[lex24]

All joking about Scott Frost in my prior thread aside, I strongly believe we will end up with Dave Clawson at a podium on the Farm in the next month. Here's my thinking, with a heavy tip of the hat to the excellent Steven Godfrey of Split Zone Duo (which you really should be listening to if you're on this board - it is absolutely worth the $5-10 a month):

- Has experience, and success, at a small P5 school with rigorous (if not quite Stanford-level) academics and admissions criteria, and by all accounts enjoys being in that kind of environment
- Has been at Wake for coming up on 10 years, and feels as if he's hit the ceiling of what the Deacs are capable of and may be ready for a new challenge
- Has experience building a program alongside a nascent NIL operation the athletic department has built out, as well as a fan collective (both things we lack to date)
- According to Godfrey, admires Stanford and the community around it and has turned down other jobs in the past at schools that don't have our kind of environment
- His contract and buyout info aren't in the public domain since Wake is private, but based on what info is public it doesn't seem the cost of pulling him out of Winston-Salem would be prohibitive relative to the market

And the reasons I think other plausible candidates don't end up with the job:
- Peterson: Doesn't leave a cushy job at Fox for what will be a tough rebuild in a new CFB world
- Bloomgren: Has strong program ties, but has never had a winning record at Rice - admittedly a tough, tough place to win, but that fact makes him a difficult sell internally at a time when fan enthusiasm is at a low
- Mendenhall: A demonstrated winner at academically demanding schools, but feels like Shaw redux in a lot of ways, especially since he left UVa because he was resistant to changing up his staff as demanded by the AD (imagine having an AD who demands accountability, fellow Stanford fans!)
- Roman: He's not bringing Lamar with him from Baltimore, and it feels like he's being tossed in solely based on program ties from over a decade ago and not anything else
- Mason: The Vandy tenure was bad even by Vandy standards. Then again, Stanford is one of the few places a black head coach can get a second chance if history is any guide (check out Denny Green's record at Northwestern before he came to Stanford) - a plausible backup candidate should a primary one fall through, but not a first choice

IIRC Denny G was Big 10 (and they actually had 10 teams then) COY one year.  Northwestern was and had been terrible for many many years.

Edit. I looked it up after my post. Green came to Northwestern in ‘81. They were 1-31-1 in the prior 33 games before he took over. They went 0-11 in ‘81. 1-42-1. Then in ‘82 they went 3-8. He was named COY.

[lex24]

All joking about Scott Frost in my prior thread aside, I strongly believe we will end up with Dave Clawson at a podium on the Farm in the next month. Here's my thinking, with a heavy tip of the hat to the excellent Steven Godfrey of Split Zone Duo (which you really should be listening to if you're on this board - it is absolutely worth the $5-10 a month):

- Has experience, and success, at a small P5 school with rigorous (if not quite Stanford-level) academics and admissions criteria, and by all accounts enjoys being in that kind of environment
- Has been at Wake for coming up on 10 years, and feels as if he's hit the ceiling of what the Deacs are capable of and may be ready for a new challenge
- Has experience building a program alongside a nascent NIL operation the athletic department has built out, as well as a fan collective (both things we lack to date)
- According to Godfrey, admires Stanford and the community around it and has turned down other jobs in the past at schools that don't have our kind of environment
- His contract and buyout info aren't in the public domain since Wake is private, but based on what info is public it doesn't seem the cost of pulling him out of Winston-Salem would be prohibitive relative to the market

And the reasons I think other plausible candidates don't end up with the job:
- Peterson: Doesn't leave a cushy job at Fox for what will be a tough rebuild in a new CFB world
- Bloomgren: Has strong program ties, but has never had a winning record at Rice - admittedly a tough, tough place to win, but that fact makes him a difficult sell internally at a time when fan enthusiasm is at a low
- Mendenhall: A demonstrated winner at academically demanding schools, but feels like Shaw redux in a lot of ways, especially since he left UVa because he was resistant to changing up his staff as demanded by the AD (imagine having an AD who demands accountability, fellow Stanford fans!)
- Roman: He's not bringing Lamar with him from Baltimore, and it feels like he's being tossed in solely based on program ties from over a decade ago and not anything else
- Mason: The Vandy tenure was bad even by Vandy standards. Then again, Stanford is one of the few places a black head coach can get a second chance if history is any guide (check out Denny Green's record at Northwestern before he came to Stanford) - a plausible backup candidate should a primary one fall through, but not a first choice

IIRC Denny G was Big 10 (and they actually had 10 teams then) COY one year.  Northwestern was and had been terrible for many many years.

Edit. I looked it up after my post. Green came to Northwestern in ‘81. They were 1-31-1 in the prior 33 games before he took over. They went 0-11 in ‘81. 1-42-1. Then in ‘82 they went 3-8. He was named COY.

[Madera86]

There are rumors that Colorado is considering Deion Sanders. I'm jus' sayin'.

[Madera86]

There are rumors that Colorado is considering Deion Sanders. I'm jus' sayin'.

[lex24]

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

I hope they are allowed to forget it asap.  I hate it.

---

Here’s what I want. A coach with the following philosophy:  Offense.  Our fatties are going to beat the ever loving sh-t out of you.  Even when you know it’s coming, you are not going to be able to stop us, And just when you start to cheat up, we will beat you downfield with play action.  Multiple sets. Sure. Misdirection, you betcha.  But  in the end we are going to consistently win at the LOS. We will recruit to it. Our recruits will get bigger and stronger (or they will sit). We will develop them.. And we will recruit running backs that punish defenses. QBs with downfield arms and mobility. WRs will need to be willing and able to block. So, guys with some size. Along with a couple little demons that create havoc out of the slot. TE’s. Lots of them. And a fullback or two that gets a charge from pancaking linebackers.

Defensively.  Do all the cute things you want. Cause what we are going to do is beat the hell out of you at the LOS. Penetrate and hammer your RBs and pummel your QB. Over and over again. Tough, smart, relentless and MEAN front 7. With ballhawks in the backfield.

Simply put - I want intellectual brutality again.  Emphasis on the latter. I don’t care about fancy schemes.

[lex24]

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

I hope they are allowed to forget it asap.  I hate it.

---

Here’s what I want. A coach with the following philosophy:  Offense.  Our fatties are going to beat the ever loving sh-t out of you.  Even when you know it’s coming, you are not going to be able to stop us, And just when you start to cheat up, we will beat you downfield with play action.  Multiple sets. Sure. Misdirection, you betcha.  But  in the end we are going to consistently win at the LOS. We will recruit to it. Our recruits will get bigger and stronger (or they will sit). We will develop them.. And we will recruit running backs that punish defenses. QBs with downfield arms and mobility. WRs will need to be willing and able to block. So, guys with some size. Along with a couple little demons that create havoc out of the slot. TE’s. Lots of them. And a fullback or two that gets a charge from pancaking linebackers.

Defensively.  Do all the cute things you want. Cause what we are going to do is beat the hell out of you at the LOS. Penetrate and hammer your RBs and pummel your QB. Over and over again. Tough, smart, relentless and MEAN front 7. With ballhawks in the backfield.

Simply put - I want intellectual brutality again.  Emphasis on the latter. I don’t care about fancy schemes.

[Red80]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

[Red80]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

[81alum]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

An honest question:  why do you (and others) think a ball-control offense suits us best?  Back in the Walsh years when we were "Quarterback U" it was felt that a passing-oriented offense suited us.  What is it about Stanford that makes it more suitable to ball control rather than to other offenses-- other than the fact that we did ball control well in the Gerhardt/Taylor/Gaffney years?  We did downfield passing pretty well in the Benjamin/Dils/Stenstrom/Elway years.

