[newguy]

The Commanders scored 0 points today. I guess they miss Pritchard :)

evidently.

[newguy]

The Commanders scored 0 points today. I guess they miss Pritchard :)

evidently.

[PalmTree]

Congrats to RB coach Malcolm Agnew, who's just been recognized by the American Football Coaches Association - he'll join other promising young coaches at the association's 35 Under 35 Coaches Leadership Institute.

Big picture - so guessing he'll be retained on staff.

[PalmTree]

Congrats to RB coach Malcolm Agnew, who's just been recognized by the American Football Coaches Association - he'll join other promising young coaches at the association's 35 Under 35 Coaches Leadership Institute.

Big picture - so guessing he'll be retained on staff.

[fullmetal]

If he keeps leveling up Micah Ford, let's keep that train rolling.

[fullmetal]

If he keeps leveling up Micah Ford, let's keep that train rolling.

[johnbar]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

[johnbar]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

[TrumpCard]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

We're #1, we're #1.

[TrumpCard]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

We're #1, we're #1.

[Mick]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

We're #1!!  Followed by Purdue, Vandy, BC and Rutgers.

Interesting assessment...the survey was first administered four years, Stanford only had one vote. This year, seven first place votes, 67 overall points. Trenchant comment by P5 OL coach: "Academic rigor. Difficulty of transfers. Has money...but would need a developmental approach and unique style that might take a cycle of older players hitting at the right time.”

Incidentally, Cal's HC job finished 8th in the poll.

[Mick]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

We're #1!!  Followed by Purdue, Vandy, BC and Rutgers.

Interesting assessment...the survey was first administered four years, Stanford only had one vote. This year, seven first place votes, 67 overall points. Trenchant comment by P5 OL coach: "Academic rigor. Difficulty of transfers. Has money...but would need a developmental approach and unique style that might take a cycle of older players hitting at the right time.”

Incidentally, Cal's HC job finished 8th in the poll.

[MV72018]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

We're #1!!  Followed by Purdue, Vandy, BC and Rutgers.

Interesting assessment...the survey was first administered four years, Stanford only had one vote. This year, seven first place votes, 67 overall points. Trenchant comment by P5 OL coach: "Academic rigor. Difficulty of transfers. Has money...but would need a developmental approach and unique style that might take a cycle of older players hitting at the right time.”

Incidentally, Cal's HC job finished 8th in the poll.

I get it now: our coaching job was voted most difficult; hence, we opted for Pritchard.

[MV72018]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

We're #1!!  Followed by Purdue, Vandy, BC and Rutgers.

Interesting assessment...the survey was first administered four years, Stanford only had one vote. This year, seven first place votes, 67 overall points. Trenchant comment by P5 OL coach: "Academic rigor. Difficulty of transfers. Has money...but would need a developmental approach and unique style that might take a cycle of older players hitting at the right time.”

Incidentally, Cal's HC job finished 8th in the poll.

I get it now: our coaching job was voted most difficult; hence, we opted for Pritchard.

[Mick]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

We're #1!!  Followed by Purdue, Vandy, BC and Rutgers.

Interesting assessment...the survey was first administered four years, Stanford only had one vote. This year, seven first place votes, 67 overall points. Trenchant comment by P5 OL coach: "Academic rigor. Difficulty of transfers. Has money...but would need a developmental approach and unique style that might take a cycle of older players hitting at the right time.”

Incidentally, Cal's HC job finished 8th in the poll.

I get it now: our coaching job was voted most difficult; hence, we opted for Pritchard.

A decade ago, a friend of mine took a CXO job working for a notoriously difficult boss at a firm with a terrible reputation (they were regularly referred to in the media using WWII Axis leader terms). He did this against the advice of many friends, and left the firm in 20 months. They tried to replace him (he had a stellar reputation), but no one would take the job. It remained unfulfilled for nine years until they promoted someone from within about six months ago.

Some jobs are just too difficult and too unattractive with too many strings to succeed, and therefore it is too difficult to find a strong candidate.

[Mick]

"The 5 toughest jobs in college football: Which ones do coaches, staffers consider the hardest?"

Guess who's number 1?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6840051...vacancies/

We're #1!!  Followed by Purdue, Vandy, BC and Rutgers.

