[teejers1]

I'm surprised Teejers hasn't penned a "why this is a disaster for Stanford football" post yet.  It would at least contain a kernel of truth to it, which is this.  As long as Helton was coach, USC would likely underachieve and remain mediocre, at least compared to expectations.  I don't think that USC will be able to hire Petersen (I can't imagine a worse fit, other than maybe Shaw), or another big name coach.  But, while the most likely outcome is that USC will hire another underachieving coach (as their last three have been), there's always the possibility that they luck into another Pete Carroll (famously, their third choice after two others said no to the job).  A USC playing to its potential, especially while Oregon is resurgent, would narrow the pathways to success for Stanford, especially because we do sometimes go head-to-head for recruits against USC.

On the other hand, in the short to medium term, there will be some advantages.  A shaken up SC will probably play better and might deal some losses to other Pac-12 North teams.  Secondly, there will be some recruiting disarray this year, and though we aren't going up against USC for more than a couple recruits, if it helps us land Bailey, for example, that's a good thing for Stanford.  Third, the new coach will likely be installing a new system.  That will be the third offensive system in 4 years for SC, so they will have to re-learn it (look at how long it took Chip Kelly to get things in order at UCLA).  If they don't, and keep with their current system, I think it will actually be better for us in the mid-term; USC is a team that will always be able to recruit well at the skill positions, and a raid type system will underutilize their talented running backs.  In fact, I think that's what saved us Saturday; a more balanced attack by USC would have been able to wear down our offensive line and forced us to bring more players into the box, which would have opened things up for their receivers.  But the coaching staff never adapted to our defensive scheme.  But all that is to say why I think, on balance, Helton leaving is a bad thing for Stanford.  Shaw's final record against Helton was 4-3, bracketing a pair of decisive wins, and I think Shaw would likely have continued to win more than he lost.

But the decision having been made, let's hope they hire some other coach on a failing upward trajectory.

BC

1.  Could have sworn that I posted about wanting Helton at SC for as long as possible;
2.  Have separately opined that Urban Meyer would be a problem hire; but
3.  Now think Fickell will be the guy, and I think he is a very good coach (so I'm not thrilled about that prospect, either).

4.  Heard Colin Cowherd opine that SC should "go pro" and hire Doug Pederson because he doesn't need "control" like a lot of the prima donna college coaches do, won't be "freaked out" by kids making $$, NIL or otherwise, and big metropolitan college teams (Miami, UCLA, SC) have succeeded with pro colleges historically.  I haven't given the pro-versus-college coach angle much thought and have no clue how Pederson would do at SC.  I think reasonably well (which means a notch better than Helton, but perhaps not Petey heights).

[teejers1]

I'm surprised Teejers hasn't penned a "why this is a disaster for Stanford football" post yet.  It would at least contain a kernel of truth to it, which is this.  As long as Helton was coach, USC would likely underachieve and remain mediocre, at least compared to expectations.  I don't think that USC will be able to hire Petersen (I can't imagine a worse fit, other than maybe Shaw), or another big name coach.  But, while the most likely outcome is that USC will hire another underachieving coach (as their last three have been), there's always the possibility that they luck into another Pete Carroll (famously, their third choice after two others said no to the job).  A USC playing to its potential, especially while Oregon is resurgent, would narrow the pathways to success for Stanford, especially because we do sometimes go head-to-head for recruits against USC.

On the other hand, in the short to medium term, there will be some advantages.  A shaken up SC will probably play better and might deal some losses to other Pac-12 North teams.  Secondly, there will be some recruiting disarray this year, and though we aren't going up against USC for more than a couple recruits, if it helps us land Bailey, for example, that's a good thing for Stanford.  Third, the new coach will likely be installing a new system.  That will be the third offensive system in 4 years for SC, so they will have to re-learn it (look at how long it took Chip Kelly to get things in order at UCLA).  If they don't, and keep with their current system, I think it will actually be better for us in the mid-term; USC is a team that will always be able to recruit well at the skill positions, and a raid type system will underutilize their talented running backs.  In fact, I think that's what saved us Saturday; a more balanced attack by USC would have been able to wear down our offensive line and forced us to bring more players into the box, which would have opened things up for their receivers.  But the coaching staff never adapted to our defensive scheme.  But all that is to say why I think, on balance, Helton leaving is a bad thing for Stanford.  Shaw's final record against Helton was 4-3, bracketing a pair of decisive wins, and I think Shaw would likely have continued to win more than he lost.

But the decision having been made, let's hope they hire some other coach on a failing upward trajectory.

BC

1.  Could have sworn that I posted about wanting Helton at SC for as long as possible;
2.  Have separately opined that Urban Meyer would be a problem hire; but
3.  Now think Fickell will be the guy, and I think he is a very good coach (so I'm not thrilled about that prospect, either).

4.  Heard Colin Cowherd opine that SC should "go pro" and hire Doug Pederson because he doesn't need "control" like a lot of the prima donna college coaches do, won't be "freaked out" by kids making $$, NIL or otherwise, and big metropolitan college teams (Miami, UCLA, SC) have succeeded with pro colleges historically.  I haven't given the pro-versus-college coach angle much thought and have no clue how Pederson would do at SC.  I think reasonably well (which means a notch better than Helton, but perhaps not Petey heights).