Now we could get into an interesting discussion about which style of offense is best in the college game in a general sense, but I sense that you believe there is something unique about Stanford that makes it easier here to do a ball control game more easily than other offenses, and I would like to understand the reasoning.

[81alum]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

An honest question:  why do you (and others) think a ball-control offense suits us best?  Back in the Walsh years when we were "Quarterback U" it was felt that a passing-oriented offense suited us.  What is it about Stanford that makes it more suitable to ball control rather than to other offenses-- other than the fact that we did ball control well in the Gerhardt/Taylor/Gaffney years?  We did downfield passing pretty well in the Benjamin/Dils/Stenstrom/Elway years.

Now we could get into an interesting discussion about which style of offense is best in the college game in a general sense, but I sense that you believe there is something unique about Stanford that makes it easier here to do a ball control game more easily than other offenses, and I would like to understand the reasoning.

[Mick]

I would like to consider Sherrone Moore and Jesse Minter, the OC and DC for the Michigan Wolverines under Harbaugh. Both make $900k. Matt Weiss, their Quarterbacks coach made $850k.

[Mick]

I would like to consider Sherrone Moore and Jesse Minter, the OC and DC for the Michigan Wolverines under Harbaugh. Both make $900k. Matt Weiss, their Quarterbacks coach made $850k.

[Red80]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

An honest question:  why do you (and others) think a ball-control offense suits us best?  Back in the Walsh years when we were "Quarterback U" it was felt that a passing-oriented offense suited us.  What is it about Stanford that makes it more suitable to ball control rather than to other offenses-- other than the fact that we did ball control well in the Gerhardt/Taylor/Gaffney years?  We did downfield passing pretty well in the 
Benjamin/Dils/Stenstrom/Elway years.

Back in the Benjamin/Dils years it was an offense that was contrarian to almost all others. It gave Stanford their best chance to compete and win some games against superior rushing teams.

Today, the trend is air-raid, spread-run, spread-pass, up tempo offenses that feature many speed, twitch athletes in 4-5 receiver sets. Stanford simply does not have the athletes to run these schemes. In fact, they've tried to do so since 2019 and the results speak for themselves. 

From 2012-17 Stanford played another version of contrary football: Ground and Pound. They dominated TOP, kept opposing high powered offenses off the field for long lengths of time, and scored enough to win A LOT of football games. Opposing teams hated playing Stanford for this reason. 

In both eras, these against-the-grain offenses gave Stanford its best chance to compete. I desperately want to see Stanford realign with Big Boy, Smash Mouth Football!

[Red80]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

An honest question:  why do you (and others) think a ball-control offense suits us best?  Back in the Walsh years when we were "Quarterback U" it was felt that a passing-oriented offense suited us.  What is it about Stanford that makes it more suitable to ball control rather than to other offenses-- other than the fact that we did ball control well in the Gerhardt/Taylor/Gaffney years?  We did downfield passing pretty well in the 
Benjamin/Dils/Stenstrom/Elway years.

Back in the Benjamin/Dils years it was an offense that was contrarian to almost all others. It gave Stanford their best chance to compete and win some games against superior rushing teams.

Today, the trend is air-raid, spread-run, spread-pass, up tempo offenses that feature many speed, twitch athletes in 4-5 receiver sets. Stanford simply does not have the athletes to run these schemes. In fact, they've tried to do so since 2019 and the results speak for themselves. 

From 2012-17 Stanford played another version of contrary football: Ground and Pound. They dominated TOP, kept opposing high powered offenses off the field for long lengths of time, and scored enough to win A LOT of football games. Opposing teams hated playing Stanford for this reason. 

In both eras, these against-the-grain offenses gave Stanford its best chance to compete. I desperately want to see Stanford realign with Big Boy, Smash Mouth Football!

[StanUSwagU]

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

I hope they are allowed to forget it asap.  I hate it.

---

Here’s what I want. A coach with the following philosophy:  Offense.  Our fatties are going to beat the ever loving sh-t out of you.  Even when you know it’s coming, you are not going to be able to stop us, And just when you start to cheat up, we will beat you downfield with play action.  Multiple sets. Sure. Misdirection, you betcha.  But  in the end we are going to consistently win at the LOS. We will recruit to it.  Our recruits will get bigger and stronger (or they will sit). We will  develop them..  And we will recruit running backs that punish defenses.  QBs with downfield arms and mobility.  WRs will need to be willing and able to block.  So, guys with some size.  Along with a couple little demons that create havoc out of the slot.  TE’s. Lots of them.  And a fullback or two that gets a charge from pancaking linebackers.

Defensively.  Do all the cute things you want. Cause what we are going to do is beat the hell out of you at the LOS. Penetrate and hammer your RBs and pummel your QB. Over and over again. Tough, smart, relentless and MEAN front 7. With ballhawks in the backfield.

Simply put - I want intellectual brutality again.  Emphasis on the latter. I don’t care about fancy schemes.

Lex24:

Like your passion.

I think everyone agrees (myself included) that a Football Team needs to be PHYSICAL & DOMINANT at the LOS on both sides, I think that is what you are saying, and that is Foundational.

But that alone would just net you an 8-9 win Team (Coach Shaw & Coach Chryst of Wisconsin are the poster children for this & you see what happened to them as College Football evolved)

But in College Football today, you must also  be able to, on Offense:

--Go UpTempo (to get easy yards, when defenses are not quite ready)
--Utilize an Athletic Dual Threat QB on 'Designed QB runs' about 10 times a game for about 50+ QBRush Yards, ...to be able to spread people out and go 'Empty Set' and still rush the football. (Actually, a modern college team should have 2 Dual-Threat QBs on the roster at all times, in case 1 gets banged up QBrunning the ball)
--Score TDs quickly (like if you are down by 10pts with 4 minutes 30secs left in the game, and have the ball on your 25yard line)

The best way I can say this, is Imagine if Stanford ever got into the 4 Team Playoff & had to face Alabama or Georgia; You are not going to phase Alabama or Georgia with Intellectual Brutality Alone. You better have the ability to go UpTempo and Spread out their Defense, and use Space & a QuickPassingGame, and a Dual-Threat QB, the way Oklahoma under Bob Stoops used to beat Alabama & SEC teams.

[StanUSwagU]

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

I hope they are allowed to forget it asap.  I hate it.

---

Here’s what I want. A coach with the following philosophy:  Offense.  Our fatties are going to beat the ever loving sh-t out of you.  Even when you know it’s coming, you are not going to be able to stop us, And just when you start to cheat up, we will beat you downfield with play action.  Multiple sets. Sure. Misdirection, you betcha.  But  in the end we are going to consistently win at the LOS. We will recruit to it.  Our recruits will get bigger and stronger (or they will sit). We will  develop them..  And we will recruit running backs that punish defenses.  QBs with downfield arms and mobility.  WRs will need to be willing and able to block.  So, guys with some size.  Along with a couple little demons that create havoc out of the slot.  TE’s. Lots of them.  And a fullback or two that gets a charge from pancaking linebackers.

Defensively.  Do all the cute things you want. Cause what we are going to do is beat the hell out of you at the LOS. Penetrate and hammer your RBs and pummel your QB. Over and over again. Tough, smart, relentless and MEAN front 7. With ballhawks in the backfield.

Simply put - I want intellectual brutality again.  Emphasis on the latter. I don’t care about fancy schemes.

Lex24:

Like your passion.

I think everyone agrees (myself included) that a Football Team needs to be PHYSICAL & DOMINANT at the LOS on both sides, I think that is what you are saying, and that is Foundational.