Interesting assessment...the survey was first administered four years, Stanford only had one vote. This year, seven first place votes, 67 overall points. Trenchant comment by P5 OL coach: "Academic rigor. Difficulty of transfers. Has money...but would need a developmental approach and unique style that might take a cycle of older players hitting at the right time.”

Incidentally, Cal's HC job finished 8th in the poll.

I get it now: our coaching job was voted most difficult; hence, we opted for Pritchard.

A decade ago, a friend of mine took a CXO job working for a notoriously difficult boss at a firm with a terrible reputation (they were regularly referred to in the media using WWII Axis leader terms). He did this against the advice of many friends, and left the firm in 20 months. They tried to replace him (he had a stellar reputation), but no one would take the job. It remained unfulfilled for nine years until they promoted someone from within about six months ago.

Some jobs are just too difficult and too unattractive with too many strings to succeed, and therefore it is too difficult to find a strong candidate.

[JohnR34231]

Yeah I guess that's the $64 question.
Did AL take Pritchard because it was the best he could do, or did he take him because he thought he was a promising young coach who he knew, thought he could work well with, and thought he could succeed at Stanford.
I doubt if we will ever know.

[JohnR34231]

Yeah I guess that's the $64 question.
Did AL take Pritchard because it was the best he could do, or did he take him because he thought he was a promising young coach who he knew, thought he could work well with, and thought he could succeed at Stanford.
I doubt if we will ever know.

[Goose]

Yeah I guess that's the $64 question.
Did AL take Pritchard because it was the best he could do, or did he take him because he thought he was a promising young coach who he knew, thought he could work well with, and thought he could succeed at Stanford.
I doubt if we will ever know.

IMO it was all of the above. There undoubtedly were good alternatives that took themselves off the table pretty quick. Of the remaining feasible choices, Pritchard was the best alternative in AL's opinion. All coaches have plusses and minuses. I do think the fact AL actually knew Pritchard very well was a big factor. The vast majority of the other alternatives were people AL was not all that familiar with. That increases the probability of a misfit hire that can't work out no matter how good a "football guy" the coach was. Pritchard in AL's mind undoubtedly has a higher floor for that reason. AL can't afford a disaster at this point.

[Goose]

Yeah I guess that's the $64 question.
Did AL take Pritchard because it was the best he could do, or did he take him because he thought he was a promising young coach who he knew, thought he could work well with, and thought he could succeed at Stanford.
I doubt if we will ever know.

IMO it was all of the above. There undoubtedly were good alternatives that took themselves off the table pretty quick. Of the remaining feasible choices, Pritchard was the best alternative in AL's opinion. All coaches have plusses and minuses. I do think the fact AL actually knew Pritchard very well was a big factor. The vast majority of the other alternatives were people AL was not all that familiar with. That increases the probability of a misfit hire that can't work out no matter how good a "football guy" the coach was. Pritchard in AL's mind undoubtedly has a higher floor for that reason. AL can't afford a disaster at this point.

[StanUSwagU]

Also from the article:

"But times have changed, and the most recent headwinds across the sport have left Stanford in the wilderness. The university’s administration was 'late to adapt to NIL.' "

This is undoubtedly true, but also as far as the Stanford University Administration and their approach to the new D1 Athletics Landscape, I think being 'late to adapt' is also true for things other & besides NIL.

[StanUSwagU]

Also from the article:

"But times have changed, and the most recent headwinds across the sport have left Stanford in the wilderness. The university’s administration was 'late to adapt to NIL.' "

This is undoubtedly true, but also as far as the Stanford University Administration and their approach to the new D1 Athletics Landscape, I think being 'late to adapt' is also true for things other & besides NIL.

[MV72018]

Also from the article:

"But times have changed, and the most recent headwinds across the sport have left Stanford in the wilderness. The university’s administration was 'late to adapt to NIL.' "

This is undoubtedly true, but also as far as the Stanford University Administration and their approach to the new D1 Athletics Landscape, I think being 'late to adapt' is also true for things other & besides NIL.

Nice hook! 

What other "things" do you have in mind?

