[BostonCard]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

All that is missing is a "natty"?!!??!!

There are two problems with that observation.
1 - For Notre Dame and its network of followers 12 years without a national title is far too long.
2 - Ironically most ESPN types believe Kelly realized that the admission limitations at Notre Dame made it too difficult to win a "natty" while at Notre Dame.

Though, his departure is a great reminder for everyone on this board.
 
There will always be some other place that will offer a head coach more money than whatever Stanford alums think is a lot of money.  And, assuming the coach can get the recruits for their system, it will be easier (possible) to win a natty at several other schools.  Successful coaches want to win, so they will leave ASAP.  (see Walsh I, Green & Harbaugh)

So, it's your belief that Kelly was receiving wrath from fans for not winning enough and that caused tension in his professional relationship at ND?  Could be - but I doubt that's true.  He has won a ton, including the last several years, and has delivered ND to title game and a couple CFPs.  That's pretty incredible, especially for a school with some admissions limitations.

The problem with the Stanford-as-a-stepping-stone assumption for all coaches is that such was more applicable under the Old Model - you know, where Stanford University was opposed to having its head football coach show up on the 990.  Those days are long gone.  I think there are lots of coaches out there who would view Stanford as an ideal long-term coaching destination for all the reasons Shaw does (the guy is not dumb, after all - he "gets" the many benefits of the Stanford HC gig).  Are you going to lose guys (who hate recruiting) to the NFL?  Probably.  Are you going to lose guys who are only after top dollar?  Maybe.  But given that HC salary at college level is exceeding that of the pros, both considerations are not as big a hurdle as previously believed.  

Regardless, there is something to be said about a job (a) that pays very well ($3M-$6M), (b) that has good kids who do not get into off-field trouble, © that has an institutional draw that is second-to-none, making recruiting easier, (d) where 6-6, with occasional 9 win seasons, will keep most everyone happy, and (e) where AD and fan pressure is low/non-existent.  Just put an entertaining product on the field and win some (not a ton), and you're in good stead.

There are people out there who love coaching in college ranks who would find Stanford an ideal destination.  That's my belief, anyway.

I wouldn’t count on being able to get a replacement coach onto the form 990, which is about $2.5 million.  I think a lot of people at Stanford had the same reaction that a lot of people here did to Shaw’s salary, except that their reaction wasn’t grounded on his poor on-field results.

BC

[BostonCard]

As to administration antipathy towards him it's hard to imagine that being an issue as long as he kept winning 10-11 games each year.

Really? Trust me, even at Stanford there is significant (though not overwhelming) antipathy to sports in general and to football in particular. Lots of people just don't believe athletics belongs at a University. Add to that the cost of sports and the (perceived at least) inordinate power of the Athletic Department its is a big issue to many people. It is in the mix at many schools, Kal being an example where it has significant effect. Probably it is a very, very small minority at LSU. Notre Dame has always existed in tension between what the administration wants to be true and what it takes to win. To what degree that bothered Kelly is anybody's guess, but it for sure exists.

I get your point in the abstract, but don't you think Kelly has won an awful lot at ND?  All that's missing from his resume is a Natty, but only 1 of those go out/year.  I think his level of winning was easily "sufficient" for the ND Faithful.  So I'm not sure where the tension would be in the real here and now between Kelly and ND.  Have you heard that Kelly asked that a player or 2 or 3 be admitted and was told "no" by the ND higher-ups?  

Could be true, I suppose . . .

All that is missing is a "natty"?!!??!!

There are two problems with that observation.
1 - For Notre Dame and its network of followers 12 years without a national title is far too long.
2 - Ironically most ESPN types believe Kelly realized that the admission limitations at Notre Dame made it too difficult to win a "natty" while at Notre Dame.

Though, his departure is a great reminder for everyone on this board.
 
There will always be some other place that will offer a head coach more money than whatever Stanford alums think is a lot of money.  And, assuming the coach can get the recruits for their system, it will be easier (possible) to win a natty at several other schools.  Successful coaches want to win, so they will leave ASAP.  (see Walsh I, Green & Harbaugh)

So, it's your belief that Kelly was receiving wrath from fans for not winning enough and that caused tension in his professional relationship at ND?  Could be - but I doubt that's true.  He has won a ton, including the last several years, and has delivered ND to title game and a couple CFPs.  That's pretty incredible, especially for a school with some admissions limitations.

The problem with the Stanford-as-a-stepping-stone assumption for all coaches is that such was more applicable under the Old Model - you know, where Stanford University was opposed to having its head football coach show up on the 990.  Those days are long gone.  I think there are lots of coaches out there who would view Stanford as an ideal long-term coaching destination for all the reasons Shaw does (the guy is not dumb, after all - he "gets" the many benefits of the Stanford HC gig).  Are you going to lose guys (who hate recruiting) to the NFL?  Probably.  Are you going to lose guys who are only after top dollar?  Maybe.  But given that HC salary at college level is exceeding that of the pros, both considerations are not as big a hurdle as previously believed.  

Regardless, there is something to be said about a job (a) that pays very well ($3M-$6M), (b) that has good kids who do not get into off-field trouble, © that has an institutional draw that is second-to-none, making recruiting easier, (d) where 6-6, with occasional 9 win seasons, will keep most everyone happy, and (e) where AD and fan pressure is low/non-existent.  Just put an entertaining product on the field and win some (not a ton), and you're in good stead.

There are people out there who love coaching in college ranks who would find Stanford an ideal destination.  That's my belief, anyway.

I wouldn’t count on being able to get a replacement coach onto the form 990, which is about $2.5 million.  I think a lot of people at Stanford had the same reaction that a lot of people here did to Shaw’s salary, except that their reaction wasn’t grounded on his poor on-field results.

BC