[lex24]

And

I wouldn't dispute there are secular trends or say it's unique to the culture Shaw has put in place, but it's exacerbated by Shaw and his culture.

What's been so corrosive has been that these secular trends have coincided with a coach who promotes a professional ethos and leans into the transactional nature of the football player-university relationship. We pride ourselves in being pro-style in numerous senses, we eschew contact in practices, we deliberately and ostentatiously treat our players as whole humans rather than football players, we emphasize the academic/degree/network building/etc. value players get in exchange for their football labor, we take pride in advising players based on their personal interests to declare for the NFL/pursue graduate degrees elsewhere/otherwise take steps that benefit the individual but not the team, and so forth. All of these are understandable and some of them are very honorable. But in the aggregate it's a Stanford football culture that is individual rather than team-oriented, non-football vs. football-oriented, and transactional rather than emotionally-oriented. My argument is this has interacted with the secular trends in a really corrosive way for Stanford football from a competitive standpoint. Maybe that's ok because we're doing it out of interest for the whole human. But we make ourselves extra susceptible to the secular trends in college football by leaning into them.

Conversely, there are teams that still emphasize team. There are places where it's fun to play football, the coaches don't design a whole program around football labor being an investment to get a prudent post-football professional network out of the transaction, individuals feel a sense of loyalty or even obligation, and failures on the football field really sting because that's what unifies the players and there is no consolation prize for failure, and so forth.

I am not saying there aren't shifts in the landscape that make the old ways of operating more difficult. But when you create an individually-oriented, academically-oriented, and openly transactional culture it makes sense players will seek personally greener pastures elsewhere. This is not the case, at least to this degree, in all programs. My view is that post-Shaw it would be great to have a coach who fosters the team, football, and emotional parts of the equation. Coaches who talk a lot about the 40 year decision, Stanford Men, and professionalism will be red flags for me. Maybe instead of being #7 in the country in fewest penalty yards we can be #7 in something actually useful like rushing or passing yards. Maybe we can have a team ethos that gets more than the sum of the parts. And, yes, maybe we can even get players who want to fulfill their eligibility even if they don't have graduate degree prospects (and maybe we'll let them do that).

You are right, of course, regarding  importance of 5th years to Stanford’s  previous success.  But no matter the explanation, the fact is the “5th year” is a thing of the past.  There is no reason to redshirt anyone that has ability.  Cause that 5th year, if played, is just as likely to be played elsewhere.   It’s a major landscape change.  And again, it hurts Stanford disproportionately.

Having said that, I agree completely with your disdain for the Shaw Stanford Man BS. I harken back to Denny Green who from day one made it clear he wasn’t going to put up with what I then called The Stanford Renaissance Man as football player. And he wasn’t going to use recruiting limitations as an excuse. Green, like Harbaugh, had that Big 10 power football mentality. Their teams reflected that. Whoever is the next coach hopefully has that mentality.

[lex24]

And

I wouldn't dispute there are secular trends or say it's unique to the culture Shaw has put in place, but it's exacerbated by Shaw and his culture.

What's been so corrosive has been that these secular trends have coincided with a coach who promotes a professional ethos and leans into the transactional nature of the football player-university relationship. We pride ourselves in being pro-style in numerous senses, we eschew contact in practices, we deliberately and ostentatiously treat our players as whole humans rather than football players, we emphasize the academic/degree/network building/etc. value players get in exchange for their football labor, we take pride in advising players based on their personal interests to declare for the NFL/pursue graduate degrees elsewhere/otherwise take steps that benefit the individual but not the team, and so forth. All of these are understandable and some of them are very honorable. But in the aggregate it's a Stanford football culture that is individual rather than team-oriented, non-football vs. football-oriented, and transactional rather than emotionally-oriented. My argument is this has interacted with the secular trends in a really corrosive way for Stanford football from a competitive standpoint. Maybe that's ok because we're doing it out of interest for the whole human. But we make ourselves extra susceptible to the secular trends in college football by leaning into them.

Conversely, there are teams that still emphasize team. There are places where it's fun to play football, the coaches don't design a whole program around football labor being an investment to get a prudent post-football professional network out of the transaction, individuals feel a sense of loyalty or even obligation, and failures on the football field really sting because that's what unifies the players and there is no consolation prize for failure, and so forth.

I am not saying there aren't shifts in the landscape that make the old ways of operating more difficult. But when you create an individually-oriented, academically-oriented, and openly transactional culture it makes sense players will seek personally greener pastures elsewhere. This is not the case, at least to this degree, in all programs. My view is that post-Shaw it would be great to have a coach who fosters the team, football, and emotional parts of the equation. Coaches who talk a lot about the 40 year decision, Stanford Men, and professionalism will be red flags for me. Maybe instead of being #7 in the country in fewest penalty yards we can be #7 in something actually useful like rushing or passing yards. Maybe we can have a team ethos that gets more than the sum of the parts. And, yes, maybe we can even get players who want to fulfill their eligibility even if they don't have graduate degree prospects (and maybe we'll let them do that).

You are right, of course, regarding  importance of 5th years to Stanford’s  previous success.  But no matter the explanation, the fact is the “5th year” is a thing of the past.  There is no reason to redshirt anyone that has ability.  Cause that 5th year, if played, is just as likely to be played elsewhere.   It’s a major landscape change.  And again, it hurts Stanford disproportionately.

Having said that, I agree completely with your disdain for the Shaw Stanford Man BS. I harken back to Denny Green who from day one made it clear he wasn’t going to put up with what I then called The Stanford Renaissance Man as football player. And he wasn’t going to use recruiting limitations as an excuse. Green, like Harbaugh, had that Big 10 power football mentality. Their teams reflected that. Whoever is the next coach hopefully has that mentality.