[MV72018]

Also from the article:

"But times have changed, and the most recent headwinds across the sport have left Stanford in the wilderness. The university’s administration was 'late to adapt to NIL.' "

This is undoubtedly true, but also as far as the Stanford University Administration and their approach to the new D1 Athletics Landscape, I think being 'late to adapt' is also true for things other & besides NIL.

Nice hook! 

What other "things" do you have in mind?

[BostonCard]

I assume the biggest one is probably being "late" to adapt to the portal and transfer rules.  It has certainly adversely affected the football team.  But I'm not sure rushing into the portal headfirst is a good idea.

BC

[BostonCard]

I assume the biggest one is probably being "late" to adapt to the portal and transfer rules.  It has certainly adversely affected the football team.  But I'm not sure rushing into the portal headfirst is a good idea.

BC

[StanUSwagU]

Also from the article:

"But times have changed, and the most recent headwinds across the sport have left Stanford in the wilderness. The university’s administration was 'late to adapt to NIL.' "

This is undoubtedly true, but also as far as the Stanford University Administration and their approach to the new D1 Athletics Landscape, I think being 'late to adapt' is also true for things other & besides NIL.

Nice hook! 

What other "things" do you have in mind?

**************

I know this may sound like 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking':

But a year ago when it became known that Fernando Mendoza was interested in leaving Cal [perhaps wanting more NIL money or a better team], maybe rather than 'being late to that party' & letting Indiana get him, we could have offered him an NIL deal that was so lucrative [like $6million for 1 year] & tried to offer his younger brother (also a QB) a scholarship, assuming he was academcially qualified as eniticement, and even tried to see if 'Stanford Medicine' could offer anything in the way of medical treatment for his mother.

By the way, Fernando got into Harvard, and just elected to go to Cal, so I think after we had seen him beat us in the BigGame for 2 years, we would have done EVERYTHING on earth, not to be 'late to adapt' to get him as a transfer !

*************************

And the year before that, another QB from a HighAcademic School, Riley Leonard (Duke) desired to transfer from Duke, ended up transferring to NotreDame. To some degree, it just seems like we are 'later to adapt' to put together offers and packages for these 'High Talent QBs' who are at 'High Academic schools like Duke and Cal, and are looking to transfer.

************************


The following is more of a question:

Could we at StanU craft/innovate/staff a special "4 business day admissions & NIL Offer process" for athlete-transfers' where:
-application
-transcripts
-review by admissions
-acceptance decision by admissions
-NIL offer

was all completed in 4 business-days ?

This way, when a Great Athlete from another University wanted to consider transferring to another University .... it would be known that 'Stanford can process your Application & NIL $Request faster than any other University

[StanUSwagU]

Also from the article:

"But times have changed, and the most recent headwinds across the sport have left Stanford in the wilderness. The university’s administration was 'late to adapt to NIL.' "

This is undoubtedly true, but also as far as the Stanford University Administration and their approach to the new D1 Athletics Landscape, I think being 'late to adapt' is also true for things other & besides NIL.

Nice hook! 

What other "things" do you have in mind?

**************

I know this may sound like 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking':

But a year ago when it became known that Fernando Mendoza was interested in leaving Cal [perhaps wanting more NIL money or a better team], maybe rather than 'being late to that party' & letting Indiana get him, we could have offered him an NIL deal that was so lucrative [like $6million for 1 year] & tried to offer his younger brother (also a QB) a scholarship, assuming he was academcially qualified as eniticement, and even tried to see if 'Stanford Medicine' could offer anything in the way of medical treatment for his mother.

By the way, Fernando got into Harvard, and just elected to go to Cal, so I think after we had seen him beat us in the BigGame for 2 years, we would have done EVERYTHING on earth, not to be 'late to adapt' to get him as a transfer !

*************************

And the year before that, another QB from a HighAcademic School, Riley Leonard (Duke) desired to transfer from Duke, ended up transferring to NotreDame. To some degree, it just seems like we are 'later to adapt' to put together offers and packages for these 'High Talent QBs' who are at 'High Academic schools like Duke and Cal, and are looking to transfer.

************************


The following is more of a question:

Could we at StanU craft/innovate/staff a special "4 business day admissions & NIL Offer process" for athlete-transfers' where:
-application
-transcripts
-review by admissions
-acceptance decision by admissions
-NIL offer

was all completed in 4 business-days ?

