[Austroturf]

In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .

Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.

I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?

This. We're essentially back to where Stanford football was during my undergrad days - an also ran, bottom-feeder that no one but a few ardent fans follow, and that required once-in-a-generation "EUTM" to resuscitate from its zombie-state. It's too bad, because I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model. 

But Shaw's approach is so evidently not working, and he has refused to do some of the things that have long seemed necessary (replacing assistant coaches, hiring a dedicated OC, etc.) to right the ship. At this point, as reluctant as I am to admit it, I think it's time to look for a new coach, because it's hard to get worse than 0-11 against FBS schools...

"I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model."

Hear, hear. Up to a point. Shaw was an apparent rising star until he was not, then exposed as something less. My point is that he really had no "brand" of his own as such; what he was doing was applying what amounted to the EUTM blueprint but in a rote, unimaginative mechanical way. Left to his own devices over the years, he ultimately failed. A shame, of course, because the planets and stars were aligned in 2010-12 for something truly dynastic. They were set up for an inheritor who was not to be.

Yes, Shaw somehow assumed that the winning Harshaw model, which he carried on with great success for half a decade, had been "institutionalized" and incorporated into the DNA of Stanford Football.  The run-first, high-TOP, strong-defense, low-scoring strategy became something Shaw saw as a Stanford birthright.  He conveniently forgot that it's the people running the football program that engineer the success and keep the model working.  All of Harbaugh's hires (except Shaw himself) eventually left; and Shaw backfilled them with progressively less capable coaches.

And regarding EUTM, Shaw is the polar opposite -- even-keel, sanguine to a fault, never emotional.  The energy and intensity that made some of Harbaugh's 3-star athletes play like 4-star athletes eventually drained out of the program; and ultimately, the total lack of that energy and intensity (plus inadequate player development and S&C) has had the opposite effect: talented recruits come to Stanford and never realize their full potential.

In the end, the best managers hire the best people, hold them accountable and are happy to lose them because of their exceptional abilities, then try to replace them with even better people.  In coaching, that success is reflected in the coaching tree, the legacy of a leader.  Shaw's coaching tree after 12 years at the helm is threadbare, and he has no one on his staff who could potentially replace him.  That is a sad witness to his leadership.

[Austroturf]

In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .

Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.

I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?

This. We're essentially back to where Stanford football was during my undergrad days - an also ran, bottom-feeder that no one but a few ardent fans follow, and that required once-in-a-generation "EUTM" to resuscitate from its zombie-state. It's too bad, because I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model. 

But Shaw's approach is so evidently not working, and he has refused to do some of the things that have long seemed necessary (replacing assistant coaches, hiring a dedicated OC, etc.) to right the ship. At this point, as reluctant as I am to admit it, I think it's time to look for a new coach, because it's hard to get worse than 0-11 against FBS schools...

"I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model."

Hear, hear. Up to a point. Shaw was an apparent rising star until he was not, then exposed as something less. My point is that he really had no "brand" of his own as such; what he was doing was applying what amounted to the EUTM blueprint but in a rote, unimaginative mechanical way. Left to his own devices over the years, he ultimately failed. A shame, of course, because the planets and stars were aligned in 2010-12 for something truly dynastic. They were set up for an inheritor who was not to be.

Yes, Shaw somehow assumed that the winning Harshaw model, which he carried on with great success for half a decade, had been "institutionalized" and incorporated into the DNA of Stanford Football.  The run-first, high-TOP, strong-defense, low-scoring strategy became something Shaw saw as a Stanford birthright.  He conveniently forgot that it's the people running the football program that engineer the success and keep the model working.  All of Harbaugh's hires (except Shaw himself) eventually left; and Shaw backfilled them with progressively less capable coaches.

And regarding EUTM, Shaw is the polar opposite -- even-keel, sanguine to a fault, never emotional.  The energy and intensity that made some of Harbaugh's 3-star athletes play like 4-star athletes eventually drained out of the program; and ultimately, the total lack of that energy and intensity (plus inadequate player development and S&C) has had the opposite effect: talented recruits come to Stanford and never realize their full potential.

In the end, the best managers hire the best people, hold them accountable and are happy to lose them because of their exceptional abilities, then try to replace them with even better people.  In coaching, that success is reflected in the coaching tree, the legacy of a leader.  Shaw's coaching tree after 12 years at the helm is threadbare, and he has no one on his staff who could potentially replace him.  That is a sad witness to his leadership.