he did, he’d rather not have to say anything substantive."

He already has "his druthers" on this one. Indeed, it's the part of coaching he has absolutely mastered.

[BostonCard]

"...and if he did, he’d rather not have to say anything substantive."

He already has "his druthers" on this one. Indeed, it's the part of coaching he has absolutely mastered.

His druthers would be not to have to do press conferences.

BC

[BostonCard]

"...and if he did, he’d rather not have to say anything substantive."

He already has "his druthers" on this one. Indeed, it's the part of coaching he has absolutely mastered.

His druthers would be not to have to do press conferences.

BC

[MVCard]

How about this instead:
"This season has been unacceptably poor from everyone's perspective. After the season is over, I will be reviewing every aspect of this program to see where improvements can be made. I am committed to fixing this."

Or the tried-and-true “Players and coaches should consider the rest of the practices and  our remaining game this season as a tryout for next year.”  Remind Seniors this applies to them too: anyone that wants to play at the next level + anyone that doesn’t want to get subbed out mid-game…

[MVCard]

How about this instead:
"This season has been unacceptably poor from everyone's perspective. After the season is over, I will be reviewing every aspect of this program to see where improvements can be made. I am committed to fixing this."

Or the tried-and-true “Players and coaches should consider the rest of the practices and  our remaining game this season as a tryout for next year.”  Remind Seniors this applies to them too: anyone that wants to play at the next level + anyone that doesn’t want to get subbed out mid-game…

[MV72018]

I watched the first 10 minutes of Shaw's Tuesday presser.  At 3:29, he said, "it's not about we have the wrong players, it's not about we have the wrong coaches ...".  He talked a lot about being opportunistic, missed opportunities, and so forth.
Attitude and body language seemed quite defensive, and he looked tired.

That presser was PATHETIC. He again attempted to deflect criticism by saying, in perfunctory fashion, that he had been "too aggressive" in his play calling when we were at the 5 yard line. In other words, it was just too much of a good thing!!!

NO, SHAW. YOU WERE NOT TOO AGGRESSIVE; YOU CALLED TWO TERRIBLE SEQUENCES OF PLAYS. 

He essentially said, "We  should have been ahead 21-0 early and the game would have been completely different." 

So, TO SHAW THERE ARE NO FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS IN COACHING OR CALIBER OF PERSONNEL THAT NEED  TO BE RECTIFIED!!! 

Give me a break!

[MV72018]

I watched the first 10 minutes of Shaw's Tuesday presser.  At 3:29, he said, "it's not about we have the wrong players, it's not about we have the wrong coaches ...".  He talked a lot about being opportunistic, missed opportunities, and so forth.
Attitude and body language seemed quite defensive, and he looked tired.

That presser was PATHETIC. He again attempted to deflect criticism by saying, in perfunctory fashion, that he had been "too aggressive" in his play calling when we were at the 5 yard line. In other words, it was just too much of a good thing!!!

NO, SHAW. YOU WERE NOT TOO AGGRESSIVE; YOU CALLED TWO TERRIBLE SEQUENCES OF PLAYS. 

He essentially said, "We  should have been ahead 21-0 early and the game would have been completely different." 

So, TO SHAW THERE ARE NO FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS IN COACHING OR CALIBER OF PERSONNEL THAT NEED  TO BE RECTIFIED!!! 

Give me a break!

[teejers1]

I also expect getting good coaches to work at Stanford is real, real hard, and getting harder by the day. It isn't just, or even mostly, the high cost of living. It is dealing with the fact you can't recruit from anything like the same pool other colleges do. Why take a job that ties your hands unless 1) you really want to teach "student athletes" and succeed under those terms, or 2) you think you can make a short-term splash and leave within 2 years. Nobody is going to come here hoping to get the head coaching job eventually. It just isn't that desirable position. It might pay a lot of money, but it can also be a career killer. Shaw is going to have to hire from the small pool available, and that may not get us what we need.

I could not disagree more with the notion that assistant coaches do not want to coach here.  If they're paid enough to cover COL differentials - and the housing assistance helped on that front - then why wouldn't you want to coach here?  There's a lot to be said for getting kids who will not cause the 3:00 a.m. call.  And assistant coaches historically have done quite well after Stanford.  Just look at the crew under Harbaugh!  So I don't buy for a second that Stanford has institutional barriers to coaching success.