But that alone would just net you an 8-9 win Team (Coach Shaw & Coach Chryst of Wisconsin are the poster children for this & you see what happened to them as College Football evolved)

But in College Football today, you must also  be able to, on Offense:

--Go UpTempo (to get easy yards, when defenses are not quite ready)
--Utilize an Athletic Dual Threat QB on 'Designed QB runs' about 10 times a game for about 50+ QBRush Yards, ...to be able to spread people out and go 'Empty Set' and still rush the football. (Actually, a modern college team should have 2 Dual-Threat QBs on the roster at all times, in case 1 gets banged up QBrunning the ball)
--Score TDs quickly (like if you are down by 10pts with 4 minutes 30secs left in the game, and have the ball on your 25yard line)

The best way I can say this, is Imagine if Stanford ever got into the 4 Team Playoff & had to face Alabama or Georgia; You are not going to phase Alabama or Georgia with Intellectual Brutality Alone. You better have the ability to go UpTempo and Spread out their Defense, and use Space & a QuickPassingGame, and a Dual-Threat QB, the way Oklahoma under Bob Stoops used to beat Alabama & SEC teams.

[Red80]

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

I hope they are allowed to forget it asap.  I hate it.

---

Here’s what I want. A coach with the following philosophy:  Offense.  Our fatties are going to beat the ever loving sh-t out of you.  Even when you know it’s coming, you are not going to be able to stop us, And just when you start to cheat up, we will beat you downfield with play action.  Multiple sets. Sure. Misdirection, you betcha.  But  in the end we are going to consistently win at the LOS. We will recruit to it.  Our recruits will get bigger and stronger (or they will sit). We will  develop them..  And we will recruit running backs that punish defenses.  QBs with downfield arms and mobility.  WRs will need to be willing and able to block.  So, guys with some size.  Along with a couple little demons that create havoc out of the slot.  TE’s. Lots of them.  And a fullback or two that gets a charge from pancaking linebackers.

Defensively.  Do all the cute things you want. Cause what we are going to do is beat the hell out of you at the LOS. Penetrate and hammer your RBs and pummel your QB. Over and over again. Tough, smart, relentless and MEAN front 7. With ballhawks in the backfield.

Simply put - I want intellectual brutality again.  Emphasis on the latter. I don’t care about fancy schemes.

---

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

I hope they are allowed to forget it asap.  I hate it.

---

Here’s what I want. A coach with the following philosophy:  Offense.  Our fatties are going to beat the ever loving sh-t out of you.  Even when you know it’s coming, you are not going to be able to stop us, And just when you start to cheat up, we will beat you downfield with play action.  Multiple sets. Sure. Misdirection, you betcha.  But  in the end we are going to consistently win at the LOS. We will recruit to it.  Our recruits will get bigger and stronger (or they will sit). We will  develop them..  And we will recruit running backs that punish defenses.  QBs with downfield arms and mobility.  WRs will need to be willing and able to block.  So, guys with some size.  Along with a couple little demons that create havoc out of the slot.  TE’s. Lots of them.  And a fullback or two that gets a charge from pancaking linebackers.

Defensively.  Do all the cute things you want. Cause what we are going to do is beat the hell out of you at the LOS. Penetrate and hammer your RBs and pummel your QB. Over and over again. Tough, smart, relentless and MEAN front 7. With ballhawks in the backfield.

Simply put - I want intellectual brutality again.  Emphasis on the latter. I don’t care about fancy schemes.

Completely agree, Lex.

 I absolutely love North Dakota State's brand of football. They're everything that I'd like Stanford to be, and they do remind me of what Stanford used to be just a few years ago. They also have a great eye for and developing the right QB for their offense...including some kid named Ashton Daniels whom I would have taken over McKee in a second based on what I saw from each of them in HS.

[Red80]

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

I hope they are allowed to forget it asap.  I hate it.

---

Here’s what I want. A coach with the following philosophy:  Offense.  Our fatties are going to beat the ever loving sh-t out of you.  Even when you know it’s coming, you are not going to be able to stop us, And just when you start to cheat up, we will beat you downfield with play action.  Multiple sets. Sure. Misdirection, you betcha.  But  in the end we are going to consistently win at the LOS. We will recruit to it.  Our recruits will get bigger and stronger (or they will sit). We will  develop them..  And we will recruit running backs that punish defenses.  QBs with downfield arms and mobility.  WRs will need to be willing and able to block.  So, guys with some size.  Along with a couple little demons that create havoc out of the slot.  TE’s. Lots of them.  And a fullback or two that gets a charge from pancaking linebackers.

Defensively.  Do all the cute things you want. Cause what we are going to do is beat the hell out of you at the LOS. Penetrate and hammer your RBs and pummel your QB. Over and over again. Tough, smart, relentless and MEAN front 7. With ballhawks in the backfield.

Simply put - I want intellectual brutality again.  Emphasis on the latter. I don’t care about fancy schemes.

---

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

I hope they are allowed to forget it asap.  I hate it.

---

Here’s what I want. A coach with the following philosophy:  Offense.  Our fatties are going to beat the ever loving sh-t out of you.  Even when you know it’s coming, you are not going to be able to stop us, And just when you start to cheat up, we will beat you downfield with play action.  Multiple sets. Sure. Misdirection, you betcha.  But  in the end we are going to consistently win at the LOS. We will recruit to it.  Our recruits will get bigger and stronger (or they will sit). We will  develop them..  And we will recruit running backs that punish defenses.  QBs with downfield arms and mobility.  WRs will need to be willing and able to block.  So, guys with some size.  Along with a couple little demons that create havoc out of the slot.  TE’s. Lots of them.  And a fullback or two that gets a charge from pancaking linebackers.

Defensively.  Do all the cute things you want. Cause what we are going to do is beat the hell out of you at the LOS. Penetrate and hammer your RBs and pummel your QB. Over and over again. Tough, smart, relentless and MEAN front 7. With ballhawks in the backfield.

Simply put - I want intellectual brutality again.  Emphasis on the latter. I don’t care about fancy schemes.

Completely agree, Lex.

 I absolutely love North Dakota State's brand of football. They're everything that I'd like Stanford to be, and they do remind me of what Stanford used to be just a few years ago. They also have a great eye for and developing the right QB for their offense...including some kid named Ashton Daniels whom I would have taken over McKee in a second based on what I saw from each of them in HS.

[msqueri]

Press conference reactions:

* The bottom line is that my thoughts from Sunday morning still apply, only more so. It's both such a weight lifted off the program (and therefore cause for elation among fans) and a picture perfect transition that reflects very well on the two protagonists in this press conference, David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Lord knows I don't think much from the last several years reflects well on them, but 48 hours into this transition they've nailed the public-facing parts of it. I mused a fair amount this past year about how our best case scenario was Shaw leaving on his own terms and I cited reasons very much like what we're now seeing, but I never imagined it being pulled off this gracefully. It's actually incredible that no resentment from either party seems to be seeping through and that message discipline has been so unified and.....cheerful.

* On that last point, the whole press conference is a big wet love-fest. Straight Kumbaya. A video billboard/public service announcement for Stanford football and Leland Stanford Junior University. Two happy, confident, grounded, eloquent senior leaders extolling the virtues of an amazing institution. Again, lord knows I have many criticisms of both men, but this press conference was an attractive look for them. And that can only be good for Stanford. Typically one would view a coaching transition when the coach failed and is leaving for cause as a sensitive, defensive, embarrassing time. Instead, it seems like all parties have essentially agreed to pretend he didn't fail (yet somehow appear reasonable and magnanimous when answering questions that allude to the failure).

