[Goose]

I would keep Shaw but continually evaluate his job performance. I would also examine my options. When I have what I think is a better alternative I would replace Shaw. This should always be the model, whether the coach has a "good" year or a "bad" year. When the coach has bad years, the threshold of "better alternative" naturally is lower.
I really don't place any stock in who he hires or who he fires per se. It is the result that counts. Re-arranging the deck chairs or even buying new deck chairs doesn't patch the hole in the hull. I also will evaluate his analysis of the problems and his proposed solutions/work-arounds. If I have questions he needs to have at least reasonable answers. I don't expect this discussion will be shared with the public/news media.
Unfortunately, I therefore can't say to Shaw "Get to .500 next year or else your gone". Or else for Stanford may be a journey into the wilderness. I won't start that journey unless I think I see a way through.

So because you don't have the next guy signed and sealed - who you believe is better than Shaw - then it's okay to continue on with the utter garbage we saw this season?

Okay . . . got it.

Signed and sealed probably not. A handshake agreement, absolutely. You see, I intend to run a competent Athletic Department. I am not going to put myself in the position of having fired my coach and now have to negotiate with a guy I want that KNOWS I have to hire somebody. Doing a coaching search "under the radar" is tricky, but U$C sure managed it with Lincoln Riley. What did they gain by firing Helton after the Stanford game? The only possible benefit was any recruit that would come to U$C having no idea at all who the coach would be and wouldn't with Helton still there. I would risk it. The U$C AD fired him because the public pressure was allowed to get out of control. They should have quietly moved at the end of the previous year.
There are situations where the AD has to fire a coach because of misconduct. No help for that. But really there is no other reason to do so until you have a replacement. This is especially true for a place like Stanford where the pool of acceptable candidates isn't real large. I don't want to be forced to hire somebody that I don't think is an upgrade simply because I had to hire somebody, anybody, to fill the void.

[Goose]

I would keep Shaw but continually evaluate his job performance. I would also examine my options. When I have what I think is a better alternative I would replace Shaw. This should always be the model, whether the coach has a "good" year or a "bad" year. When the coach has bad years, the threshold of "better alternative" naturally is lower.
I really don't place any stock in who he hires or who he fires per se. It is the result that counts. Re-arranging the deck chairs or even buying new deck chairs doesn't patch the hole in the hull. I also will evaluate his analysis of the problems and his proposed solutions/work-arounds. If I have questions he needs to have at least reasonable answers. I don't expect this discussion will be shared with the public/news media.
Unfortunately, I therefore can't say to Shaw "Get to .500 next year or else your gone". Or else for Stanford may be a journey into the wilderness. I won't start that journey unless I think I see a way through.

So because you don't have the next guy signed and sealed - who you believe is better than Shaw - then it's okay to continue on with the utter garbage we saw this season?

Okay . . . got it.

Signed and sealed probably not. A handshake agreement, absolutely. You see, I intend to run a competent Athletic Department. I am not going to put myself in the position of having fired my coach and now have to negotiate with a guy I want that KNOWS I have to hire somebody. Doing a coaching search "under the radar" is tricky, but U$C sure managed it with Lincoln Riley. What did they gain by firing Helton after the Stanford game? The only possible benefit was any recruit that would come to U$C having no idea at all who the coach would be and wouldn't with Helton still there. I would risk it. The U$C AD fired him because the public pressure was allowed to get out of control. They should have quietly moved at the end of the previous year.
There are situations where the AD has to fire a coach because of misconduct. No help for that. But really there is no other reason to do so until you have a replacement. This is especially true for a place like Stanford where the pool of acceptable candidates isn't real large. I don't want to be forced to hire somebody that I don't think is an upgrade simply because I had to hire somebody, anybody, to fill the void.