[DC 86]

The reason this is important and the reason I framed my question the way I did is that it matters via a vis Shaw’s future.

If the current struggles are due to temporary factors and are fixable by Shaw, then I would rather that Shaw keep the job and fix the issues. The Rose bowls are relevant, because all else equal, you would rather a person at the helm who has already demonstrated that they can take Stanford to the Rose Bowl than a complete unknown.

If the current struggles are fixable, but not by Shaw, that is a strong argument for getting rid of Shaw and bringing in a coach who can fix the issues that need to be fixed. I am not automatically opposed to calling for Shaw’s head, but before I do, I’d like a more thorough analysis than just #MuirAndShawMustGo.  It makes little sense to fire Shaw if you don’t know what Shaw did wrong and what the next guy is going to need to do to right the ship.

If the current struggles reflect long term changes to college football that no coach will be able to fix, it probably does make sense to rid ourselves of Shaw once his contract runs out, if only because in that environment it doesn’t make sense to pay any coach multi-million dollars to coach in an environment that they can’t succeed.

That the Stanford program is sick is not in doubt. But an accurate diagnosis of the problem is important less the treatment be ineffective, or worse, harmful.

BC

I hold Shaw responsible for the state of the program and his inertia and failure to address obvious problems is very frustrating to me as a four decade Stanford football fan.

Having said that, it's overly facile to simply scream "Shaw must go" as if that solves the program's problems. If Shaw is unwilling or unable to fix what needs to be fixed then he must go, but if he's reached the point where he's compelled to take action he may still be the best person to turn things around.

I'm not sure that a new coach would have had the institutional capital to reverse our policy on early admits, for example. And I assume he's built credibility with the admissions department which is critical to getting borderline recruits admitted. Those things are valuable, in addition to the relationships he's developed with administrators, boosters, faculty, etc. If Shaw accepted more of a CEO role he could be an extremely effective head coach given how well he understands the university and navigates Stanford's unique characteristics.

[DC 86]

The reason this is important and the reason I framed my question the way I did is that it matters via a vis Shaw’s future.

If the current struggles are due to temporary factors and are fixable by Shaw, then I would rather that Shaw keep the job and fix the issues. The Rose bowls are relevant, because all else equal, you would rather a person at the helm who has already demonstrated that they can take Stanford to the Rose Bowl than a complete unknown.

If the current struggles are fixable, but not by Shaw, that is a strong argument for getting rid of Shaw and bringing in a coach who can fix the issues that need to be fixed. I am not automatically opposed to calling for Shaw’s head, but before I do, I’d like a more thorough analysis than just #MuirAndShawMustGo.  It makes little sense to fire Shaw if you don’t know what Shaw did wrong and what the next guy is going to need to do to right the ship.

If the current struggles reflect long term changes to college football that no coach will be able to fix, it probably does make sense to rid ourselves of Shaw once his contract runs out, if only because in that environment it doesn’t make sense to pay any coach multi-million dollars to coach in an environment that they can’t succeed.

That the Stanford program is sick is not in doubt. But an accurate diagnosis of the problem is important less the treatment be ineffective, or worse, harmful.

BC

I hold Shaw responsible for the state of the program and his inertia and failure to address obvious problems is very frustrating to me as a four decade Stanford football fan.

Having said that, it's overly facile to simply scream "Shaw must go" as if that solves the program's problems. If Shaw is unwilling or unable to fix what needs to be fixed then he must go, but if he's reached the point where he's compelled to take action he may still be the best person to turn things around.

I'm not sure that a new coach would have had the institutional capital to reverse our policy on early admits, for example. And I assume he's built credibility with the admissions department which is critical to getting borderline recruits admitted. Those things are valuable, in addition to the relationships he's developed with administrators, boosters, faculty, etc. If Shaw accepted more of a CEO role he could be an extremely effective head coach given how well he understands the university and navigates Stanford's unique characteristics.