The problem now will be attracting good coaches who might view Shaw as damaged goods/on borrowed time. As I said on TOS, I'm thinking the AD might have to extend 3-year guaranteed contracts to the new assistants brought on board.  And they should happily do that if they're dead set on keeping Shaw (which I think we all agree is what is going to happen).

[teejers1]

I also expect getting good coaches to work at Stanford is real, real hard, and getting harder by the day. It isn't just, or even mostly, the high cost of living. It is dealing with the fact you can't recruit from anything like the same pool other colleges do. Why take a job that ties your hands unless 1) you really want to teach "student athletes" and succeed under those terms, or 2) you think you can make a short-term splash and leave within 2 years. Nobody is going to come here hoping to get the head coaching job eventually. It just isn't that desirable position. It might pay a lot of money, but it can also be a career killer. Shaw is going to have to hire from the small pool available, and that may not get us what we need.

I could not disagree more with the notion that assistant coaches do not want to coach here.  If they're paid enough to cover COL differentials - and the housing assistance helped on that front - then why wouldn't you want to coach here?  There's a lot to be said for getting kids who will not cause the 3:00 a.m. call.  And assistant coaches historically have done quite well after Stanford.  Just look at the crew under Harbaugh!  So I don't buy for a second that Stanford has institutional barriers to coaching success.

The problem now will be attracting good coaches who might view Shaw as damaged goods/on borrowed time. As I said on TOS, I'm thinking the AD might have to extend 3-year guaranteed contracts to the new assistants brought on board.  And they should happily do that if they're dead set on keeping Shaw (which I think we all agree is what is going to happen).

[BostonCard]

How about this instead:
"This season has been unacceptably poor from everyone's perspective. After the season is over, I will be reviewing every aspect of this program to see where improvements can be made. I am committed to fixing this."

Or the tried-and-true “Players and coaches should consider the rest of the practices and  our remaining game this season as a tryout for next year.”  Remind Seniors this applies to them too: anyone that wants to play at the next level + anyone that doesn’t want to get subbed out mid-game…

If he does that at a press conference, he is signaling to us, not to his players and assistants.  I don’t think he cares about signaling to us.

Behind closed doors, none of us know what is happening.

BC

[BostonCard]

How about this instead:
"This season has been unacceptably poor from everyone's perspective. After the season is over, I will be reviewing every aspect of this program to see where improvements can be made. I am committed to fixing this."

Or the tried-and-true “Players and coaches should consider the rest of the practices and  our remaining game this season as a tryout for next year.”  Remind Seniors this applies to them too: anyone that wants to play at the next level + anyone that doesn’t want to get subbed out mid-game…

If he does that at a press conference, he is signaling to us, not to his players and assistants.  I don’t think he cares about signaling to us.

Behind closed doors, none of us know what is happening.

BC

[Goose]

I could not disagree more with the notion that assistant coaches do not want to coach here.  If they're paid enough to cover COL differentials - and the housing assistance helped on that front - then why wouldn't you want to coach here?

Simple. As I said above, they are cut off from probably 95% (actually more like 99%, but the exact number is obviously "big") of the available talent pool. Going forward, you will lose guys to the transfer portal but will be essentially unable to replace guys through incoming transfers. These facts are apparently of no consequence from you point of view. I simply can't imagine how that is possible. Maybe if everybody you played had the same issue it would be tolerable, but that isn't the case.

There's a lot to be said for getting kids who will not cause the 3:00 a.m. call. 

Indeed there is. Those same athletes also will be taking hard classes and not be willing to forgo their educational opportunities to play football. Very much a two edged sword. Many position coaches know how to coach the "typical" college athlete. Stanford guys are "different". Many coaches will want no  part of that. I do agree that there are coaches who will come want to coach at Stanford. They tend to be guys who are much like Shaw. Tavita Prichard comes to mind. There are probably also some guys who intend to retire soon and would like the lower pressure and the ability to develop young men who won't need bailing out of jail. Randy Hart and Duane Akina come to mind. That isn't a big pool to hire from.