* I know some prioritize wanting history to account forthrightly with the failure so I understand how this alternate reality can be frustrating, but I don't think there's much doubt this is the smoother transition that does less damage to Stanford's reputation. In fact, I'd say Stanford's reputation has/should improve on the basis of the last 48 hours. It's remarkable and awesome how much more confident the vibes are right now than they were following Teevens and Harris. It's hard to imagine a more swaggering, triumphant atmosphere following a coach leaving for cause.

* The big caveat that could temper my current optimism is if Muir believes the spin that we're close and/or that the foundation of the program is strong and he therefore favors a continuity candidate (Pritchard, Anderson) or a Shaw coaching tree candidate (Hamilton, Bloomgren) and we consequently do not get the cleansing rebuild of the program we need. Still a risk. I picked up nothing in this press conference that suggests this is where Muir is but he was also quite disciplined in how vague he was about criteria and approach for the hire, so it's a possibility I'm disappointed on this score.

* The press conference was much less hagiography than I thought it would be. Muir was complimentary but not obnoxiously effusive about Shaw (handled with savvy and grace I thought). Shaw took opportunities to take victory laps, but in similarly savvy/graceful ways, such as describing his feelings on his tenure as "magical" and then citing experiences he enjoyed, which was an opportunity to mention Rose Bowls and Pac-12 championships and Coach of the Year awards. But it was less of the press conference than I thought it would be.

* Shaw's thank yous were classy and apparently heartfelt. I'm sure his thoughts on Harbaugh are complicated but the shout outs to Harbaugh were nice grace notes. It was also interesting that after Muir answered the question on how you hire a guy to replace the guy Shaw jumped in and said he was the guy who replaced the guy previously and he lives by his dad's reminder that you're never really walking in somebody else's shoes. It reminded me of that Tom Brady/Morgan Freeman commercial currently on tv and is a nice sentiment in letting the next guy make his own way without it being about who he follows.

* Shaw's frame on this being the "right time" for him and his family and the program is such a savvy, face-saving way to talk about all this. That he throws "program" in there is an acknowledgment that this isn't leaving on top and his departure is better for the program too, a self-awareness I appreciate. Reporters have tried to pin him down on his thought process (perhaps trying to get a glimpse into the palace intrigue on how this went down) and his answer basically shuts down those lines of questions without being rude or inaccurate. I like it. As for what's next, he talked about this not being retirement but I couldn't really pick up from his comments whether in his heart of hearts the next things are more in the coaching, administration, broadcasting, philanthropy, or other realms. He did talk about fielding phone calls, which sounded like a coach thing to say/reference to future coaching opportunities, but who knows.

* Muir talked about how navigating the landscape has been difficult and addressed both transfers and NIL but he was pretty careful in how he phrased the answers and I don't think we learned anything. I did notice that he put a bit more of an emphasis on "if" and "hopefully" with regard to transfers than what Shaw has been saying. He also managed expectations a bit on transfers, a somewhat cautious nod to evolution in that area but certainly not making any big promises. Otherwise he said well-rehearsed things about finding the proper balance and right fit and working with administrators and faculty, comments that I think inform less than what Stewart Mandel and insiders on the message board have relayed. In my mind where we land on transfers and NIL are still significant open questions. My optimistic hope on this (as well as conference affiliation, tv deals, etc., which didn't come up) is that Muir is keeping his powder dry until meatier announcements are ready (or will just let evolutionary steps speak for themselves once they start happening), but I don't really know.

* Both talked about our players' hunger and drive. I wouldn't expect them to say anything different but I'm less encumbered by affiliation or sentiment on this and will just speak my mind: I don't buy it. I see zero evidence Stanford football players in the last several iterations of Shaw teams have high hunger and drive compared to players elsewhere. We need a new culture and a new kind of player. That's a comment that fixes ultimate responsibility on the leaders in charge of the team but it also bears on the kind of players we have and what we get out of them. I think it ignores the issues if we don't recognize that there are problems with the players. I hope this was more public relations/propaganda (or just an empty/sounds good compliment) than something reflective of how Muir is thinking. If it is reflective, this could have bearing on the caveat I mentioned above: if Muir doesn't think the foundations of this team are crumbling he will be more inclined to opt for a continuity or Shaw tree candidate.

* Others have mocked Shaw's comment that we were a healthy running back away from getting to a bowl. Yeah, this isn't true. Since we're past the Shaw era I won't waste time crunching numbers to show how far away we were, but it's very hard to argue the running back situation cost us even a single game and I find it doubtful that even if we were one of the healthiest teams in the conference across all positions we would have made a bowl. What really matters is whether Muir believes this....back to that caveat again. I sure hope not.

[msqueri]

Press conference reactions:

* The bottom line is that my thoughts from Sunday morning still apply, only more so. It's both such a weight lifted off the program (and therefore cause for elation among fans) and a picture perfect transition that reflects very well on the two protagonists in this press conference, David Shaw and Bernard Muir. Lord knows I don't think much from the last several years reflects well on them, but 48 hours into this transition they've nailed the public-facing parts of it. I mused a fair amount this past year about how our best case scenario was Shaw leaving on his own terms and I cited reasons very much like what we're now seeing, but I never imagined it being pulled off this gracefully. It's actually incredible that no resentment from either party seems to be seeping through and that message discipline has been so unified and.....cheerful.

* On that last point, the whole press conference is a big wet love-fest. Straight Kumbaya. A video billboard/public service announcement for Stanford football and Leland Stanford Junior University. Two happy, confident, grounded, eloquent senior leaders extolling the virtues of an amazing institution. Again, lord knows I have many criticisms of both men, but this press conference was an attractive look for them. And that can only be good for Stanford. Typically one would view a coaching transition when the coach failed and is leaving for cause as a sensitive, defensive, embarrassing time. Instead, it seems like all parties have essentially agreed to pretend he didn't fail (yet somehow appear reasonable and magnanimous when answering questions that allude to the failure).

* I know some prioritize wanting history to account forthrightly with the failure so I understand how this alternate reality can be frustrating, but I don't think there's much doubt this is the smoother transition that does less damage to Stanford's reputation. In fact, I'd say Stanford's reputation has/should improve on the basis of the last 48 hours. It's remarkable and awesome how much more confident the vibes are right now than they were following Teevens and Harris. It's hard to imagine a more swaggering, triumphant atmosphere following a coach leaving for cause.

* The big caveat that could temper my current optimism is if Muir believes the spin that we're close and/or that the foundation of the program is strong and he therefore favors a continuity candidate (Pritchard, Anderson) or a Shaw coaching tree candidate (Hamilton, Bloomgren) and we consequently do not get the cleansing rebuild of the program we need. Still a risk. I picked up nothing in this press conference that suggests this is where Muir is but he was also quite disciplined in how vague he was about criteria and approach for the hire, so it's a possibility I'm disappointed on this score.

* The press conference was much less hagiography than I thought it would be. Muir was complimentary but not obnoxiously effusive about Shaw (handled with savvy and grace I thought). Shaw took opportunities to take victory laps, but in similarly savvy/graceful ways, such as describing his feelings on his tenure as "magical" and then citing experiences he enjoyed, which was an opportunity to mention Rose Bowls and Pac-12 championships and Coach of the Year awards. But it was less of the press conference than I thought it would be.

* Shaw's thank yous were classy and apparently heartfelt. I'm sure his thoughts on Harbaugh are complicated but the shout outs to Harbaugh were nice grace notes. It was also interesting that after Muir answered the question on how you hire a guy to replace the guy Shaw jumped in and said he was the guy who replaced the guy previously and he lives by his dad's reminder that you're never really walking in somebody else's shoes. It reminded me of that Tom Brady/Morgan Freeman commercial currently on tv and is a nice sentiment in letting the next guy make his own way without it being about who he follows.

