[McKenwood]

Someone in another thread said that an informed, critical thread with better analytical content would be a worthwhile forum for discussing the football program. Sounds reasonable to me. 
Whatever such a thread might include, however, it presumably would NOT be mentions of luxury penthouses, plumbing, “hubris and complacency brigades”, motion pictures, or, for that matter, Ferraris, Yugos, or other hackneyed analogies.

I'm happy to engage. One line responses about Shaw having done it don't help create an informed, critical thread. Nor does cherry picking terms from other posts make for a viable discussion.

I would like an in-depth discussion of where Stanford goes from here with its football program. Shaw boosters, of which you appear to be one, would be valuable for that discussion. But I have not seen anyone put forth a cogent case for staying the course other than he had some good seasons five years ago.

[McKenwood]

Someone in another thread said that an informed, critical thread with better analytical content would be a worthwhile forum for discussing the football program. Sounds reasonable to me. 
Whatever such a thread might include, however, it presumably would NOT be mentions of luxury penthouses, plumbing, “hubris and complacency brigades”, motion pictures, or, for that matter, Ferraris, Yugos, or other hackneyed analogies.

I'm happy to engage. One line responses about Shaw having done it don't help create an informed, critical thread. Nor does cherry picking terms from other posts make for a viable discussion.

I would like an in-depth discussion of where Stanford goes from here with its football program. Shaw boosters, of which you appear to be one, would be valuable for that discussion. But I have not seen anyone put forth a cogent case for staying the course other than he had some good seasons five years ago.