[gailtate]

6. That's not to say he leaves the program in a peachy situation, of course. The reason we've come to this fork in the road in the first place is just how troubled recent years have been. As I've railed about at length on these boards, our program has a lot of problems, and no matter the magnanimous voice of enlightened agency Shaw chooses to project it's obvious that he wouldn't have stepped away had he not failed. One of the big mysteries is how much this departure was Shaw being pushed out versus voluntary versus mutual. Maybe we'll get insights into that in coming days. But except to the extent it has bearing on things like a buyout (and its size) I'm not sure that palace intrigue matters that much to me anymore. What was important to me is that we move on to a post-Shaw coach ASAP and, to the extent possible, that the transition happen in a way that did not set the program too much further back on the path to rebuilding. So far so great on those scores. The most interesting thing going forward, as vibrant threads already in motion on the boards attest, will be what happens next in the areas key to the transition: the hire of a new head coach, the composition of a new staff, navigating incoming and outgoing transfer portal dynamics and retention of key players, the 2023 recruiting cycle end game, etc.

7. I'll have much more to say on the hire of a new head coach but have already said a lot that I'll reiterate. Based on the track records of coaches who have succeeded in turning around Power Five programs in recent decades, I have a strong predisposition for proven winners and a strong aversion to people whose primary appeal is a connection to the university. Names like Chris Petersen, Dan Quinn, Brent Brennan, Troy Taylor, Dave Clawson, PJ Fleck, Chris Kleiman, Lance Leipold, Tom Herman, Jeff Brohm, Bronco Mendenhall, Paul Chryst, Jeff Traylor, Kalani Sitake, Deion Sanders, Jim Mora, and Jamey Chadwell do much more for me than names like Derek Mason, Mike Bloomgren, and Troy Walters. I have a general predisposition against guys whose top level of proving themselves come as coordinators, but I wouldn't rule it out and there are some with pedigrees worth considering, like Lance Taylor, Garret Riley, and of course Greg Roman. A special category given the recent interim head coach experience may be Jim Leonhard, as being jilted at the altar by his alma mater might put a candidate out there I had assumed was off limits.

8. Something that's been occurring to me is that there are literally dozens of plausible candidates who could deliver the turnaround we need but maybe as few as zero sure things. When I think of a hire that would give me extreme confidence of working out, it's a coach with a track record of spectacular success at multiple destinations still in his prime. Somebody like Kalen DeBoer last year, which I thought was just an outstanding hire by Washington. I'm not sure that candidate exists right now at the Group of Five level and it's unclear whether some of the more attractive Power Five guys (Lane Kiffin at the audacious end but also guys like Fleck and Kleiman) would give us the time of day. That's not to say we can't hit a grand slam with this pick, it's just a recognition of the uncertainty at play. I think if we make a generic hire we probably have about a 50 percent chance of it working out, if we make a great hire we might have a 75 percent chance, and if we make a bad hire we might have a 25 percent chance. The more I dug into the histories across Power Five football in recent months the more it struck me that a hire like what Stanford is about to undertake is about a coin flip. As I've said many times in recent months, I absolutely relish the chance to take that coin flip. We were going nowhere fast (and depressingly/boringly) under Shaw. Now there's hope. That's a great thing. I'm just not sure there's a sure thing. Even Petersen runs some risk of being a retread/not in the proper season of life.

9. My strongest-held conviction about the hiring of a new coach is that we should hire somebody with a strong theory of the case for why they'll be good and then empower them. This has many implications with regard to budget (including/especially for assistants and recruiting), transfer portal, and NIL but I want to foot stomp one in light of some discussions taking place on the boards: it is totally premature and inappropriate to have set views on which current Stanford assistants, if any, stay. This has to be at the discretion - truly, genuinely - of the new head coach. If Shaw brokered deals for the future treatment of Tavita Pritchard and/or Lance Anderson, or anybody else, that would be really unfortunate. The new coach needs to be able to bring in the staff he wants to bring in/thinks will constitute the best team. Here my predisposition would be to start totally fresh as I think the team is in need of a culture transplant and the failure of the team has been comprehensive and catastrophic, contrary to the tone in Shaw's press conference. My biggest worry going forward is a new coach is forced to retain numerous current assistants and starts at best without the optimal amount of autonomy and at worst with unhelpful/ineffective albatrosses around his neck. But if a new coach genuinely determines that some assistants should be back for continuity I'm open to it. I just don't think that should be decided first/yet.

10 A big question is what happens with the 2023 Stanford roster. There is some upside uncertainty produced by all the recent talk of competing in the transfer portal. Right now numerous positions look really problematic for 2023 (the entire defense save edge rushers, wide receiver, potentially interior line, running back if you don't have faith in brittle guys like I don't), but if we get key transfers that could alter the picture somewhat (and potentially considerably if big surprises are in store). Aside from that, we don't know what will happen with big retention/attrition decisions. At least for me this is pretty murky. I really don't know whether a coaching transition gives us a shot at stanching attrition bleeding, provides further license for guys on the way out, or is a wash. Something to watch in the coming weeks, and I'll be massively more interested in the decisions than I would have been had Shaw come back.

11. I don't even know the last time I felt this excited to see what's next for Stanford football. For all the nice things I said about Shaw above, the bottom line with regard to 2023 is that for all his best intentions, past accomplishments, and care for his players he was relentlessly killing the program. We had no hope with him at the helm. Now we have some. The pall has been lifted over the program. I'm so much more excited to follow the program than I was yesterday. What a wonderful early Christmas present. Thank you David Shaw!

One point: NO exceptions re finding homes for legacy assistants. Indeed, it would be a deal breaker for signing the caliber of coach Stanford desperately needs at this moment. We need a Five-Star stud, complete with a presumably sterling entourage.