And assistant coaches historically have done quite well after Stanford.  Just look at the crew under Harbaugh!  So I don't buy for a second that Stanford has institutional barriers to coaching success.

See above. There are clear and immutable barriers to coaching success. This is independent of the AD and the University President. These barriers are getting worse with the transfer portal. In addition, recent NCAA restrictions on practice times potentially affect schools that rely on "coaching up" their athletes instead of just pure athleticism. While these regulations may benefit the student, it makes coaching at Stanford more difficult still.

All this doesn't mean Stanford can't be successful in football. It also doesn't mean that NOBODY wants to coach here. I do think that due to the constraints it is clearly true that the pool is much smaller than it is elsewhere. Stanford doesn't have the financial constraints other schools have, which is a plus. It undeniably has lots of constraints that are significant negatives for most coaching candidates.

The problem now will be attracting good coaches who might view Shaw as damaged goods/on borrowed time. As I said on TOS, I'm thinking the AD might have to extend 3-year guaranteed contracts to the new assistants brought on board.  And they should happily do that if they're dead set on keeping Shaw (which I think we all agree is what is going to happen).

Whoever Stanford wants to hire will have to be compensated in a manner that will close the deal and be acceptable to the University. I won't attempt to guess what that might be.

[Goose]

I could not disagree more with the notion that assistant coaches do not want to coach here.  If they're paid enough to cover COL differentials - and the housing assistance helped on that front - then why wouldn't you want to coach here?

Simple. As I said above, they are cut off from probably 95% (actually more like 99%, but the exact number is obviously "big") of the available talent pool. Going forward, you will lose guys to the transfer portal but will be essentially unable to replace guys through incoming transfers. These facts are apparently of no consequence from you point of view. I simply can't imagine how that is possible. Maybe if everybody you played had the same issue it would be tolerable, but that isn't the case.

There's a lot to be said for getting kids who will not cause the 3:00 a.m. call. 

Indeed there is. Those same athletes also will be taking hard classes and not be willing to forgo their educational opportunities to play football. Very much a two edged sword. Many position coaches know how to coach the "typical" college athlete. Stanford guys are "different". Many coaches will want no  part of that. I do agree that there are coaches who will come want to coach at Stanford. They tend to be guys who are much like Shaw. Tavita Prichard comes to mind. There are probably also some guys who intend to retire soon and would like the lower pressure and the ability to develop young men who won't need bailing out of jail. Randy Hart and Duane Akina come to mind. That isn't a big pool to hire from.

And assistant coaches historically have done quite well after Stanford.  Just look at the crew under Harbaugh!  So I don't buy for a second that Stanford has institutional barriers to coaching success.

See above. There are clear and immutable barriers to coaching success. This is independent of the AD and the University President. These barriers are getting worse with the transfer portal. In addition, recent NCAA restrictions on practice times potentially affect schools that rely on "coaching up" their athletes instead of just pure athleticism. While these regulations may benefit the student, it makes coaching at Stanford more difficult still.

All this doesn't mean Stanford can't be successful in football. It also doesn't mean that NOBODY wants to coach here. I do think that due to the constraints it is clearly true that the pool is much smaller than it is elsewhere. Stanford doesn't have the financial constraints other schools have, which is a plus. It undeniably has lots of constraints that are significant negatives for most coaching candidates.

The problem now will be attracting good coaches who might view Shaw as damaged goods/on borrowed time. As I said on TOS, I'm thinking the AD might have to extend 3-year guaranteed contracts to the new assistants brought on board.  And they should happily do that if they're dead set on keeping Shaw (which I think we all agree is what is going to happen).

Whoever Stanford wants to hire will have to be compensated in a manner that will close the deal and be acceptable to the University. I won't attempt to guess what that might be.

[teejers1]

I could not disagree more with the notion that assistant coaches do not want to coach here.  If they're paid enough to cover COL differentials - and the housing assistance helped on that front - then why wouldn't you want to coach here?

Simple. As I said above, they are cut off from probably 95% (actually more like 99%, but the exact number is obviously "big") of the available talent pool. Going forward, you will lose guys to the transfer portal but will be essentially unable to replace guys through incoming transfers. These facts are apparently of no consequence from you point of view. I simply can't imagine how that is possible. Maybe if everybody you played had the same issue it would be tolerable, but that isn't the case.

