[teejers1]

C'mon, teejers.  You know me better than that.

What has always bothered me about this whole discussion is the fact that Shaw's pretty good record [indeed, arguably the best over a several year period of any Stanford coach ever] prior to the past few years is just as much SHAW's record as the inarguably dismal record over this season [and, I'll even concede the past two seasons as well]. That pretty good record was NOT Harbaugh's record.  Harbaugh left.  Harbaugh didn't coach those teams -- Shaw did.  Shaw had several double digit win seasons.  Shaw "built" that record; Harbaugh didn't, any more than Teevens and Harris "built" Harbaugh's record.  Harbaugh chose to leave Stanford, which, of course, he had every right to do.  More power to him.  But, since he decided on his own [and wasn't forced] to leave Stanford, I can't understand the continuing almost fanatical devotion to him - particularly in the face of a program that for many thereafter, under Shaw' guidance, managed to accomplish a number of goals that Harbaugh's teams didn't.

As for the future, it might very well be time for new leadership.  Of course, were we having this discussion a few years ago, I've little doubt that the Shaw critics on the Board would be going crazy for the obvious choice: Scott Frost [whose doing a pretty good Jerrod Haase impression in a different venue].

That's all I've got.  See you at the game tonight?  :-)

I don't have the energy to repeat all the reasons why Shaw's W/L record from 2011 to 2020 is not fully "his" or "what he built."  
Suffice it to say that the further you get out from Harbaugh's actual recruits (that played until 2014, at least); AND the recruits that Shaw was able to land with the FULLY LOADED roster Shaw inherited and won with in 2010 and 2011 (do you not think that powerhouse roster allowed Shaw to project Stanford as a NY6 Bowl contender?) - which takes you to 2015/2016 - the closer you get to Shaw at his sea level and what he "built."

And my working assumption is that Shaw underperforms to talent, regardless of roster strength, which is certainly bolstered by recent performance, per prior post on recruiting rankings.

Or you can always ask yourselves these questions:

How does this regime recruit 4 and 5 stars?
How does this regime do in recruiting diamonds in the rough?
How does this regime do in coaching up all those they recruit?
How does this regime compare with the above as against the prior regime?

You know my answers to those questions.  

You may think that's a "fanatical devotion" to a long-gone coach, which is decidedly NOT the case (good riddance to Harbaugh - he lost me when he left Stanford for Kansas).  Rather, it's an acknowledgement that despite the W/L record, the flaws in this coach are manifold and have been evident for years.  Now that the STUD recruits no longer consider Stanford (because Stanford is no longer a NY6 team, thanks to Shaw), we see lesser players not maximally coached up, and the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost.  And it's really ugly.

And btw, Stanford will always (or did always, anyway) have a baseline appeal to certain football high-academic ballers.  The question is, to what extent can they draw in those not so-inclined?  How do you think Shaw is doing on that front?

Last point on performance vs. recruiting rankings.  If a coach is good at finding the diamonds, and the roster left for the next coach has said diamonds, then next coach will reap the benefits of that in any comparison of "performance vs. recruiting rankings."  That is also a consideration in any recruiting vs. performance analysis.

[teejers1]

C'mon, teejers.  You know me better than that.

What has always bothered me about this whole discussion is the fact that Shaw's pretty good record [indeed, arguably the best over a several year period of any Stanford coach ever] prior to the past few years is just as much SHAW's record as the inarguably dismal record over this season [and, I'll even concede the past two seasons as well]. That pretty good record was NOT Harbaugh's record.  Harbaugh left.  Harbaugh didn't coach those teams -- Shaw did.  Shaw had several double digit win seasons.  Shaw "built" that record; Harbaugh didn't, any more than Teevens and Harris "built" Harbaugh's record.  Harbaugh chose to leave Stanford, which, of course, he had every right to do.  More power to him.  But, since he decided on his own [and wasn't forced] to leave Stanford, I can't understand the continuing almost fanatical devotion to him - particularly in the face of a program that for many thereafter, under Shaw' guidance, managed to accomplish a number of goals that Harbaugh's teams didn't.

As for the future, it might very well be time for new leadership.  Of course, were we having this discussion a few years ago, I've little doubt that the Shaw critics on the Board would be going crazy for the obvious choice: Scott Frost [whose doing a pretty good Jerrod Haase impression in a different venue].

That's all I've got.  See you at the game tonight?  :-)

I don't have the energy to repeat all the reasons why Shaw's W/L record from 2011 to 2020 is not fully "his" or "what he built."  
Suffice it to say that the further you get out from Harbaugh's actual recruits (that played until 2014, at least); AND the recruits that Shaw was able to land with the FULLY LOADED roster Shaw inherited and won with in 2010 and 2011 (do you not think that powerhouse roster allowed Shaw to project Stanford as a NY6 Bowl contender?) - which takes you to 2015/2016 - the closer you get to Shaw at his sea level and what he "built."

And my working assumption is that Shaw underperforms to talent, regardless of roster strength, which is certainly bolstered by recent performance, per prior post on recruiting rankings.

Or you can always ask yourselves these questions:

How does this regime recruit 4 and 5 stars?
How does this regime do in recruiting diamonds in the rough?
How does this regime do in coaching up all those they recruit?
How does this regime compare with the above as against the prior regime?

You know my answers to those questions.  

You may think that's a "fanatical devotion" to a long-gone coach, which is decidedly NOT the case (good riddance to Harbaugh - he lost me when he left Stanford for Kansas).  Rather, it's an acknowledgement that despite the W/L record, the flaws in this coach are manifold and have been evident for years.  Now that the STUD recruits no longer consider Stanford (because Stanford is no longer a NY6 team, thanks to Shaw), we see lesser players not maximally coached up, and the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost.  And it's really ugly.

And btw, Stanford will always (or did always, anyway) have a baseline appeal to certain football high-academic ballers.  The question is, to what extent can they draw in those not so-inclined?  How do you think Shaw is doing on that front?

Last point on performance vs. recruiting rankings.  If a coach is good at finding the diamonds, and the roster left for the next coach has said diamonds, then next coach will reap the benefits of that in any comparison of "performance vs. recruiting rankings."  That is also a consideration in any recruiting vs. performance analysis.