[Goose]

Your whole mindset that a successful coach at Stanford will move on is informed by the Old Model, when Stanford 'was not Nebraska.'
  
Can you at least admit that there are LOTS of coaches out there who would be interested/intrigued by $3M/year starting salary?  At Stanford?
It strikes me that you're dismissing the notion of finding a replacement for an overpaid coach who is clearly flailing because (a) he might not be better, and (b) if he is, he'll leave soon enough anyway.

Damn, where is beeg dawg's avatar when you need it.

First of all, I don't find it bad that a successful coach at Stanford might leave for a better position. You still want the best coach you can get at the time. Very few coaches take a new job already aiming to leave it. They may have big ambitions but that doesn't drive their job selection. However, pretty much all coaches want to be "successful". They want to be 9-3 or better and going to good bowls. No coach worth anything at all is going to take a job with the goal of averaging .500 and collecting his 3M salary by hanging on as long as possible. I assume you are also not in favor of hiring such a coach.

As far as the "New Model" goes, I would argue that if anything the last few weeks have shown that a good salary isn't enough. Perhaps the theme should be "Notre Dame is Not LSU". If it were, Kelly stays at ND and Riley stays at Oklahoma. They moved for more money and (certainly in Kelly's case, probably in Riley's case) a better chance at winning. There are plenty of coaches who would like a 3M starting salary, but when you add "at Stanford", most will pass. Recruiting from a small pool is a big problem to winning, and coaches want to win. They know that if they don't win, eventually they will be gone, even at Stanford. If you are a good coach, you probably have other options and certainly have other aspirations.

Unfortunately, there are some coaches who will be attracted to the money and don't really understand what they are getting into. These are the Walt Harris of the world. There are other coaches (I use Jack Elway as an example) who should understand but don't. He went 25–29. There are a very few that do understand and actually make it work. There are even fewer that make it work and will remain at Stanford in the presence of better offers, but as I said, that's OK. You still want the best coach you can get, but keep in mind "best" is a vector.

As far as replacing the existing coach, yes, I am not going to recommend replacing him with a guy that I don't have a reasonable expectation will be better. I won't recommend replacing him with somebody who I think might be better or I hope would be better or that could perhaps be better. Would you? There have been plenty of coaches hired at Stanford that I thought would be "better" than the previous guy that weren't, or at least weren't enough better to matter. Harbaugh was a reach, but we were in such dire straights that we didn't have a big pool of choices. I have no idea who the realistic choices might be today. Name some names and we can discuss them.

Interesting quote from a Kal site:

That is why an alum, Ron Rivera or Troy Taylor, is the way to go. They would be more than happy coaching at Cal making $3million a year for the rest of their careers, hopefully challenging for conference championships and the playoffs.

There is your 3M, but with a few caveats.

[Goose]

Your whole mindset that a successful coach at Stanford will move on is informed by the Old Model, when Stanford 'was not Nebraska.'
  
Can you at least admit that there are LOTS of coaches out there who would be interested/intrigued by $3M/year starting salary?  At Stanford?
It strikes me that you're dismissing the notion of finding a replacement for an overpaid coach who is clearly flailing because (a) he might not be better, and (b) if he is, he'll leave soon enough anyway.

Damn, where is beeg dawg's avatar when you need it.

First of all, I don't find it bad that a successful coach at Stanford might leave for a better position. You still want the best coach you can get at the time. Very few coaches take a new job already aiming to leave it. They may have big ambitions but that doesn't drive their job selection. However, pretty much all coaches want to be "successful". They want to be 9-3 or better and going to good bowls. No coach worth anything at all is going to take a job with the goal of averaging .500 and collecting his 3M salary by hanging on as long as possible. I assume you are also not in favor of hiring such a coach.

As far as the "New Model" goes, I would argue that if anything the last few weeks have shown that a good salary isn't enough. Perhaps the theme should be "Notre Dame is Not LSU". If it were, Kelly stays at ND and Riley stays at Oklahoma. They moved for more money and (certainly in Kelly's case, probably in Riley's case) a better chance at winning. There are plenty of coaches who would like a 3M starting salary, but when you add "at Stanford", most will pass. Recruiting from a small pool is a big problem to winning, and coaches want to win. They know that if they don't win, eventually they will be gone, even at Stanford. If you are a good coach, you probably have other options and certainly have other aspirations.

Unfortunately, there are some coaches who will be attracted to the money and don't really understand what they are getting into. These are the Walt Harris of the world. There are other coaches (I use Jack Elway as an example) who should understand but don't. He went 25–29. There are a very few that do understand and actually make it work. There are even fewer that make it work and will remain at Stanford in the presence of better offers, but as I said, that's OK. You still want the best coach you can get, but keep in mind "best" is a vector.

As far as replacing the existing coach, yes, I am not going to recommend replacing him with a guy that I don't have a reasonable expectation will be better. I won't recommend replacing him with somebody who I think might be better or I hope would be better or that could perhaps be better. Would you? There have been plenty of coaches hired at Stanford that I thought would be "better" than the previous guy that weren't, or at least weren't enough better to matter. Harbaugh was a reach, but we were in such dire straights that we didn't have a big pool of choices. I have no idea who the realistic choices might be today. Name some names and we can discuss them.

Interesting quote from a Kal site:

That is why an alum, Ron Rivera or Troy Taylor, is the way to go. They would be more than happy coaching at Cal making $3million a year for the rest of their careers, hopefully challenging for conference championships and the playoffs.

There is your 3M, but with a few caveats.