There's a lot to be said for getting kids who will not cause the 3:00 a.m. call. 

Indeed there is. Those same athletes also will be taking hard classes and not be willing to forgo their educational opportunities to play football. Very much a two edged sword. Many position coaches know how to coach the "typical" college athlete. Stanford guys are "different". Many coaches will want no  part of that. I do agree that there are coaches who will come want to coach at Stanford. They tend to be guys who are much like Shaw. Tavita Prichard comes to mind. There are probably also some guys who intend to retire soon and would like the lower pressure and the ability to develop young men who won't need bailing out of jail. Randy Hart and Duane Akina come to mind. That isn't a big pool to hire from.

And assistant coaches historically have done quite well after Stanford.  Just look at the crew under Harbaugh!  So I don't buy for a second that Stanford has institutional barriers to coaching success.

See above. There are clear and immutable barriers to coaching success. This is independent of the AD and the University President. These barriers are getting worse with the transfer portal. In addition, recent NCAA restrictions on practice times potentially affect schools that rely on "coaching up" their athletes instead of just pure athleticism. While these regulations may benefit the student, it makes coaching at Stanford more difficult still.

All this doesn't mean Stanford can't be successful in football. It also doesn't mean that NOBODY wants to coach here. I do think that due to the constraints it is clearly true that the pool is much smaller than it is elsewhere. Stanford doesn't have the financial constraints other schools have, which is a plus. It undeniably has lots of constraints that are significant negatives for most coaching candidates.

The problem now will be attracting good coaches who might view Shaw as damaged goods/on borrowed time. As I said on TOS, I'm thinking the AD might have to extend 3-year guaranteed contracts to the new assistants brought on board.  And they should happily do that if they're dead set on keeping Shaw (which I think we all agree is what is going to happen).

Whoever Stanford wants to hire will have to be compensated in a manner that will close the deal and be acceptable to the University. I won't attempt to guess what that might be.

The transfer portal has become an issue because Stanford SUCKS at football right now.  Fix that - make the prospect of playing another season on the Farm exciting - and you'd be surprised how few portal entrants there'd be.  But I guess if you've thrown in the towel on Stanford ever being great at football again, then the TP would look like a continual drag on the program.

[teejers1]

I could not disagree more with the notion that assistant coaches do not want to coach here.  If they're paid enough to cover COL differentials - and the housing assistance helped on that front - then why wouldn't you want to coach here?

Simple. As I said above, they are cut off from probably 95% (actually more like 99%, but the exact number is obviously "big") of the available talent pool. Going forward, you will lose guys to the transfer portal but will be essentially unable to replace guys through incoming transfers. These facts are apparently of no consequence from you point of view. I simply can't imagine how that is possible. Maybe if everybody you played had the same issue it would be tolerable, but that isn't the case.

There's a lot to be said for getting kids who will not cause the 3:00 a.m. call. 

Indeed there is. Those same athletes also will be taking hard classes and not be willing to forgo their educational opportunities to play football. Very much a two edged sword. Many position coaches know how to coach the "typical" college athlete. Stanford guys are "different". Many coaches will want no  part of that. I do agree that there are coaches who will come want to coach at Stanford. They tend to be guys who are much like Shaw. Tavita Prichard comes to mind. There are probably also some guys who intend to retire soon and would like the lower pressure and the ability to develop young men who won't need bailing out of jail. Randy Hart and Duane Akina come to mind. That isn't a big pool to hire from.

And assistant coaches historically have done quite well after Stanford.  Just look at the crew under Harbaugh!  So I don't buy for a second that Stanford has institutional barriers to coaching success.

See above. There are clear and immutable barriers to coaching success. This is independent of the AD and the University President. These barriers are getting worse with the transfer portal. In addition, recent NCAA restrictions on practice times potentially affect schools that rely on "coaching up" their athletes instead of just pure athleticism. While these regulations may benefit the student, it makes coaching at Stanford more difficult still.