* Shaw's frame on this being the "right time" for him and his family and the program is such a savvy, face-saving way to talk about all this. That he throws "program" in there is an acknowledgment that this isn't leaving on top and his departure is better for the program too, a self-awareness I appreciate. Reporters have tried to pin him down on his thought process (perhaps trying to get a glimpse into the palace intrigue on how this went down) and his answer basically shuts down those lines of questions without being rude or inaccurate. I like it. As for what's next, he talked about this not being retirement but I couldn't really pick up from his comments whether in his heart of hearts the next things are more in the coaching, administration, broadcasting, philanthropy, or other realms. He did talk about fielding phone calls, which sounded like a coach thing to say/reference to future coaching opportunities, but who knows.

* Muir talked about how navigating the landscape has been difficult and addressed both transfers and NIL but he was pretty careful in how he phrased the answers and I don't think we learned anything. I did notice that he put a bit more of an emphasis on "if" and "hopefully" with regard to transfers than what Shaw has been saying. He also managed expectations a bit on transfers, a somewhat cautious nod to evolution in that area but certainly not making any big promises. Otherwise he said well-rehearsed things about finding the proper balance and right fit and working with administrators and faculty, comments that I think inform less than what Stewart Mandel and insiders on the message board have relayed. In my mind where we land on transfers and NIL are still significant open questions. My optimistic hope on this (as well as conference affiliation, tv deals, etc., which didn't come up) is that Muir is keeping his powder dry until meatier announcements are ready (or will just let evolutionary steps speak for themselves once they start happening), but I don't really know.

* Both talked about our players' hunger and drive. I wouldn't expect them to say anything different but I'm less encumbered by affiliation or sentiment on this and will just speak my mind: I don't buy it. I see zero evidence Stanford football players in the last several iterations of Shaw teams have high hunger and drive compared to players elsewhere. We need a new culture and a new kind of player. That's a comment that fixes ultimate responsibility on the leaders in charge of the team but it also bears on the kind of players we have and what we get out of them. I think it ignores the issues if we don't recognize that there are problems with the players. I hope this was more public relations/propaganda (or just an empty/sounds good compliment) than something reflective of how Muir is thinking. If it is reflective, this could have bearing on the caveat I mentioned above: if Muir doesn't think the foundations of this team are crumbling he will be more inclined to opt for a continuity or Shaw tree candidate.

* Others have mocked Shaw's comment that we were a healthy running back away from getting to a bowl. Yeah, this isn't true. Since we're past the Shaw era I won't waste time crunching numbers to show how far away we were, but it's very hard to argue the running back situation cost us even a single game and I find it doubtful that even if we were one of the healthiest teams in the conference across all positions we would have made a bowl. What really matters is whether Muir believes this....back to that caveat again. I sure hope not.

[msqueri]

* When Shaw said "I don't look back" I respected the answer but it also made my stomach churn a bit thinking about the flaws that got us here. It's a savvy answer if it's a tactical way to avoid having to answer questions about why he failed or what he'd do differently in hindsight. It's a sad window into why he failed if even in his private moments he's truly unwilling to look back, assess, and adjust.

* It's a pet peeve of mine how many reporters call him "David" in press conferences. I wonder if his fellow coaching deans get the first name treatment. If they do I wouldn't like that either. Maybe some of the reporters are personal friends/familiar, but in a professional setting I don't know what it would hurt them to call him "coach." I've spent the better part of the last two decades as an advisor to U.S. senators, secretaries of defense, ambassadors, and generals and have gotten to know many of them quite well, but professionally in public I refer to them as the titles they've earned. It just strikes me as a petty overly familiar thing when a lot of these reporters say "David."

* When asked to give advice to coaches wanting to follow in his footsteps as the conscience of the coaching world, Shaw said "stay true to the profession" and "remain a teacher and mentor." An admirable sentiment but one more among the myriad examples over the years of the Deontological Shaw. I'll try to avoid spoilers for anybody who hasn't seen a brilliant show, but in the Good Place even Chidi grapples with the implications of different moral philosophies. To the end, Shaw only cared about "doing things the right way." Poignant he would put this into words as the definition of his legacy/advice to coaches, as it's what makes him so respected and arguably what lost him his job. As was said so exquisitely by a former assistant in The Athletic article, “Coach Shaw is everything that’s right about football, but football is not about being right. It’s about winning.” You can't stay the conscience of college football forever if you only care about the means and pay no attention to the ends. I wonder if Shaw ever understood this? Or maybe he just doesn't care because it makes him happy knowing he's the good guy?

* I thought it was a great press conference in which everybody played their parts well and I fully understand Shaw is the news maker/historical figure/household name, but I wish there were a few more questions for Muir. I think it was a missed opportunity that when Muir talked about "the assistant coaches that remain" and coaches going back on the road for recruiting when they're allowed to nobody followed up asking for details. I'd like to know who all is still around, as a starting point. I also think it's unfortunate in November 2022 to get a big honking press conference with Bernard Muir about the future of Stanford football and not ask him anything about Stanford's place in conference realignment. I get he almost certainly would have evaded or obfuscated but it's such an important question and I'm itching for clarity. I just struggle to see the Pac-12 as viable without USC.

* Muir had numerous references that evinced high confidence in the pool of potential replacements. He noted that he got back home at 2 o'clock (I assume a.m. since it was a home game) and had a call from a search firm at 4 o'clock. He referenced the interest he's received several times. He touted this job as an "opportunity" for a head coach for various reasons (which Shaw also laid out pretty well, though neither leaned into football arguments as much as they could have). That's good, I want him to think of this as a winning hand he has to play and to have high ambitions of the kind of coach we can get. I'm happier to see signs of confidence and ambition, which abounded at least on the surface in this press conference, than signs of trimming our sails. I didn't read anything one way or another into the practiced and vague line about trying to move quickly but be deliberate to find the right person as quickly as we can, although the reference to recruiting windows is highly suggestive we should expect a hire in the next couple of weeks. I just don't know if we should expect one in the first week of December or second week.

* In terms of criteria, Muir said the main thing is proper fit (e..g, not Power Five experience, geography, etc.). Specifically, he said a candidate needs to value what Stanford offers and be able to use that to our advantage in bringing in the best and brightest. Fair enough. We can't have somebody who is a bad fit. I do wish he had talked about the thing I care the most about, which is being well-suited (and ideally proven) at leading a football program and crafting a roster/staff/operation that succeeds in winning games. It bugs me that he didn't make a nod to that, as one of my big worries is that he will fall in love with his own judgment and forecasting to pluck somebody from a non-proven head coach background to show his own brilliance, as the Jerod Haase hire was a more conventional pedigree and hasn't worked out. I'd be far more supportive of him following a model like he did with Haase. I also would like to see evidence Muir is tacking against the Shaw deontological impulses and instead treating us like a winner. He talked a lot about our high standards and championship mentality across sports and was moderately convincing, but talking about fit rather than competence didn't inspire confidence. By the way, if anybody catches wind of who is on the search committee I'd appreciate a DM. No idea if my ideas would be well-received by anyone but happy to pass on thoughts if there is an avenue for that. Muir talked about the power of the network of people affiliated with Stanford who work in college or pro football or otherwise really know the sport well. I am hoping folks on these boards can pass some of the better thinking/analysis on to these folks.

