[81alum]

I really have appreciated Msquery's thoughtful post-mortems.  I remember too well doing the same during Tara's "down year" 17-18.  Of course a down year for her was "only" winning 24 games.  But it is really difficult to dispassionately analyze losses and attempt to understand them, when you yourself are a fan who is also no doubt demoralized by the loss.  But Msquery has done this very well, and we all owe him our thanks.

I particularly liked Msquery's compassion for Shaw.  It is now obvious that Shaw is unable to return this team to its former levels of achievement--though we may disagree on the reasons why.  But however low we fall this year, we can still acknowledge that at one point in time he was the most admired head coach in the NCAA--for his ethics, his loyalty to his alma mater, his personal example as a role model to our students, and the fact that he not only did not immediately screw up the Harbaugh legacy--he became the winningest coach in Stanford history.  His teams provided us with so many enjoyable games, so many victories, and so much hope.  In fact, it is this earlier success and good will toward him that makes our current situation such a tragedy.  Other head coaches who lacked this lustrous reputation--Dowhower, Elway, Teevens, Harris, etc. etc. could depart without fans shedding a tear, but Shaw's departure, when it comes, will mark not only the departure of a coach but it will be final passing of our football version of Camelot--that one brief idealistic moment when it seemed as if an elite academic institution had solved the riddle on how to also be an elite football program.

As for the future of Stanford football--acknowledged in my mind to be in the post-Shaw era--I am not optimistic.  I am more in line with some of the remarks made by Treebound and Ruralfan.  If the current transfer rules and the NIL laissez-faire model continues, Stanford will continue to be unable to compete at a high level without changing its academic mission in ways that will be unacceptable to the university.  The most optimistic I can be is to hope that there are national reforms of these corrupting factors in the next few years, as their full and negative impacts are more broadly understood.  In order to take advantage of such reforms, Stanford will still need to have a football program, so it is worth doing the best we can to keep it afloat in the hopes that a better national environment may come about.

So how do we keep the program afloat in the meantime?  We do need a change in leadership, if nothing else to inject hope and optimism into the players, the fans, and the recruits.  I am doubtful that any new coaching staff will be able to swim upstream in the torrent of negative developments for Stanford--NIL, transfer rules, loss of UCLA and USC, etc.) but having something shiny and new will buy a little time.  Maybe a new coaching staff can have some success, but whether it does or doesn't people will give a new staff a little time to "rebuild."

However, there are also risks to this strategy.  The next coach is not only going to be judged on the basis of how many wins his team can put together, he will also be judged in comparison to Shaw's other qualities.  It could, in fact, get worse, if we get a new coaching staff that fails to improve on Shaw's recent wins record but that also undermines academic standards, gets on the wrong side of ethics,  leaves for the first alternative coaching gig that comes his way, etc.  Such a coach would inflame the notion that football needs to be entirely dropped.  We will be one scandal away from the end of Stanford football.  In short, the post-Shaw football program probably has only one more chance, unless the national climate changes.  There will never be a more important and consequential hire.  And our historical track record on good football hires is at best 50/50.

[81alum]

I really have appreciated Msquery's thoughtful post-mortems.  I remember too well doing the same during Tara's "down year" 17-18.  Of course a down year for her was "only" winning 24 games.  But it is really difficult to dispassionately analyze losses and attempt to understand them, when you yourself are a fan who is also no doubt demoralized by the loss.  But Msquery has done this very well, and we all owe him our thanks.

I particularly liked Msquery's compassion for Shaw.  It is now obvious that Shaw is unable to return this team to its former levels of achievement--though we may disagree on the reasons why.  But however low we fall this year, we can still acknowledge that at one point in time he was the most admired head coach in the NCAA--for his ethics, his loyalty to his alma mater, his personal example as a role model to our students, and the fact that he not only did not immediately screw up the Harbaugh legacy--he became the winningest coach in Stanford history.  His teams provided us with so many enjoyable games, so many victories, and so much hope.  In fact, it is this earlier success and good will toward him that makes our current situation such a tragedy.  Other head coaches who lacked this lustrous reputation--Dowhower, Elway, Teevens, Harris, etc. etc. could depart without fans shedding a tear, but Shaw's departure, when it comes, will mark not only the departure of a coach but it will be final passing of our football version of Camelot--that one brief idealistic moment when it seemed as if an elite academic institution had solved the riddle on how to also be an elite football program.

As for the future of Stanford football--acknowledged in my mind to be in the post-Shaw era--I am not optimistic.  I am more in line with some of the remarks made by Treebound and Ruralfan.  If the current transfer rules and the NIL laissez-faire model continues, Stanford will continue to be unable to compete at a high level without changing its academic mission in ways that will be unacceptable to the university.  The most optimistic I can be is to hope that there are national reforms of these corrupting factors in the next few years, as their full and negative impacts are more broadly understood.  In order to take advantage of such reforms, Stanford will still need to have a football program, so it is worth doing the best we can to keep it afloat in the hopes that a better national environment may come about.

So how do we keep the program afloat in the meantime?  We do need a change in leadership, if nothing else to inject hope and optimism into the players, the fans, and the recruits.  I am doubtful that any new coaching staff will be able to swim upstream in the torrent of negative developments for Stanford--NIL, transfer rules, loss of UCLA and USC, etc.) but having something shiny and new will buy a little time.  Maybe a new coaching staff can have some success, but whether it does or doesn't people will give a new staff a little time to "rebuild."

However, there are also risks to this strategy.  The next coach is not only going to be judged on the basis of how many wins his team can put together, he will also be judged in comparison to Shaw's other qualities.  It could, in fact, get worse, if we get a new coaching staff that fails to improve on Shaw's recent wins record but that also undermines academic standards, gets on the wrong side of ethics,  leaves for the first alternative coaching gig that comes his way, etc.  Such a coach would inflame the notion that football needs to be entirely dropped.  We will be one scandal away from the end of Stanford football.  In short, the post-Shaw football program probably has only one more chance, unless the national climate changes.  There will never be a more important and consequential hire.  And our historical track record on good football hires is at best 50/50.