All this doesn't mean Stanford can't be successful in football. It also doesn't mean that NOBODY wants to coach here. I do think that due to the constraints it is clearly true that the pool is much smaller than it is elsewhere. Stanford doesn't have the financial constraints other schools have, which is a plus. It undeniably has lots of constraints that are significant negatives for most coaching candidates.

The problem now will be attracting good coaches who might view Shaw as damaged goods/on borrowed time. As I said on TOS, I'm thinking the AD might have to extend 3-year guaranteed contracts to the new assistants brought on board.  And they should happily do that if they're dead set on keeping Shaw (which I think we all agree is what is going to happen).

Whoever Stanford wants to hire will have to be compensated in a manner that will close the deal and be acceptable to the University. I won't attempt to guess what that might be.

The transfer portal has become an issue because Stanford SUCKS at football right now.  Fix that - make the prospect of playing another season on the Farm exciting - and you'd be surprised how few portal entrants there'd be.  But I guess if you've thrown in the towel on Stanford ever being great at football again, then the TP would look like a continual drag on the program.

[Madera86]

[/quote]
In addition, recent NCAA restrictions on practice times potentially affect schools that rely on "coaching up" their athletes instead of just pure athleticism. While these regulations may benefit the student, it makes coaching at Stanford more difficult still.
[/quote]

Seems like a fair point. But do our coaches face restrictions so severe that they can't teach our kids fundamentals like proper tackling? 

Maybe we should adopt Chip Kelly's hurry-up offense. Not as a gimmick, but Kelly has mentioned that a big benefit of his scheme is that it provides his players with a lot of reps in practice. I was always impressed, for example, with the downfield blocking of the Oregon receivers and the decision-making ability of their quarterbacks.

[Madera86]

[/quote]
In addition, recent NCAA restrictions on practice times potentially affect schools that rely on "coaching up" their athletes instead of just pure athleticism. While these regulations may benefit the student, it makes coaching at Stanford more difficult still.
[/quote]

Seems like a fair point. But do our coaches face restrictions so severe that they can't teach our kids fundamentals like proper tackling? 

Maybe we should adopt Chip Kelly's hurry-up offense. Not as a gimmick, but Kelly has mentioned that a big benefit of his scheme is that it provides his players with a lot of reps in practice. I was always impressed, for example, with the downfield blocking of the Oregon receivers and the decision-making ability of their quarterbacks.

[Goose]

The transfer portal has become an issue because Stanford SUCKS at football right now.  Fix that - make the prospect of playing another season on the Farm exciting - and you'd be surprised how few portal entrants there'd be.  But I guess if you've thrown in the towel on Stanford ever being great at football again, then the TP would look like a continual drag on the program.

Right. Nobody ever transfers from successful programs like Alabama or Georgia or Clemson or Oregon, correct?

[Goose]

The transfer portal has become an issue because Stanford SUCKS at football right now.  Fix that - make the prospect of playing another season on the Farm exciting - and you'd be surprised how few portal entrants there'd be.  But I guess if you've thrown in the towel on Stanford ever being great at football again, then the TP would look like a continual drag on the program.

Right. Nobody ever transfers from successful programs like Alabama or Georgia or Clemson or Oregon, correct?

[CowboyIndian]

The transfer portal has become an issue because Stanford SUCKS at football right now.  Fix that - make the prospect of playing another season on the Farm exciting - and you'd be surprised how few portal entrants there'd be.  But I guess if you've thrown in the towel on Stanford ever being great at football again, then the TP would look like a continual drag on the program.

No...the transfer portal is an issue for Stanford because the portal door only swings one way. Free agency and NIL are not our friends.

[CowboyIndian]

The transfer portal has become an issue because Stanford SUCKS at football right now.  Fix that - make the prospect of playing another season on the Farm exciting - and you'd be surprised how few portal entrants there'd be.  But I guess if you've thrown in the towel on Stanford ever being great at football again, then the TP would look like a continual drag on the program.

No...the transfer portal is an issue for Stanford because the portal door only swings one way. Free agency and NIL are not our friends.

[Maple Leaf]

The transfer portal has become an issue because Stanford SUCKS at football right now.  Fix that - make the prospect of playing another season on the Farm exciting - and you'd be surprised how few portal entrants there'd be.  But I guess if you've thrown in the towel on Stanford ever being great at football again, then the TP would look like a continual drag on the program.