This way, when a Great Athlete from another University wanted to consider transferring to another University .... it would be known that 'Stanford can process your Application & NIL $Request faster than any other University

[KartyFan]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he plays for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

[KartyFan]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he plays for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

[norcard10]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he posts for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

glad we still have some sense on here

---

Yeah I guess that's the $64 question.
Did AL take Pritchard because it was the best he could do, or did he take him because he thought he was a promising young coach who he knew, thought he could work well with, and thought he could succeed at Stanford.
I doubt if we will ever know.

IMO it was all of the above. There undoubtedly were good alternatives that took themselves off the table pretty quick. Of the remaining feasible choices, Pritchard was the best alternative in AL's opinion. All coaches have plusses and minuses. I do think the fact AL actually knew Pritchard very well was a big factor. The vast majority of the other alternatives were people AL was not all that familiar with. That increases the probability of a misfit hire that can't work out no matter how good a "football guy" the coach was. Pritchard in AL's mind undoubtedly has a higher floor for that reason. AL can't afford a disaster at this point.

Unfortunately, AL better be prepared for all scenarios. Not expecting much from this hire

[norcard10]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he posts for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

glad we still have some sense on here

---

Yeah I guess that's the $64 question.
Did AL take Pritchard because it was the best he could do, or did he take him because he thought he was a promising young coach who he knew, thought he could work well with, and thought he could succeed at Stanford.
I doubt if we will ever know.

IMO it was all of the above. There undoubtedly were good alternatives that took themselves off the table pretty quick. Of the remaining feasible choices, Pritchard was the best alternative in AL's opinion. All coaches have plusses and minuses. I do think the fact AL actually knew Pritchard very well was a big factor. The vast majority of the other alternatives were people AL was not all that familiar with. That increases the probability of a misfit hire that can't work out no matter how good a "football guy" the coach was. Pritchard in AL's mind undoubtedly has a higher floor for that reason. AL can't afford a disaster at this point.

Unfortunately, AL better be prepared for all scenarios. Not expecting much from this hire

[needle]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he posts for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

Not sure what universe you're living in, but the mighty Hoosiers are undefeated at 13-0.

[needle]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he posts for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

Not sure what universe you're living in, but the mighty Hoosiers are undefeated at 13-0.

[PalmTree]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he posts for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

Not sure what universe you're living in, but the mighty Hoosiers are undefeated at 13-0.

Pretty sure KartyFan was referring to Indiana's record after the 24-25 season, when the Hoosiers were still wooing Mendoza.

Edit: Mendoza committed to IU on 12/24/2024 (Merry Xmas, Hoosiers!) - 4 days after IU's season-ending loss to the Domers in the CFP.

Otherwise, I agree with KF's points about Mendoza's decision - we were what, 3-9 with no OL to speak of? Given those factors, the only + in our favor I can think of if hypothetically we did go head-to-head with IU for Mendoza would be that Stanford Hospital's a 5 minute drive from the stadium, vs IU's, which is ~ 50 miles away in Indianapolis, if you get my drift....

[PalmTree]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he posts for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

Not sure what universe you're living in, but the mighty Hoosiers are undefeated at 13-0.

Pretty sure KartyFan was referring to Indiana's record after the 24-25 season, when the Hoosiers were still wooing Mendoza.

Edit: Mendoza committed to IU on 12/24/2024 (Merry Xmas, Hoosiers!) - 4 days after IU's season-ending loss to the Domers in the CFP.

Otherwise, I agree with KF's points about Mendoza's decision - we were what, 3-9 with no OL to speak of? Given those factors, the only + in our favor I can think of if hypothetically we did go head-to-head with IU for Mendoza would be that Stanford Hospital's a 5 minute drive from the stadium, vs IU's, which is ~ 50 miles away in Indianapolis, if you get my drift....

[KartyFan]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he posts for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

Not sure what universe you're living in, but the mighty Hoosiers are undefeated at 13-0.

Pretty sure KartyFan was referring to Indiana's record after the 24-25 season, when the Hoosiers were still wooing Mendoza.

Edit: Mendoza committed to IU on 12/24/2024 (Merry Xmas, Hoosiers!) - 4 days after IU's season-ending loss to the Domers in the CFP.

