[slide]

....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?
....

give or take, 120 college coaches make less annually than Shaw and probably more than that face more scrutiny from the AD, media and fans on a day-to-day basis.  

Stanford is paying a top 10 salary; you'd think we'd be close to a top 10 product.  we may, may be in Sagarin's top 50 now and slipping....

[slide]

....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?
....

give or take, 120 college coaches make less annually than Shaw and probably more than that face more scrutiny from the AD, media and fans on a day-to-day basis.  

Stanford is paying a top 10 salary; you'd think we'd be close to a top 10 product.  we may, may be in Sagarin's top 50 now and slipping....