No...the transfer portal is an issue for Stanford because the portal door only swings one way. Free agency and NIL are not our friends.

The only value the transfer portal offers Stanford might be to reduce the depth of the opponent 

[Maple Leaf]

The transfer portal has become an issue because Stanford SUCKS at football right now.  Fix that - make the prospect of playing another season on the Farm exciting - and you'd be surprised how few portal entrants there'd be.  But I guess if you've thrown in the towel on Stanford ever being great at football again, then the TP would look like a continual drag on the program.

No...the transfer portal is an issue for Stanford because the portal door only swings one way. Free agency and NIL are not our friends.

The only value the transfer portal offers Stanford might be to reduce the depth of the opponent 

[gailtate]

I also expect getting good coaches to work at Stanford is real, real hard, and getting harder by the day. It isn't just, or even mostly, the high cost of living. It is dealing with the fact you can't recruit from anything like the same pool other colleges do. Why take a job that ties your hands unless 1) you really want to teach "student athletes" and succeed under those terms, or 2) you think you can make a short-term splash and leave within 2 years. Nobody is going to come here hoping to get the head coaching job eventually. It just isn't that desirable position. It might pay a lot of money, but it can also be a career killer. Shaw is going to have to hire from the small pool available, and that may not get us what we need.

The DEFEATIST MYTH of the "small pool" for players (and assistants) was BLOWN UP by Harbaugh and, to some extent by Shaw, when he was putting energy into his job. His baffling complacency has evidently brought the myth back to life. The next coach, just like Harbaugh in 2007, must change the culture. Won't be easy but it's eminently possible. It's been done before.

I could not disagree more with the notion that assistant coaches do not want to coach here.  If they're paid enough to cover COL differentials - and the housing assistance helped on that front - then why wouldn't you want to coach here?  There's a lot to be said for getting kids who will not cause the 3:00 a.m. call.  And assistant coaches historically have done quite well after Stanford.  Just look at the crew under Harbaugh!  So I don't buy for a second that Stanford has institutional barriers to coaching success.

The problem now will be attracting good coaches who might view Shaw as damaged goods/on borrowed time. As I said on TOS, I'm thinking the AD might have to extend 3-year guaranteed contracts to the new assistants brought on board.  And they should happily do that if they're dead set on keeping Shaw (which I think we all agree is what is going to happen).

[gailtate]

I also expect getting good coaches to work at Stanford is real, real hard, and getting harder by the day. It isn't just, or even mostly, the high cost of living. It is dealing with the fact you can't recruit from anything like the same pool other colleges do. Why take a job that ties your hands unless 1) you really want to teach "student athletes" and succeed under those terms, or 2) you think you can make a short-term splash and leave within 2 years. Nobody is going to come here hoping to get the head coaching job eventually. It just isn't that desirable position. It might pay a lot of money, but it can also be a career killer. Shaw is going to have to hire from the small pool available, and that may not get us what we need.

The DEFEATIST MYTH of the "small pool" for players (and assistants) was BLOWN UP by Harbaugh and, to some extent by Shaw, when he was putting energy into his job. His baffling complacency has evidently brought the myth back to life. The next coach, just like Harbaugh in 2007, must change the culture. Won't be easy but it's eminently possible. It's been done before.

I could not disagree more with the notion that assistant coaches do not want to coach here.  If they're paid enough to cover COL differentials - and the housing assistance helped on that front - then why wouldn't you want to coach here?  There's a lot to be said for getting kids who will not cause the 3:00 a.m. call.  And assistant coaches historically have done quite well after Stanford.  Just look at the crew under Harbaugh!  So I don't buy for a second that Stanford has institutional barriers to coaching success.

The problem now will be attracting good coaches who might view Shaw as damaged goods/on borrowed time. As I said on TOS, I'm thinking the AD might have to extend 3-year guaranteed contracts to the new assistants brought on board.  And they should happily do that if they're dead set on keeping Shaw (which I think we all agree is what is going to happen).

[Goose]

No...the transfer portal is an issue for Stanford because the portal door only swings one way. Free agency and NIL are not our friends.