[gailtate]

6. That's not to say he leaves the program in a peachy situation, of course. The reason we've come to this fork in the road in the first place is just how troubled recent years have been. As I've railed about at length on these boards, our program has a lot of problems, and no matter the magnanimous voice of enlightened agency Shaw chooses to project it's obvious that he wouldn't have stepped away had he not failed. One of the big mysteries is how much this departure was Shaw being pushed out versus voluntary versus mutual. Maybe we'll get insights into that in coming days. But except to the extent it has bearing on things like a buyout (and its size) I'm not sure that palace intrigue matters that much to me anymore. What was important to me is that we move on to a post-Shaw coach ASAP and, to the extent possible, that the transition happen in a way that did not set the program too much further back on the path to rebuilding. So far so great on those scores. The most interesting thing going forward, as vibrant threads already in motion on the boards attest, will be what happens next in the areas key to the transition: the hire of a new head coach, the composition of a new staff, navigating incoming and outgoing transfer portal dynamics and retention of key players, the 2023 recruiting cycle end game, etc.

7. I'll have much more to say on the hire of a new head coach but have already said a lot that I'll reiterate. Based on the track records of coaches who have succeeded in turning around Power Five programs in recent decades, I have a strong predisposition for proven winners and a strong aversion to people whose primary appeal is a connection to the university. Names like Chris Petersen, Dan Quinn, Brent Brennan, Troy Taylor, Dave Clawson, PJ Fleck, Chris Kleiman, Lance Leipold, Tom Herman, Jeff Brohm, Bronco Mendenhall, Paul Chryst, Jeff Traylor, Kalani Sitake, Deion Sanders, Jim Mora, and Jamey Chadwell do much more for me than names like Derek Mason, Mike Bloomgren, and Troy Walters. I have a general predisposition against guys whose top level of proving themselves come as coordinators, but I wouldn't rule it out and there are some with pedigrees worth considering, like Lance Taylor, Garret Riley, and of course Greg Roman. A special category given the recent interim head coach experience may be Jim Leonhard, as being jilted at the altar by his alma mater might put a candidate out there I had assumed was off limits.

8. Something that's been occurring to me is that there are literally dozens of plausible candidates who could deliver the turnaround we need but maybe as few as zero sure things. When I think of a hire that would give me extreme confidence of working out, it's a coach with a track record of spectacular success at multiple destinations still in his prime. Somebody like Kalen DeBoer last year, which I thought was just an outstanding hire by Washington. I'm not sure that candidate exists right now at the Group of Five level and it's unclear whether some of the more attractive Power Five guys (Lane Kiffin at the audacious end but also guys like Fleck and Kleiman) would give us the time of day. That's not to say we can't hit a grand slam with this pick, it's just a recognition of the uncertainty at play. I think if we make a generic hire we probably have about a 50 percent chance of it working out, if we make a great hire we might have a 75 percent chance, and if we make a bad hire we might have a 25 percent chance. The more I dug into the histories across Power Five football in recent months the more it struck me that a hire like what Stanford is about to undertake is about a coin flip. As I've said many times in recent months, I absolutely relish the chance to take that coin flip. We were going nowhere fast (and depressingly/boringly) under Shaw. Now there's hope. That's a great thing. I'm just not sure there's a sure thing. Even Petersen runs some risk of being a retread/not in the proper season of life.

9. My strongest-held conviction about the hiring of a new coach is that we should hire somebody with a strong theory of the case for why they'll be good and then empower them. This has many implications with regard to budget (including/especially for assistants and recruiting), transfer portal, and NIL but I want to foot stomp one in light of some discussions taking place on the boards: it is totally premature and inappropriate to have set views on which current Stanford assistants, if any, stay. This has to be at the discretion - truly, genuinely - of the new head coach. If Shaw brokered deals for the future treatment of Tavita Pritchard and/or Lance Anderson, or anybody else, that would be really unfortunate. The new coach needs to be able to bring in the staff he wants to bring in/thinks will constitute the best team. Here my predisposition would be to start totally fresh as I think the team is in need of a culture transplant and the failure of the team has been comprehensive and catastrophic, contrary to the tone in Shaw's press conference. My biggest worry going forward is a new coach is forced to retain numerous current assistants and starts at best without the optimal amount of autonomy and at worst with unhelpful/ineffective albatrosses around his neck. But if a new coach genuinely determines that some assistants should be back for continuity I'm open to it. I just don't think that should be decided first/yet.

10 A big question is what happens with the 2023 Stanford roster. There is some upside uncertainty produced by all the recent talk of competing in the transfer portal. Right now numerous positions look really problematic for 2023 (the entire defense save edge rushers, wide receiver, potentially interior line, running back if you don't have faith in brittle guys like I don't), but if we get key transfers that could alter the picture somewhat (and potentially considerably if big surprises are in store). Aside from that, we don't know what will happen with big retention/attrition decisions. At least for me this is pretty murky. I really don't know whether a coaching transition gives us a shot at stanching attrition bleeding, provides further license for guys on the way out, or is a wash. Something to watch in the coming weeks, and I'll be massively more interested in the decisions than I would have been had Shaw come back.

11. I don't even know the last time I felt this excited to see what's next for Stanford football. For all the nice things I said about Shaw above, the bottom line with regard to 2023 is that for all his best intentions, past accomplishments, and care for his players he was relentlessly killing the program. We had no hope with him at the helm. Now we have some. The pall has been lifted over the program. I'm so much more excited to follow the program than I was yesterday. What a wonderful early Christmas present. Thank you David Shaw!

One point: NO exceptions re finding homes for legacy assistants. Indeed, it would be a deal breaker for signing the caliber of coach Stanford desperately needs at this moment. We need a Five-Star stud, complete with a presumably sterling entourage.