[teejers1]

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

You are absolutely correct that lots of people questioned why a football coach would be so much better compensated than academic positions are. While I think it will be possible to get the next coach onto the form 990, I suspect there will be more vocal opposition than ever before.

---

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 think you have just described the recipe to hire Buddy Teevens. First of all, no coach with an ounce of ambition/self respect is going to take a job where he hopes to go 6-6 most of the time. Second of all, such a coach is never going to be able to attract any athletes who aspire to win games. You have to at least make it seem like you think you can win. Guys will respond to EUTM if you can say "Come build something here", but if you can't credibly say that, they won't. Stanford institutional draw is the silver lining in the of immense proportions rain cloud that says 99% of the athletes available can't be recruited because they can't get in. No way is that an "advantage". You make the best of it. 

You must have heard David Shaw recount the experience he had when one recruit turned down Stanford, telling Shaw that the Stanford team was not good enough to showcase the players talents. Shaw said he had to privately agree with that player, and that Shaw never wanted to be in that position again. Unfortunately, now he certainly is back there. The coach you describe would be permanently there. At least Shaw wanted out of it.

The fact that AD pressure and fan support is "almost non-existent" also means that if you need support from either one, you probably won't get much of it, especially if you have generated no credibility by at least making a credible attempt at winning. I think there are guys who will come to Stanford expecting it to be a stepping stone. I think there are other guys who will come to Stanford fully expecting to stay a long time but leave because they get an opportunity they just can't refuse. Others will come to Stanford and fail totally. There may be a very, very few that will come to Stanford, have success and chose to stay. They didn't come to go 6-6. When that (or worse)starts happening, well, here we are. How does this end? We will see.

Oh, please.  Nice straw man.  I never said a coach would come here with goal of going 6-6.  
Coaches are competitive and want to win every game (and try to).  That's true for even the worst game coaches (i.e., the current guy).

But it remains true that 6-6 here will not get you on the hot seat here that it will at the majority of other schools.  To pretend that isn't a positive factor for coaches - or worse, to suggest that means only Buddy Teevens will be interested - is a construct you entirely fabricated.

[teejers1]

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

You are absolutely correct that lots of people questioned why a football coach would be so much better compensated than academic positions are. While I think it will be possible to get the next coach onto the form 990, I suspect there will be more vocal opposition than ever before.

---

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 think you have just described the recipe to hire Buddy Teevens. First of all, no coach with an ounce of ambition/self respect is going to take a job where he hopes to go 6-6 most of the time. Second of all, such a coach is never going to be able to attract any athletes who aspire to win games. You have to at least make it seem like you think you can win. Guys will respond to EUTM if you can say "Come build something here", but if you can't credibly say that, they won't. Stanford institutional draw is the silver lining in the of immense proportions rain cloud that says 99% of the athletes available can't be recruited because they can't get in. No way is that an "advantage". You make the best of it. 

You must have heard David Shaw recount the experience he had when one recruit turned down Stanford, telling Shaw that the Stanford team was not good enough to showcase the players talents. Shaw said he had to privately agree with that player, and that Shaw never wanted to be in that position again. Unfortunately, now he certainly is back there. The coach you describe would be permanently there. At least Shaw wanted out of it.

The fact that AD pressure and fan support is "almost non-existent" also means that if you need support from either one, you probably won't get much of it, especially if you have generated no credibility by at least making a credible attempt at winning. I think there are guys who will come to Stanford expecting it to be a stepping stone. I think there are other guys who will come to Stanford fully expecting to stay a long time but leave because they get an opportunity they just can't refuse. Others will come to Stanford and fail totally. There may be a very, very few that will come to Stanford, have success and chose to stay. They didn't come to go 6-6. When that (or worse)starts happening, well, here we are. How does this end? We will see.

Oh, please.  Nice straw man.  I never said a coach would come here with goal of going 6-6.  
Coaches are competitive and want to win every game (and try to).  That's true for even the worst game coaches (i.e., the current guy).

But it remains true that 6-6 here will not get you on the hot seat here that it will at the majority of other schools.  To pretend that isn't a positive factor for coaches - or worse, to suggest that means only Buddy Teevens will be interested - is a construct you entirely fabricated.