Agree. NIL is a problem for sure, but maybe not a big one. That situation is yet to play out. If NIL becomes just a ubiquitous way to funnel money to players, I am sure Stanford can play that game every bit as well as other programs do. It will be a question of how much payola the University is willing to allow. The one-way transfer portal will affect Stanford a lot. It will decrease our depth, just as it will everybody's. But, we will be unable to compensate by getting incoming players to compensate. Most importantly, we will not be able to admit the "missing piece" to fix a glaring deficiency caused by injury, transfer, or whiffing on recruiting. Others can do so and that IMHO is a real killer.

[Goose]

No...the transfer portal is an issue for Stanford because the portal door only swings one way. Free agency and NIL are not our friends.

Agree. NIL is a problem for sure, but maybe not a big one. That situation is yet to play out. If NIL becomes just a ubiquitous way to funnel money to players, I am sure Stanford can play that game every bit as well as other programs do. It will be a question of how much payola the University is willing to allow. The one-way transfer portal will affect Stanford a lot. It will decrease our depth, just as it will everybody's. But, we will be unable to compensate by getting incoming players to compensate. Most importantly, we will not be able to admit the "missing piece" to fix a glaring deficiency caused by injury, transfer, or whiffing on recruiting. Others can do so and that IMHO is a real killer.

[Row80Critic]

<rant on> Shaw may be a great ambassador for the school, I'm sure, but his football results speak for themselves.  A decade or more removed from the top-5 teams Harbaugh built, this program is in utter shambles in my view.   We can discuss it until we are blue in the face, but my take is that Shaw is responsible yet offers no hope (nada, zero, zip, zilch) that he 'gets it' or has the knowledge or willingness to make the changes needed to fix it.  He is in the process of bankrupting the David Shaw brand, and should resign before there is nothing left in my opinion.  I'd absolutely LOVE it if he proved me wrong -- I like him and desperately want him to wake up and do something-- but he's been slipping and sliding down to the bottom for years and has done nothing but talk about 'execution' and 'opportunities' and his 'NFL experience' and 'resilience of senior players' and 'injuries' and 'putting players in a position to win' and just nonsense.  I'll accept that maybe he sees no benefit in talking to the public about what's really wrong.  But can anyone point to single meaningful step he's taken to right the ship over the last 4 or 5 seasons?  Sigh.  Now get off my lawn you kids....  </rant off>

[Row80Critic]

<rant on> Shaw may be a great ambassador for the school, I'm sure, but his football results speak for themselves.  A decade or more removed from the top-5 teams Harbaugh built, this program is in utter shambles in my view.   We can discuss it until we are blue in the face, but my take is that Shaw is responsible yet offers no hope (nada, zero, zip, zilch) that he 'gets it' or has the knowledge or willingness to make the changes needed to fix it.  He is in the process of bankrupting the David Shaw brand, and should resign before there is nothing left in my opinion.  I'd absolutely LOVE it if he proved me wrong -- I like him and desperately want him to wake up and do something-- but he's been slipping and sliding down to the bottom for years and has done nothing but talk about 'execution' and 'opportunities' and his 'NFL experience' and 'resilience of senior players' and 'injuries' and 'putting players in a position to win' and just nonsense.  I'll accept that maybe he sees no benefit in talking to the public about what's really wrong.  But can anyone point to single meaningful step he's taken to right the ship over the last 4 or 5 seasons?  Sigh.  Now get off my lawn you kids....  </rant off>

[OutsiderFan]

I remember when people ripped me for claiming David Shaw was turning into Jeff Tedford. All the signs and similarities were there if you were willing to be intellectual honest with yourself.

The sad thing is Cal hasn't achieved anything at the level Tedford did since he was replaced. His replacement (Sonny Dykes) ultimately got Cal to something near respectability, left, took the SMU job, and now has moved ump tp TCU. Then Wilcox got Cal to a solid mediocre level, but he seems to run a more sustainable and consistent program than Tedford, getting largely less talented players.

I honestly have no idea what Stanford even wants in a Head Coach. Because if they wanted what Shaw was once producing, he sure as hell isn't producing that now, and they seem fine with no standards or direction at all, much more concerned about the person rather than performance, which is completely detached from what winning is all about.

