[msqueri]

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 view Stanford's struggles as the product of numerous factors. To name a few:

* A change to the type of players recruited such that the composition of the roster now more closely mirrors the historical Stanford norm of "Stanford Men" (well-rounded and academically serious outweighing football-first and nasty) than what made the teams successful in the Harbaugh years and early Shaw years

* A change to the football culture such that competition and continuous improvement is less fundamental than it was previously (for instance, a less cutthroat mentality with respect to players moving away from the derision of steak eaters and bus riders, and a less urgent mentality among the coaches produced by years of operating under a coach who will never throw his assistants under the bus.....aka hold people accountable)

* A defensive coaching staff that steadily produced worse results as the distance from Mason/Hart/Turley increased

* A change to strength and conditioning personified by the loss of Turley

* A deterioration in recruiting at numerous positions that powered the previous success (offensive line and front seven especially but arguments can be made at tight end and running back too)

Are these things fixable by Shaw? I guess theoretically but it seems much more the case that they're a reflection of him. His alchemy worked from 2011-2017 when he was applying his personality and approach to a deeply-ingrained culture to which he could augment with his personal strengths (e.g., the spectacular 2012 and 2014 recruiting that I don't think Harbaugh could/would have been able to pull off, or the steadiness and stability Shaw lent that Harbaugh or any other ambitious coach never would have sustained as other opportunities came calling). But over the last half decade Shaw's alchemy ran its course in augmenting what we previously had and turned the corner to actually shaping the culture (that is, over time, creating a new culture). Now the program reflects Shaw top to bottom. Instead of putting some nice gold leaf on our furnishings, Midas has turned the pipes into solid gold, preventing the water from flowing, to torture the metaphor.

We have players more likely to be recognized for the Wuerrfel Trophy than the Outland Trophy. We have a family-oriented coaching staff that doesn't treat recruiting maniacally or throw under-performing members of the family overboard. We have players that will move on with their lives after four years to move on to the work world or get a master's than to try to reach their athletic peak with their brothers-in-arms.

If I'm right that there's a cultural change that explains much of this, the head man isn't failing because of circumstances he can easily fix but rather because of fundamental aspects of who he is and how he leads. That calls for a change at the top in my view.

Were one to disagree with that and/or seek a way to fix this while keeping Shaw, the solution has to begin with far, far better play up front in the trenches. That means recruiting these positions at a high level (our recent OL and DL recruiting has been markedly worse than it was when Shaw was successful), hiring and retaining the best strength and conditioning coaches and position coaches (the strength team is unproven/hasn't had a good track record on paper post-Turley and the DL coach has a terrible resume since taking over at Stanford), and retaining players such that Stanford gets their best years, which in the trenches usually means fourth, fifth, and sixth years (we've seen Dalman, Little, Sarell, Hamilton, Booker, Wade-Perry, Fisk, Johnson, Williams, Swann, and others leave eligibility on the table). There is a lot that needs changing if we want to re-establish dominance in the trenches, which we're currently a long way away from. Even if one doesn't think culture is the explanation, it is arguably easier to bring in a new staff to focus on this transformation than to expect Shaw and his crew to fix this daunting list of what needs fixing.

[msqueri]

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 view Stanford's struggles as the product of numerous factors. To name a few:

* A change to the type of players recruited such that the composition of the roster now more closely mirrors the historical Stanford norm of "Stanford Men" (well-rounded and academically serious outweighing football-first and nasty) than what made the teams successful in the Harbaugh years and early Shaw years

* A change to the football culture such that competition and continuous improvement is less fundamental than it was previously (for instance, a less cutthroat mentality with respect to players moving away from the derision of steak eaters and bus riders, and a less urgent mentality among the coaches produced by years of operating under a coach who will never throw his assistants under the bus.....aka hold people accountable)

* A defensive coaching staff that steadily produced worse results as the distance from Mason/Hart/Turley increased

* A change to strength and conditioning personified by the loss of Turley

* A deterioration in recruiting at numerous positions that powered the previous success (offensive line and front seven especially but arguments can be made at tight end and running back too)

Are these things fixable by Shaw? I guess theoretically but it seems much more the case that they're a reflection of him. His alchemy worked from 2011-2017 when he was applying his personality and approach to a deeply-ingrained culture to which he could augment with his personal strengths (e.g., the spectacular 2012 and 2014 recruiting that I don't think Harbaugh could/would have been able to pull off, or the steadiness and stability Shaw lent that Harbaugh or any other ambitious coach never would have sustained as other opportunities came calling). But over the last half decade Shaw's alchemy ran its course in augmenting what we previously had and turned the corner to actually shaping the culture (that is, over time, creating a new culture). Now the program reflects Shaw top to bottom. Instead of putting some nice gold leaf on our furnishings, Midas has turned the pipes into solid gold, preventing the water from flowing, to torture the metaphor.

We have players more likely to be recognized for the Wuerrfel Trophy than the Outland Trophy. We have a family-oriented coaching staff that doesn't treat recruiting maniacally or throw under-performing members of the family overboard. We have players that will move on with their lives after four years to move on to the work world or get a master's than to try to reach their athletic peak with their brothers-in-arms.

If I'm right that there's a cultural change that explains much of this, the head man isn't failing because of circumstances he can easily fix but rather because of fundamental aspects of who he is and how he leads. That calls for a change at the top in my view.

Were one to disagree with that and/or seek a way to fix this while keeping Shaw, the solution has to begin with far, far better play up front in the trenches. That means recruiting these positions at a high level (our recent OL and DL recruiting has been markedly worse than it was when Shaw was successful), hiring and retaining the best strength and conditioning coaches and position coaches (the strength team is unproven/hasn't had a good track record on paper post-Turley and the DL coach has a terrible resume since taking over at Stanford), and retaining players such that Stanford gets their best years, which in the trenches usually means fourth, fifth, and sixth years (we've seen Dalman, Little, Sarell, Hamilton, Booker, Wade-Perry, Fisk, Johnson, Williams, Swann, and others leave eligibility on the table). There is a lot that needs changing if we want to re-establish dominance in the trenches, which we're currently a long way away from. Even if one doesn't think culture is the explanation, it is arguably easier to bring in a new staff to focus on this transformation than to expect Shaw and his crew to fix this daunting list of what needs fixing.