[teejers1]

I think there's far more to this than any of us really know. I would venture a guess that risk management is a big factor in his comp. In other sports, unethical behavior, cheating, etc. will slightly dent the Stanford reputation. Muir won't lose his job if the fencing coach does something stupid. If the Stanford head football coach does something stupid, it puts the university alongside the USC's of the world. What's the cost of tarnishing the Stanford reputation? Likely many times $8M. Shaw is a perfect fit. He's won 70+% of his games, is well spoken, professional, politically correct, and squeaky clean. Muir and his higher-ups can sleep well at night knowing Shaw is at the helm. They will pay dearly to keep him. I agree - from the fan/alum point of view it's egregious, but from the administration point of view it's probably money well spent.

Good point about the risk management. Part of this may be Muir is terrified of having to replace Shaw with someone who checks the boxes you mention. Shaw certainly has not developed an obvious successor. Muir may feel it is better to overpay than have to find Shaw's replacement. MBB, another high profile sport, has been tough for Muir to figure out even though he is supposed to be a basketball guy. Football may even be more daunting to him.

The Shawpologists and Rationalizers have reached new highs (I'd say lows) in this thread.

THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SHAW MAKING $9M/year.  PERIOD.  Even taking away the $2.2M in "one-time payment," he is vastly and grossly overpaid.  And the "pay because we need a good image coach?" Risk management?  Are you serious?  Did Stanford suffer at all from such considerations in a coaching hire?  Wlat?  He came on tail of Buddy - back to back disastrous football hires.  The "damage" done was on the gridiron, not on "risk management" or image.  Harbaugh? Dude was a walking character/risk management problem.  And all he did was raise a program from the dead.  Denny Green?  He had his own problems and the team and program was just fine.  Good god, quit rationalizing this outrage.

Think about this "need a good rep/squeaky clean coach argument."  It amounts to REWARDING a coach for only recruiting "Stanford self-selectors" (they're smart, driven, never get into trouble).  And for not doing anything illegal (as if in this NIL world anything will be found illegal).  And don't worry about on-field and in-stands results.  

Oh . . .that's SO valuable.  Let's throw $9M at someone to be a lazy-ass recruiter, a "don't run afoul of NCAA rules by doing something 'out there'" (whatever that means in this day and age), and then use that laziness as the basis for paying him so much.  

Good grief . . . 

BTW, Phogge is right.  Nothing here matters.  This is so distasteful that it might actually make me stop showing up on The Farm on Saturdays (and if I didn't organize our tailgating group - a rather large one in CTG - then I'd make that principled stand).  This is so . . . dirty.  And an unmitigated disaster from an optics standpoint, given all that has gone on in the AD lately.

[teejers1]

I think there's far more to this than any of us really know. I would venture a guess that risk management is a big factor in his comp. In other sports, unethical behavior, cheating, etc. will slightly dent the Stanford reputation. Muir won't lose his job if the fencing coach does something stupid. If the Stanford head football coach does something stupid, it puts the university alongside the USC's of the world. What's the cost of tarnishing the Stanford reputation? Likely many times $8M. Shaw is a perfect fit. He's won 70+% of his games, is well spoken, professional, politically correct, and squeaky clean. Muir and his higher-ups can sleep well at night knowing Shaw is at the helm. They will pay dearly to keep him. I agree - from the fan/alum point of view it's egregious, but from the administration point of view it's probably money well spent.

Good point about the risk management. Part of this may be Muir is terrified of having to replace Shaw with someone who checks the boxes you mention. Shaw certainly has not developed an obvious successor. Muir may feel it is better to overpay than have to find Shaw's replacement. MBB, another high profile sport, has been tough for Muir to figure out even though he is supposed to be a basketball guy. Football may even be more daunting to him.

The Shawpologists and Rationalizers have reached new highs (I'd say lows) in this thread.

THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SHAW MAKING $9M/year.  PERIOD.  Even taking away the $2.2M in "one-time payment," he is vastly and grossly overpaid.  And the "pay because we need a good image coach?" Risk management?  Are you serious?  Did Stanford suffer at all from such considerations in a coaching hire?  Wlat?  He came on tail of Buddy - back to back disastrous football hires.  The "damage" done was on the gridiron, not on "risk management" or image.  Harbaugh? Dude was a walking character/risk management problem.  And all he did was raise a program from the dead.  Denny Green?  He had his own problems and the team and program was just fine.  Good god, quit rationalizing this outrage.

Think about this "need a good rep/squeaky clean coach argument."  It amounts to REWARDING a coach for only recruiting "Stanford self-selectors" (they're smart, driven, never get into trouble).  And for not doing anything illegal (as if in this NIL world anything will be found illegal).  And don't worry about on-field and in-stands results.  

Oh . . .that's SO valuable.  Let's throw $9M at someone to be a lazy-ass recruiter, a "don't run afoul of NCAA rules by doing something 'out there'" (whatever that means in this day and age), and then use that laziness as the basis for paying him so much.  

Good grief . . . 

BTW, Phogge is right.  Nothing here matters.  This is so distasteful that it might actually make me stop showing up on The Farm on Saturdays (and if I didn't organize our tailgating group - a rather large one in CTG - then I'd make that principled stand).  This is so . . . dirty.  And an unmitigated disaster from an optics standpoint, given all that has gone on in the AD lately.