[OutsiderFan]

I remember when people ripped me for claiming David Shaw was turning into Jeff Tedford. All the signs and similarities were there if you were willing to be intellectual honest with yourself.

The sad thing is Cal hasn't achieved anything at the level Tedford did since he was replaced. His replacement (Sonny Dykes) ultimately got Cal to something near respectability, left, took the SMU job, and now has moved ump tp TCU. Then Wilcox got Cal to a solid mediocre level, but he seems to run a more sustainable and consistent program than Tedford, getting largely less talented players.

I honestly have no idea what Stanford even wants in a Head Coach. Because if they wanted what Shaw was once producing, he sure as hell isn't producing that now, and they seem fine with no standards or direction at all, much more concerned about the person rather than performance, which is completely detached from what winning is all about.

[Row80Critic]

I remember when people ripped me for claiming David Shaw was turning into Jeff Tedford. All the signs and similarities were there if you were willing to be intellectual honest with yourself.

The sad thing is Cal hasn't achieved anything at the level Tedford did since he was replaced. His replacement (Sonny Dykes) ultimately got Cal to something near respectability, left, took the SMU job, and now has moved ump tp TCU. Then Wilcox got Cal to a solid mediocre level, but he seems to run a more sustainable and consistent program than Tedford, getting largely less talented players.

I honestly have no idea what Stanford even wants in a Head Coach. Because if they wanted what Shaw was once producing, he sure as hell isn't producing that now, and they seem fine with no standards or direction at all, much more concerned about the person rather than performance, which is completely detached from what winning is all about.

I doubt Stanford would need to worry much about a new coach running off to SMU or TCU.  Shaw makes more at Stanford than the head coaches of both those schools combined.  In fact, there are only 2 college coaches making more than Shaw according to USA Today, Saban and Orgeron.  Shaw also makes more than all but 4 NFL head coaches.  Staggering truth.

Here's a nice blog post that may be of interest:

The Curious Case of Corporate Waste - Lowey Dannenberg

[Row80Critic]

I remember when people ripped me for claiming David Shaw was turning into Jeff Tedford. All the signs and similarities were there if you were willing to be intellectual honest with yourself.

The sad thing is Cal hasn't achieved anything at the level Tedford did since he was replaced. His replacement (Sonny Dykes) ultimately got Cal to something near respectability, left, took the SMU job, and now has moved ump tp TCU. Then Wilcox got Cal to a solid mediocre level, but he seems to run a more sustainable and consistent program than Tedford, getting largely less talented players.

I honestly have no idea what Stanford even wants in a Head Coach. Because if they wanted what Shaw was once producing, he sure as hell isn't producing that now, and they seem fine with no standards or direction at all, much more concerned about the person rather than performance, which is completely detached from what winning is all about.

I doubt Stanford would need to worry much about a new coach running off to SMU or TCU.  Shaw makes more at Stanford than the head coaches of both those schools combined.  In fact, there are only 2 college coaches making more than Shaw according to USA Today, Saban and Orgeron.  Shaw also makes more than all but 4 NFL head coaches.  Staggering truth.

Here's a nice blog post that may be of interest:

The Curious Case of Corporate Waste - Lowey Dannenberg

[PersonalLegend]

Shaw has been p!ssing on ya’lls legs for years and some of you still swear it’s raining.  

He’s finally fully exposed and in an impossible position for a guy with his ego, demeanor, and personality. Holier than thou doesn’t play well in a turnaround. Breaking sh!t and rebuilding it does. 

I don’t dislike Shaw as a man, and that may be the problem. He used overwhelming firepower for years to mask a lack of coaching creativity.  Now without the firepower he’s toast.

[PersonalLegend]

Shaw has been p!ssing on ya’lls legs for years and some of you still swear it’s raining.  

He’s finally fully exposed and in an impossible position for a guy with his ego, demeanor, and personality. Holier than thou doesn’t play well in a turnaround. Breaking sh!t and rebuilding it does. 

I don’t dislike Shaw as a man, and that may be the problem. He used overwhelming firepower for years to mask a lack of coaching creativity.  Now without the firepower he’s toast.