* Confident Muir loved the data point that we got a couple of commits yesterday without a head coach, which he repeated twice (and clearly was eager to as it's been seen as somewhat uncouth for Stanford to publicly discuss recruiting like this before Signing Day). This somewhat tells the story Muir wants to tell about how attractive Stanford is but it also very well could indicate recruits wanting to try to get their commitments in before a new staff reconsiders offers.

[msqueri]

* When Shaw said "I don't look back" I respected the answer but it also made my stomach churn a bit thinking about the flaws that got us here. It's a savvy answer if it's a tactical way to avoid having to answer questions about why he failed or what he'd do differently in hindsight. It's a sad window into why he failed if even in his private moments he's truly unwilling to look back, assess, and adjust.

* It's a pet peeve of mine how many reporters call him "David" in press conferences. I wonder if his fellow coaching deans get the first name treatment. If they do I wouldn't like that either. Maybe some of the reporters are personal friends/familiar, but in a professional setting I don't know what it would hurt them to call him "coach." I've spent the better part of the last two decades as an advisor to U.S. senators, secretaries of defense, ambassadors, and generals and have gotten to know many of them quite well, but professionally in public I refer to them as the titles they've earned. It just strikes me as a petty overly familiar thing when a lot of these reporters say "David."

* When asked to give advice to coaches wanting to follow in his footsteps as the conscience of the coaching world, Shaw said "stay true to the profession" and "remain a teacher and mentor." An admirable sentiment but one more among the myriad examples over the years of the Deontological Shaw. I'll try to avoid spoilers for anybody who hasn't seen a brilliant show, but in the Good Place even Chidi grapples with the implications of different moral philosophies. To the end, Shaw only cared about "doing things the right way." Poignant he would put this into words as the definition of his legacy/advice to coaches, as it's what makes him so respected and arguably what lost him his job. As was said so exquisitely by a former assistant in The Athletic article, “Coach Shaw is everything that’s right about football, but football is not about being right. It’s about winning.” You can't stay the conscience of college football forever if you only care about the means and pay no attention to the ends. I wonder if Shaw ever understood this? Or maybe he just doesn't care because it makes him happy knowing he's the good guy?

* I thought it was a great press conference in which everybody played their parts well and I fully understand Shaw is the news maker/historical figure/household name, but I wish there were a few more questions for Muir. I think it was a missed opportunity that when Muir talked about "the assistant coaches that remain" and coaches going back on the road for recruiting when they're allowed to nobody followed up asking for details. I'd like to know who all is still around, as a starting point. I also think it's unfortunate in November 2022 to get a big honking press conference with Bernard Muir about the future of Stanford football and not ask him anything about Stanford's place in conference realignment. I get he almost certainly would have evaded or obfuscated but it's such an important question and I'm itching for clarity. I just struggle to see the Pac-12 as viable without USC.

* Muir had numerous references that evinced high confidence in the pool of potential replacements. He noted that he got back home at 2 o'clock (I assume a.m. since it was a home game) and had a call from a search firm at 4 o'clock. He referenced the interest he's received several times. He touted this job as an "opportunity" for a head coach for various reasons (which Shaw also laid out pretty well, though neither leaned into football arguments as much as they could have). That's good, I want him to think of this as a winning hand he has to play and to have high ambitions of the kind of coach we can get. I'm happier to see signs of confidence and ambition, which abounded at least on the surface in this press conference, than signs of trimming our sails. I didn't read anything one way or another into the practiced and vague line about trying to move quickly but be deliberate to find the right person as quickly as we can, although the reference to recruiting windows is highly suggestive we should expect a hire in the next couple of weeks. I just don't know if we should expect one in the first week of December or second week.

* In terms of criteria, Muir said the main thing is proper fit (e..g, not Power Five experience, geography, etc.). Specifically, he said a candidate needs to value what Stanford offers and be able to use that to our advantage in bringing in the best and brightest. Fair enough. We can't have somebody who is a bad fit. I do wish he had talked about the thing I care the most about, which is being well-suited (and ideally proven) at leading a football program and crafting a roster/staff/operation that succeeds in winning games. It bugs me that he didn't make a nod to that, as one of my big worries is that he will fall in love with his own judgment and forecasting to pluck somebody from a non-proven head coach background to show his own brilliance, as the Jerod Haase hire was a more conventional pedigree and hasn't worked out. I'd be far more supportive of him following a model like he did with Haase. I also would like to see evidence Muir is tacking against the Shaw deontological impulses and instead treating us like a winner. He talked a lot about our high standards and championship mentality across sports and was moderately convincing, but talking about fit rather than competence didn't inspire confidence. By the way, if anybody catches wind of who is on the search committee I'd appreciate a DM. No idea if my ideas would be well-received by anyone but happy to pass on thoughts if there is an avenue for that. Muir talked about the power of the network of people affiliated with Stanford who work in college or pro football or otherwise really know the sport well. I am hoping folks on these boards can pass some of the better thinking/analysis on to these folks.

* Confident Muir loved the data point that we got a couple of commits yesterday without a head coach, which he repeated twice (and clearly was eager to as it's been seen as somewhat uncouth for Stanford to publicly discuss recruiting like this before Signing Day). This somewhat tells the story Muir wants to tell about how attractive Stanford is but it also very well could indicate recruits wanting to try to get their commitments in before a new staff reconsiders offers.

[msqueri]

* Shaw talked about Harbaugh changing the mentality of the program and how fun it was to be part of a staff that did that. Hell yeah but....it is the irony/tragedy of Shaw's tenure that he then brought us back to a more Walsh/Willingham mentality than a Harbaugh mentality. It's like Shaw recognizes what made Harbaugh such a special influence for Stanford but then couldn't help himself in being more Stanford than Harbaugh thought/proved was optimal for winning football. The Stanford Man became an antibody against the Harbaugh virus.

* Shaw also talked about how the leadership challenge at Stanford is to "lead leaders." I could post another 10,000 words on this (and probably have many times) but I think the evidence is pretty mixed at just how well Shaw has pulled this off, at least in a way conducive to football success. Maybe I'm too salty at the McGill transfer news but if our idea of leadership on our team is for our top leaders to pursue individual adventures elsewhere rather than rallying for team goals, it's not leadership that's helpful to a football team.

* The most poignant Shaw comment to me was his reference to the last day and a half being "peaceful." He sure sounds and acts like it. The Shaw in this press conference was quite attractive. I 100 percent believe him that he's at peace with this decision and happy. By the way, something interesting in this press conference is how noticeably he wore his faith on his sleeve. He didn't do that much at all as a university employee, and now we get lots of "God bless" and prayer and "rest his soul" with regard to Arrillaga and so forth. I don't know what to make of this except to think it was nice to see another dimension of a good man.

[msqueri]

* Shaw talked about Harbaugh changing the mentality of the program and how fun it was to be part of a staff that did that. Hell yeah but....it is the irony/tragedy of Shaw's tenure that he then brought us back to a more Walsh/Willingham mentality than a Harbaugh mentality. It's like Shaw recognizes what made Harbaugh such a special influence for Stanford but then couldn't help himself in being more Stanford than Harbaugh thought/proved was optimal for winning football. The Stanford Man became an antibody against the Harbaugh virus.

* Shaw also talked about how the leadership challenge at Stanford is to "lead leaders." I could post another 10,000 words on this (and probably have many times) but I think the evidence is pretty mixed at just how well Shaw has pulled this off, at least in a way conducive to football success. Maybe I'm too salty at the McGill transfer news but if our idea of leadership on our team is for our top leaders to pursue individual adventures elsewhere rather than rallying for team goals, it's not leadership that's helpful to a football team.

