[Red80]

Get used to it? Impossible. That's why I discontinued season tix (after 48 years) and cut off Buck Club donations. Lousy ROI. I am now a knot-hole kibitzer. A patron no more.

I would never begrudge someone who finds they would rather do something else than watch football, but 48 years of season tickets means that since 1972, when you started, you've witnessed 26 winning seasons of Stanford football if my math is right, of which Shaw has delivered 9.  You kept your season tickets through the decade of the of 80's when despite having John Elway, we had exactly 2 winning seasons (in 1980 and 1986) and endured 1-10 in 1983 and 3-8 in 1989, and then again went right through renewing your season tickets in the 2000's, enduring Buddy and Wlat, including 1-11 in 2006, and only getting winning seasons at the beginning (Willingham's fairwell 2001 season) and end (Harbaugh's 2009 Sun Bowl season) of the decade, and then, after Shaw may be headed to his second losing season in 11 years you decide "nah, I'm done here".

BC

BC, the credit you give Shaw for Harbs' full cupboard is astounding.

I also think his truly effing HORRIBLE game management, which has been going on for years and years, has numbed your mind.  You no longer even appreciate what a competently run offense looks like because we've been force-fed the worst game management in the history of Stanford football for so long now.  You would be shocked at what a competent offensive mind could do with the talent on the O side of the ball, even acknowledging mediocre O-line play.  And there are competent offensive minds all over the college football landscape, in D1, DII, DIII.  

And btw, a big reason for that O mediocrity is guys bailing on Shaw's teams before their eligibility expires.  It is killing this program, and our fearless leader simply shrugs and looks for the next good play call on 2nd and 26 . . . an off tackle run for 3 yards.  Hand me the Sears Cup, I think I'm going to puke.

Again, every single one of us has had our sensory perception of good football bludgeoned to nothingness by this regime.  It's sad.  In so many ways - too many to count, really.

P.S.  None of the above is to let the D off the hook.  They've been pretty bad, too (though perhaps less bad relative to talent).  But seriously, why even bother rushing 3 on pass plays.  It is utterly hopeless.

Fine, start the clock in 2016, and Shaw still has as many winning seasons (4) than we had in the 80's (2) and 2000's (2) combined.  But sure, let's credit everything Shaw has done to Harbaugh.

BC

There is a difference between "credit[ing] everything Shaw has done to Harbaugh" and recognizing that what Shaw inherited at Stanford is not a great measure of Shaw at sea level.  I think we are getting a much clearer picture of what sea level is now for David Shaw.  (And it's not 2011-2015).  

And btw, we weren't paying coaches in the 80s and 2000s what Stanford is paying its HC now.  Thus, I think the "continuity" factor that you say works against all non-Shaw candidates is not the same as it was (certainly not as big a flight risk).  I mean, if you loved coaching college football; and you were making $5+M/year (and Shaw makes MORE than that now), don't you think Stanford would be a very attractive program to run?

Now, maybe you think what we've seen 2016 on is about as good as Stanford fans can expect on a "regular" basis.  And maybe that's a reasonable (if not an optimistic) position.  Moreover, maybe you even think that level of play justifies the wage we've read about.  Fewer people probably do, but let's not pretend they're unrelated things.

It's BS that Shaw's success between 2011-15 is mostly attributable to Harbaugh. Shaw did inherit a loaded 2011 squad led by probably the best QB college football had seen in 25 years. A QB who, in addition to his physical tools, was astounding with his LOS decision-making. And to this day, I wonder how successful Harbaugh would have been at Stanford had he not been able to ink Luck. #12 was a program-changer for Stanford and a career-changer for Harbaugh.

2012 and 2013? It is true that Harbaugh left Shaw with a number a very good defensive players. Offense? Not so much. Take a look at the offensive personnel for those two CHAMPIONSHIP seasons and you'll discover pretty modest talent, with the exception being the TE position. Shaw made the decision to go with a RS freshman QB (His recruit) about midway through the season because the other QBs (Harbaugh's recruits) were not very good and Stanford was probably headed to a minor bowl with Nunes at the helm. 

