[OutsiderFan]

Why would you exclude recruiting? Bizarre.

Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.

I've been as down on Shaw's game management as anyone; always taking the first half kickoff, not going for it on 4th down enough, taking too long to get plays called, wasting time before calling timeouts, running into stacked boxes, etc.

But the reality is how can you be that bad when the results are what they are?  I mean maybe if he makes different decisions he's looked at as a better game manager, but he doesn't win as much?  Sure he may lose some games he could have won by being a better game manager, but it's also possible (likely) there are games he has won that he would have lost if he didn't stick to his philosophy.

At the end of the day, the record is what matters.  If a coach is 6th in win percentage among active coaches, that's pretty f'ing exceptional, no matter how he is perceived to be as a game manager.

[OutsiderFan]

Why would you exclude recruiting? Bizarre.

Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.

I've been as down on Shaw's game management as anyone; always taking the first half kickoff, not going for it on 4th down enough, taking too long to get plays called, wasting time before calling timeouts, running into stacked boxes, etc.

But the reality is how can you be that bad when the results are what they are?  I mean maybe if he makes different decisions he's looked at as a better game manager, but he doesn't win as much?  Sure he may lose some games he could have won by being a better game manager, but it's also possible (likely) there are games he has won that he would have lost if he didn't stick to his philosophy.

At the end of the day, the record is what matters.  If a coach is 6th in win percentage among active coaches, that's pretty f'ing exceptional, no matter how he is perceived to be as a game manager.