* The most poignant Shaw comment to me was his reference to the last day and a half being "peaceful." He sure sounds and acts like it. The Shaw in this press conference was quite attractive. I 100 percent believe him that he's at peace with this decision and happy. By the way, something interesting in this press conference is how noticeably he wore his faith on his sleeve. He didn't do that much at all as a university employee, and now we get lots of "God bless" and prayer and "rest his soul" with regard to Arrillaga and so forth. I don't know what to make of this except to think it was nice to see another dimension of a good man.

[Jamesy]

Thanks msqueri for your thoughts. Agree on almost everything. I think it's been almost a little over the top how effusive and falling over themselves everyone is with praise. But as you said, this transition seems very smooth and totally beats the alternative.

I really really hope Muir does not pick a "continuity candidate" like Pritchard or Anderson. I will not go to a game if they are named head coach. I don't think Hamilton or Bloomgren are necessarily bad options if they hire the right staff though. Still rooting for Chris Petersen.

The "coach" vs "David" salutation is an interesting debate. I've heard people mock others for calling the coach "coach" with a retort like, why are you calling him coach? He's not your coach. I wouldn't consider a head football coach in the same category as senators, ambassadors, generals, etc. 

I thought the fact that search firms were calling Muir at 4 AM was a bad thing. Muir knew two days prior to Saturday that Shaw was going to step down. I think he should have immediately started a search when it became official. Also the Stanford search committee to help find a new coach sounds unnecessarily bureaucratic. 

I don't begrudge any graduating seniors for grad transferring. They put in their four years, best of luck at your next place. Not unheard of for a player to enter the transfer portal then change their mind though.

[Jamesy]

Thanks msqueri for your thoughts. Agree on almost everything. I think it's been almost a little over the top how effusive and falling over themselves everyone is with praise. But as you said, this transition seems very smooth and totally beats the alternative.

I really really hope Muir does not pick a "continuity candidate" like Pritchard or Anderson. I will not go to a game if they are named head coach. I don't think Hamilton or Bloomgren are necessarily bad options if they hire the right staff though. Still rooting for Chris Petersen.

The "coach" vs "David" salutation is an interesting debate. I've heard people mock others for calling the coach "coach" with a retort like, why are you calling him coach? He's not your coach. I wouldn't consider a head football coach in the same category as senators, ambassadors, generals, etc. 

I thought the fact that search firms were calling Muir at 4 AM was a bad thing. Muir knew two days prior to Saturday that Shaw was going to step down. I think he should have immediately started a search when it became official. Also the Stanford search committee to help find a new coach sounds unnecessarily bureaucratic. 

I don't begrudge any graduating seniors for grad transferring. They put in their four years, best of luck at your next place. Not unheard of for a player to enter the transfer portal then change their mind though.

[Jamesy]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

Where did you read that?

[Jamesy]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

Where did you read that?

[winflop]

Great analysis but I was very disappointed in Muir. I felt like he was reading buzzwords off cue cards, and if he thinks the "It's Stanford" pitch is going to work then he's really out to lunch. His answers about NIL & transfer portal should give every candidate pause about just what the hell they'd be walking into. He's going to need a MUCH better answer in private that includes concrete plans that the University has approved. Those are things he should have had at least six months ago. Yet another thing to put on the "reasons Muir should be fired" pile.

I also wish he would be more transparent about who's on the search committee - frankly I think it's a missed opportunity to "pitch Stanford" because I would guess that the list of people both within and outside the Stanford family is quite impressive to the point that it might attract additional strong candidates. If I were interested in the job and knew that Stanford were interested in me based on the recommendations of people like John Lynch (49ers GM), Condoleeza Rice (CFP committee), Sam Schwartzstein (COO of XFL) and others that would get me excited. Harness the Magic, Bernie!

[winflop]

Great analysis but I was very disappointed in Muir. I felt like he was reading buzzwords off cue cards, and if he thinks the "It's Stanford" pitch is going to work then he's really out to lunch. His answers about NIL & transfer portal should give every candidate pause about just what the hell they'd be walking into. He's going to need a MUCH better answer in private that includes concrete plans that the University has approved. Those are things he should have had at least six months ago. Yet another thing to put on the "reasons Muir should be fired" pile.

I also wish he would be more transparent about who's on the search committee - frankly I think it's a missed opportunity to "pitch Stanford" because I would guess that the list of people both within and outside the Stanford family is quite impressive to the point that it might attract additional strong candidates. If I were interested in the job and knew that Stanford were interested in me based on the recommendations of people like John Lynch (49ers GM), Condoleeza Rice (CFP committee), Sam Schwartzstein (COO of XFL) and others that would get me excited. Harness the Magic, Bernie!

[winflop]

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

This is why I hope to God he doesn't get the job

[winflop]

...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!

Hmm.

This is why I hope to God he doesn't get the job

[BostonCard]

Thanks for listening so I didn't have to.  A few thoughts/reactions:

I wouldn't expect Muir to say anything about NIL and transfers until it is a done deal.  I was surprised that Shaw did, but maybe he knew he wasn't coming back.  When you extract concessions from a negotiating partner, it is better to let them frame it, and that usually means either negotiating the announcement or just letting them do it.  The important thing is not to be able to say we are going to allow transfers, but to actually be able to get the transfers.

Culture is a two way street; we both influence it and are influenced by it.  In 2007, the team adopted Harbaugh's EUTM and "Tunnel Workers Union" after years of Teevens and Harris.  Pretty sure that, for better or worse, the culture at Twitter these days is very different than it was 3 months ago.  Not everyone will buy in it, and I expect we might lose some players to the portal or retirement,  but hopefully a culture change can be brought in pretty quickly.  I expect most players are tired of losing, and will "buy in" pretty quickly to anything that might turn that around.  It will help if we see tangible changes next year.

Maybe the Cal game would have turned out differently had we not been depleted by injuries, but, then again, that was Liegber's best game.  Who knows.

Agree with you about "David", though I don't want to draw too much of a thing around it; maybe he asked to be called by his first name.  I can't stand being referred to by my professional name.  On the other hand, if he didn't ask to be called David, I think it is pretty poor form, and while I could speculate as to why, I think it's best that I don't.

I have very mixed feelings about that quote about Shaw being everything that is right about football.  One of the reasons that I held onto hope that Shaw would turn things around in the face of increasing evidence that he couldn't was exactly that.  College football is ruled by the vanities of middle aged guys (almost always guys) who are living vicariously through the triumphs of young men more than half their age.  At least with Stanford football, that facsimile, of guys who were athletes but also scholars had a sense of credibility.  As college football descends into semi-pro-dom, with merceneries hired by the highest NIL bidder, only to be discarded without second thought (or a meaningful education) when they don't perform, keeping the fiction that those kids are students, like we were, just bigger, faster, and stronger becomes more and more unsustainable.  The quote that has been bandied about that college football need(ed) David Shaw more than David Shaw need(ed) college football is about to be tested, and I fear that college football is about to fail that test.  I can only hope that a unicorn exists, someone with the character and integrity of David Shaw, but who also has the wherewithal to bring a winning team.

I can tell you what Muir would have said about conference realignment... “We have not had [formal] contact with any other conference.  We believe that the Pac-10 conference can be successful and right now have no intention of leaving.”  It's the party line, but it has enough weasel words to let him off the hook if the Big-Ten gives us the time of day.  Diplomacy, as they say, is the art of saying "nice doggy" while you fetch a stick.

I would read zero into the fact that Muir was contacted by a search firm, unless he was the one that arranged the call. It would be malpractice for the firm's business development team not to contact a school with a vacancy. I'm sure that as Shaw's prospects dimmed, Muir was getting calls from search firms saying "hey, if you decide to go in another direction, we can help".