In addition to having the balls to go with an inexperienced QB freshman at midseason, Shaw (and Pep Hamilton) made the very wise choice to emphasize a power running scheme that took full advantage of the basically average talent that they had. They took Power O to the next level, with 8-man OL sets, featuring 3 TEs, 295 lb. wingbacks, and stud fullbacks acting as crowbars. The QB was under center most of the time, which also set-up effective play-action passing...something Stanford fans have not seen for a few years.

Stanford won back-to-back titles, in a conference that was MUCH better than it currently is, because of very smart and decisive scheming offensively. Pretty? Crowd pleasing? No, but brutally effective. The only people who hated Stanford's offense more than the "I Want My Offense, I Want My Offense" crowd, were the coaches, players and fans of their opponents. Not so much because of what Shaw's offense did to their defense, but because of what it did to THEIR offense. Talented, high-powered offenses like Oregon, USC, and UCLA were forced to the sidelines for many minutes at a time, which not only kept Stanford's defense fresh and rested, but it also disrupted the pace and tempo of opposing offenses, offenses that thrived on playing fast and running 90+ plays p/g. Stanford slowed the game down to a snail's pace, physically punished opposing front-sevens, while frustrating and discombobulating their offenses. It worked beautifully, for the most part. Do I think Stanford would have gone to two straight Rose Bowls those years running any other kind of offense? HELL NO! Do I think Harbaugh would have led those teams to Pasadena? I doubt it. 

Harbaugh gets credit for Stanford's 2015 squad that finished #3? How? That team was 100% Shaw's players and coaching. Offensively, it was the ideal combination of ball control Power O, along with home run explosiveness from anywhere on the field. It remains "The Model" for Stanford's offense going forward, imo. Of course, it requires pursuing and inking the right kind of Jimmy and Joe to make it go. This is where Shaw is failing badly the past few years. Stanford used to be different, unique, offensively. Hard to prepare for. Since 2018 they're really running the same stuff as most of their opponents, to their detriment.

Recruiting and realigning is the way to reverse the program's fortunes.

[Red80]

Get used to it? Impossible. That's why I discontinued season tix (after 48 years) and cut off Buck Club donations. Lousy ROI. I am now a knot-hole kibitzer. A patron no more.

I would never begrudge someone who finds they would rather do something else than watch football, but 48 years of season tickets means that since 1972, when you started, you've witnessed 26 winning seasons of Stanford football if my math is right, of which Shaw has delivered 9.  You kept your season tickets through the decade of the of 80's when despite having John Elway, we had exactly 2 winning seasons (in 1980 and 1986) and endured 1-10 in 1983 and 3-8 in 1989, and then again went right through renewing your season tickets in the 2000's, enduring Buddy and Wlat, including 1-11 in 2006, and only getting winning seasons at the beginning (Willingham's fairwell 2001 season) and end (Harbaugh's 2009 Sun Bowl season) of the decade, and then, after Shaw may be headed to his second losing season in 11 years you decide "nah, I'm done here".

BC

BC, the credit you give Shaw for Harbs' full cupboard is astounding.

I also think his truly effing HORRIBLE game management, which has been going on for years and years, has numbed your mind.  You no longer even appreciate what a competently run offense looks like because we've been force-fed the worst game management in the history of Stanford football for so long now.  You would be shocked at what a competent offensive mind could do with the talent on the O side of the ball, even acknowledging mediocre O-line play.  And there are competent offensive minds all over the college football landscape, in D1, DII, DIII.  

And btw, a big reason for that O mediocrity is guys bailing on Shaw's teams before their eligibility expires.  It is killing this program, and our fearless leader simply shrugs and looks for the next good play call on 2nd and 26 . . . an off tackle run for 3 yards.  Hand me the Sears Cup, I think I'm going to puke.

Again, every single one of us has had our sensory perception of good football bludgeoned to nothingness by this regime.  It's sad.  In so many ways - too many to count, really.

P.S.  None of the above is to let the D off the hook.  They've been pretty bad, too (though perhaps less bad relative to talent).  But seriously, why even bother rushing 3 on pass plays.  It is utterly hopeless.