Otherwise, I agree with KF's points about Mendoza's decision - we were what, 3-9 with no OL to speak of? Given those factors, the only + in our favor I can think of if hypothetically we did go head-to-head with IU for Mendoza would be that Stanford Hospital's a 5 minute drive from the stadium, vs IU's, which is ~ 50 miles away in Indianapolis, if you get my drift....

Thank you for clarifying, PalmTree. Yes, I was referring to the 11-2 season Indiana had just completed when Mendoza signed for them.

[KartyFan]

Well, Indiana was 11-2, so if was looking for a better team, Stanford wasn't the place to go.

Mendoza is projected by many to go #1 in the draft. I don't think that happens in an alternate universe where he posts for Stanford. Taking an extra couple million to play behind our o-line this year would have been a terrible financial decision.

Not sure what universe you're living in, but the mighty Hoosiers are undefeated at 13-0.

Pretty sure KartyFan was referring to Indiana's record after the 24-25 season, when the Hoosiers were still wooing Mendoza.

Edit: Mendoza committed to IU on 12/24/2024 (Merry Xmas, Hoosiers!) - 4 days after IU's season-ending loss to the Domers in the CFP.

Otherwise, I agree with KF's points about Mendoza's decision - we were what, 3-9 with no OL to speak of? Given those factors, the only + in our favor I can think of if hypothetically we did go head-to-head with IU for Mendoza would be that Stanford Hospital's a 5 minute drive from the stadium, vs IU's, which is ~ 50 miles away in Indianapolis, if you get my drift....

Thank you for clarifying, PalmTree. Yes, I was referring to the 11-2 season Indiana had just completed when Mendoza signed for them.

[Goose]

I am bumping this old thread to ask about the rest of the coaching staff going forward. Has Stanford announced who the OC and DC going forward will be? Will the existing ones be retained, or will they be replaced? I would think that by now such a decision should have been made. I assume that recruiting is still going on, so having an answer for the people you are trying to convince to choose Stanford seems extremely important. I can understand not announcing a "new hire" if his team is still playing, but I would think confirming or denying a change would by now be appropriate.

Maybe I just missed it, but Google AI apparently did too. When asked the question "will Stanford replace their OC or DC this year?" Google AI responded with

Stanford has hired a new head coach,
Tavita Pritchard, who previously served as their offensive coordinator (OC) under David Shaw. He will call plays himself, which means the OC role as a separate play-calling position is being replaced or absorbed. 

Regarding the defensive coordinator (DC) position, current information from the search results indicates that Bobby April III held the defensive coordinator title under the previous head coach Frank Reich, and there is no mention of a change in that role as part of the head coaching transition.

No mention of Andy Thompson, although he is still on the Stanford website as "Assistant Head Coach • Co-Defensive Coordinator • Inside Linebackers ". That seems a bit strange to me at this point. Is he staying or going, and if staying, in what capacity?


FWIW Kal has announced their two new coordinators.

[Goose]

I am bumping this old thread to ask about the rest of the coaching staff going forward. Has Stanford announced who the OC and DC going forward will be? Will the existing ones be retained, or will they be replaced? I would think that by now such a decision should have been made. I assume that recruiting is still going on, so having an answer for the people you are trying to convince to choose Stanford seems extremely important. I can understand not announcing a "new hire" if his team is still playing, but I would think confirming or denying a change would by now be appropriate.

Maybe I just missed it, but Google AI apparently did too. When asked the question "will Stanford replace their OC or DC this year?" Google AI responded with

Stanford has hired a new head coach,
Tavita Pritchard, who previously served as their offensive coordinator (OC) under David Shaw. He will call plays himself, which means the OC role as a separate play-calling position is being replaced or absorbed. 

Regarding the defensive coordinator (DC) position, current information from the search results indicates that Bobby April III held the defensive coordinator title under the previous head coach Frank Reich, and there is no mention of a change in that role as part of the head coaching transition.

No mention of Andy Thompson, although he is still on the Stanford website as "Assistant Head Coach • Co-Defensive Coordinator • Inside Linebackers ". That seems a bit strange to me at this point. Is he staying or going, and if staying, in what capacity?


FWIW Kal has announced their two new coordinators.