You've convinced me that, statistically, a coach in the mold of Haase (up-and-comer successful at a lower division) is the best way to go, but there are a lot of competing criteria, and I'm not sure how best to balance them. I  do feel that coaching hires, especially when one doesn't end well, is for the hire to have elements that are opposite of what you are replacing.  We were happy with the winning from Harbaugh, but unhappy with his constant dalliances with other teams (Kansas, really?) so we picked someone from his pedigree (hoping the magic would rub off) who was also an alum, and thus unlikely to ever bolt for greener pastures. We like some aspects of Shaw's coaching term (such as his character), but are unhappy with his complacency, so I think we might get the opposite. The question will be whether that energy will be focused (like Harbaugh) or more like Teevens, who was once described to me as having the energy and disposition of a cocker spaniel.

I'm saddened by the McGill transfer as well, but again, for a guy who is a marginal NFL prospect, the calculus changes when the cost of loyalty is an all-expenses-paid graduate degree. I actually think a more meaningful change that can be done is instead of taking in transfers is to find a pathway to make it easier for our own students to move onto a graduate program for their fifth year.

I'm glad Shaw is at peace with himself. He deserves that much.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks for listening so I didn't have to.  A few thoughts/reactions:

I wouldn't expect Muir to say anything about NIL and transfers until it is a done deal.  I was surprised that Shaw did, but maybe he knew he wasn't coming back.  When you extract concessions from a negotiating partner, it is better to let them frame it, and that usually means either negotiating the announcement or just letting them do it.  The important thing is not to be able to say we are going to allow transfers, but to actually be able to get the transfers.

Culture is a two way street; we both influence it and are influenced by it.  In 2007, the team adopted Harbaugh's EUTM and "Tunnel Workers Union" after years of Teevens and Harris.  Pretty sure that, for better or worse, the culture at Twitter these days is very different than it was 3 months ago.  Not everyone will buy in it, and I expect we might lose some players to the portal or retirement,  but hopefully a culture change can be brought in pretty quickly.  I expect most players are tired of losing, and will "buy in" pretty quickly to anything that might turn that around.  It will help if we see tangible changes next year.

Maybe the Cal game would have turned out differently had we not been depleted by injuries, but, then again, that was Liegber's best game.  Who knows.

Agree with you about "David", though I don't want to draw too much of a thing around it; maybe he asked to be called by his first name.  I can't stand being referred to by my professional name.  On the other hand, if he didn't ask to be called David, I think it is pretty poor form, and while I could speculate as to why, I think it's best that I don't.

I have very mixed feelings about that quote about Shaw being everything that is right about football.  One of the reasons that I held onto hope that Shaw would turn things around in the face of increasing evidence that he couldn't was exactly that.  College football is ruled by the vanities of middle aged guys (almost always guys) who are living vicariously through the triumphs of young men more than half their age.  At least with Stanford football, that facsimile, of guys who were athletes but also scholars had a sense of credibility.  As college football descends into semi-pro-dom, with merceneries hired by the highest NIL bidder, only to be discarded without second thought (or a meaningful education) when they don't perform, keeping the fiction that those kids are students, like we were, just bigger, faster, and stronger becomes more and more unsustainable.  The quote that has been bandied about that college football need(ed) David Shaw more than David Shaw need(ed) college football is about to be tested, and I fear that college football is about to fail that test.  I can only hope that a unicorn exists, someone with the character and integrity of David Shaw, but who also has the wherewithal to bring a winning team.

I can tell you what Muir would have said about conference realignment... “We have not had [formal] contact with any other conference.  We believe that the Pac-10 conference can be successful and right now have no intention of leaving.”  It's the party line, but it has enough weasel words to let him off the hook if the Big-Ten gives us the time of day.  Diplomacy, as they say, is the art of saying "nice doggy" while you fetch a stick.

I would read zero into the fact that Muir was contacted by a search firm, unless he was the one that arranged the call. It would be malpractice for the firm's business development team not to contact a school with a vacancy. I'm sure that as Shaw's prospects dimmed, Muir was getting calls from search firms saying "hey, if you decide to go in another direction, we can help".

You've convinced me that, statistically, a coach in the mold of Haase (up-and-comer successful at a lower division) is the best way to go, but there are a lot of competing criteria, and I'm not sure how best to balance them. I  do feel that coaching hires, especially when one doesn't end well, is for the hire to have elements that are opposite of what you are replacing.  We were happy with the winning from Harbaugh, but unhappy with his constant dalliances with other teams (Kansas, really?) so we picked someone from his pedigree (hoping the magic would rub off) who was also an alum, and thus unlikely to ever bolt for greener pastures. We like some aspects of Shaw's coaching term (such as his character), but are unhappy with his complacency, so I think we might get the opposite. The question will be whether that energy will be focused (like Harbaugh) or more like Teevens, who was once described to me as having the energy and disposition of a cocker spaniel.

I'm saddened by the McGill transfer as well, but again, for a guy who is a marginal NFL prospect, the calculus changes when the cost of loyalty is an all-expenses-paid graduate degree. I actually think a more meaningful change that can be done is instead of taking in transfers is to find a pathway to make it easier for our own students to move onto a graduate program for their fifth year.

I'm glad Shaw is at peace with himself. He deserves that much.

BC

[Canalejas]

I think that maybe one of the few clues we got over the years that Shaw is a man of faith is that he formed a friendship with Dabo Swinney.  And that, well, I wouldn't expect any coach that can't speak the language of faith to do well on the recruiting trail.  

I might be wrong about this, but I think over the years I noticed more of the team taking part in a pregame prayer in one of the end zones.  Perhaps that was also a reflection of the man at the top.  

As for journalists calling him David instead of Coach, it doesn't strike me as inappropriate or unprofessional if he invited that kind of familiar tone. I really only expect his players to always call him Coach.

---

I actually think a more meaningful change that can be done is instead of taking in transfers is to find a pathway to make it easier for our own students to move onto a graduate program for their fifth year.

This is a great, great point. Preparing Stanford players to be competitive in applying to the school's own graduate programs would be amazing.

[Canalejas]

I think that maybe one of the few clues we got over the years that Shaw is a man of faith is that he formed a friendship with Dabo Swinney.  And that, well, I wouldn't expect any coach that can't speak the language of faith to do well on the recruiting trail.  

I might be wrong about this, but I think over the years I noticed more of the team taking part in a pregame prayer in one of the end zones.  Perhaps that was also a reflection of the man at the top.  

As for journalists calling him David instead of Coach, it doesn't strike me as inappropriate or unprofessional if he invited that kind of familiar tone. I really only expect his players to always call him Coach.

---

I actually think a more meaningful change that can be done is instead of taking in transfers is to find a pathway to make it easier for our own students to move onto a graduate program for their fifth year.

This is a great, great point. Preparing Stanford players to be competitive in applying to the school's own graduate programs would be amazing.

[SkiBum80]

Thanks msqueri your fine write up on the press conference. If analysis of the conference were art, I’d basically outline my palm & fingers and turn it into a turkey, while you ripped out a Mona Lisa of fine detail.

[SkiBum80]

Thanks msqueri your fine write up on the press conference. If analysis of the conference were art, I’d basically outline my palm & fingers and turn it into a turkey, while you ripped out a Mona Lisa of fine detail.

[PVTree]

I'm keeping an eye on what EJ Smith does. Does he stay or does he also enter the portal? I think his decision may influence others, current players and recruits.

[PVTree]

I'm keeping an eye on what EJ Smith does. Does he stay or does he also enter the portal? I think his decision may influence others, current players and recruits.