Fine, start the clock in 2016, and Shaw still has as many winning seasons (4) than we had in the 80's (2) and 2000's (2) combined.  But sure, let's credit everything Shaw has done to Harbaugh.

BC

There is a difference between "credit[ing] everything Shaw has done to Harbaugh" and recognizing that what Shaw inherited at Stanford is not a great measure of Shaw at sea level.  I think we are getting a much clearer picture of what sea level is now for David Shaw.  (And it's not 2011-2015).  

And btw, we weren't paying coaches in the 80s and 2000s what Stanford is paying its HC now.  Thus, I think the "continuity" factor that you say works against all non-Shaw candidates is not the same as it was (certainly not as big a flight risk).  I mean, if you loved coaching college football; and you were making $5+M/year (and Shaw makes MORE than that now), don't you think Stanford would be a very attractive program to run?

Now, maybe you think what we've seen 2016 on is about as good as Stanford fans can expect on a "regular" basis.  And maybe that's a reasonable (if not an optimistic) position.  Moreover, maybe you even think that level of play justifies the wage we've read about.  Fewer people probably do, but let's not pretend they're unrelated things.

It's BS that Shaw's success between 2011-15 is mostly attributable to Harbaugh. Shaw did inherit a loaded 2011 squad led by probably the best QB college football had seen in 25 years. A QB who, in addition to his physical tools, was astounding with his LOS decision-making. And to this day, I wonder how successful Harbaugh would have been at Stanford had he not been able to ink Luck. #12 was a program-changer for Stanford and a career-changer for Harbaugh.

2012 and 2013? It is true that Harbaugh left Shaw with a number a very good defensive players. Offense? Not so much. Take a look at the offensive personnel for those two CHAMPIONSHIP seasons and you'll discover pretty modest talent, with the exception being the TE position. Shaw made the decision to go with a RS freshman QB (His recruit) about midway through the season because the other QBs (Harbaugh's recruits) were not very good and Stanford was probably headed to a minor bowl with Nunes at the helm. 

In addition to having the balls to go with an inexperienced QB freshman at midseason, Shaw (and Pep Hamilton) made the very wise choice to emphasize a power running scheme that took full advantage of the basically average talent that they had. They took Power O to the next level, with 8-man OL sets, featuring 3 TEs, 295 lb. wingbacks, and stud fullbacks acting as crowbars. The QB was under center most of the time, which also set-up effective play-action passing...something Stanford fans have not seen for a few years.

Stanford won back-to-back titles, in a conference that was MUCH better than it currently is, because of very smart and decisive scheming offensively. Pretty? Crowd pleasing? No, but brutally effective. The only people who hated Stanford's offense more than the "I Want My Offense, I Want My Offense" crowd, were the coaches, players and fans of their opponents. Not so much because of what Shaw's offense did to their defense, but because of what it did to THEIR offense. Talented, high-powered offenses like Oregon, USC, and UCLA were forced to the sidelines for many minutes at a time, which not only kept Stanford's defense fresh and rested, but it also disrupted the pace and tempo of opposing offenses, offenses that thrived on playing fast and running 90+ plays p/g. Stanford slowed the game down to a snail's pace, physically punished opposing front-sevens, while frustrating and discombobulating their offenses. It worked beautifully, for the most part. Do I think Stanford would have gone to two straight Rose Bowls those years running any other kind of offense? HELL NO! Do I think Harbaugh would have led those teams to Pasadena? I doubt it. 

Harbaugh gets credit for Stanford's 2015 squad that finished #3? How? That team was 100% Shaw's players and coaching. Offensively, it was the ideal combination of ball control Power O, along with home run explosiveness from anywhere on the field. It remains "The Model" for Stanford's offense going forward, imo. Of course, it requires pursuing and inking the right kind of Jimmy and Joe to make it go. This is where Shaw is failing badly the past few years. Stanford used to be different, unique, offensively. Hard to prepare for. Since 2018 they're really running the same stuff as most of their opponents, to their detriment.

Recruiting and realigning is the way to reverse the program's fortunes.