11-28-2022, 09:44 PM
* When Shaw said "I don't look back" I respected the answer but it also made my stomach churn a bit thinking about the flaws that got us here. It's a savvy answer if it's a tactical way to avoid having to answer questions about why he failed or what he'd do differently in hindsight. It's a sad window into why he failed if even in his private moments he's truly unwilling to look back, assess, and adjust.
* It's a pet peeve of mine how many reporters call him "David" in press conferences. I wonder if his fellow coaching deans get the first name treatment. If they do I wouldn't like that either. Maybe some of the reporters are personal friends/familiar, but in a professional setting I don't know what it would hurt them to call him "coach." I've spent the better part of the last two decades as an advisor to U.S. senators, secretaries of defense, ambassadors, and generals and have gotten to know many of them quite well, but professionally in public I refer to them as the titles they've earned. It just strikes me as a petty overly familiar thing when a lot of these reporters say "David."
* When asked to give advice to coaches wanting to follow in his footsteps as the conscience of the coaching world, Shaw said "stay true to the profession" and "remain a teacher and mentor." An admirable sentiment but one more among the myriad examples over the years of the Deontological Shaw. I'll try to avoid spoilers for anybody who hasn't seen a brilliant show, but in the Good Place even Chidi grapples with the implications of different moral philosophies. To the end, Shaw only cared about "doing things the right way." Poignant he would put this into words as the definition of his legacy/advice to coaches, as it's what makes him so respected and arguably what lost him his job. As was said so exquisitely by a former assistant in The Athletic article, “Coach Shaw is everything that’s right about football, but football is not about being right. It’s about winning.” You can't stay the conscience of college football forever if you only care about the means and pay no attention to the ends. I wonder if Shaw ever understood this? Or maybe he just doesn't care because it makes him happy knowing he's the good guy?
* I thought it was a great press conference in which everybody played their parts well and I fully understand Shaw is the news maker/historical figure/household name, but I wish there were a few more questions for Muir. I think it was a missed opportunity that when Muir talked about "the assistant coaches that remain" and coaches going back on the road for recruiting when they're allowed to nobody followed up asking for details. I'd like to know who all is still around, as a starting point. I also think it's unfortunate in November 2022 to get a big honking press conference with Bernard Muir about the future of Stanford football and not ask him anything about Stanford's place in conference realignment. I get he almost certainly would have evaded or obfuscated but it's such an important question and I'm itching for clarity. I just struggle to see the Pac-12 as viable without USC.
* Muir had numerous references that evinced high confidence in the pool of potential replacements. He noted that he got back home at 2 o'clock (I assume a.m. since it was a home game) and had a call from a search firm at 4 o'clock. He referenced the interest he's received several times. He touted this job as an "opportunity" for a head coach for various reasons (which Shaw also laid out pretty well, though neither leaned into football arguments as much as they could have). That's good, I want him to think of this as a winning hand he has to play and to have high ambitions of the kind of coach we can get. I'm happier to see signs of confidence and ambition, which abounded at least on the surface in this press conference, than signs of trimming our sails. I didn't read anything one way or another into the practiced and vague line about trying to move quickly but be deliberate to find the right person as quickly as we can, although the reference to recruiting windows is highly suggestive we should expect a hire in the next couple of weeks. I just don't know if we should expect one in the first week of December or second week.
* In terms of criteria, Muir said the main thing is proper fit (e..g, not Power Five experience, geography, etc.). Specifically, he said a candidate needs to value what Stanford offers and be able to use that to our advantage in bringing in the best and brightest. Fair enough. We can't have somebody who is a bad fit. I do wish he had talked about the thing I care the most about, which is being well-suited (and ideally proven) at leading a football program and crafting a roster/staff/operation that succeeds in winning games. It bugs me that he didn't make a nod to that, as one of my big worries is that he will fall in love with his own judgment and forecasting to pluck somebody from a non-proven head coach background to show his own brilliance, as the Jerod Haase hire was a more conventional pedigree and hasn't worked out. I'd be far more supportive of him following a model like he did with Haase. I also would like to see evidence Muir is tacking against the Shaw deontological impulses and instead treating us like a winner. He talked a lot about our high standards and championship mentality across sports and was moderately convincing, but talking about fit rather than competence didn't inspire confidence. By the way, if anybody catches wind of who is on the search committee I'd appreciate a DM. No idea if my ideas would be well-received by anyone but happy to pass on thoughts if there is an avenue for that. Muir talked about the power of the network of people affiliated with Stanford who work in college or pro football or otherwise really know the sport well. I am hoping folks on these boards can pass some of the better thinking/analysis on to these folks.
* Confident Muir loved the data point that we got a couple of commits yesterday without a head coach, which he repeated twice (and clearly was eager to as it's been seen as somewhat uncouth for Stanford to publicly discuss recruiting like this before Signing Day). This somewhat tells the story Muir wants to tell about how attractive Stanford is but it also very well could indicate recruits wanting to try to get their commitments in before a new staff reconsiders offers.
* It's a pet peeve of mine how many reporters call him "David" in press conferences. I wonder if his fellow coaching deans get the first name treatment. If they do I wouldn't like that either. Maybe some of the reporters are personal friends/familiar, but in a professional setting I don't know what it would hurt them to call him "coach." I've spent the better part of the last two decades as an advisor to U.S. senators, secretaries of defense, ambassadors, and generals and have gotten to know many of them quite well, but professionally in public I refer to them as the titles they've earned. It just strikes me as a petty overly familiar thing when a lot of these reporters say "David."
* When asked to give advice to coaches wanting to follow in his footsteps as the conscience of the coaching world, Shaw said "stay true to the profession" and "remain a teacher and mentor." An admirable sentiment but one more among the myriad examples over the years of the Deontological Shaw. I'll try to avoid spoilers for anybody who hasn't seen a brilliant show, but in the Good Place even Chidi grapples with the implications of different moral philosophies. To the end, Shaw only cared about "doing things the right way." Poignant he would put this into words as the definition of his legacy/advice to coaches, as it's what makes him so respected and arguably what lost him his job. As was said so exquisitely by a former assistant in The Athletic article, “Coach Shaw is everything that’s right about football, but football is not about being right. It’s about winning.” You can't stay the conscience of college football forever if you only care about the means and pay no attention to the ends. I wonder if Shaw ever understood this? Or maybe he just doesn't care because it makes him happy knowing he's the good guy?
* I thought it was a great press conference in which everybody played their parts well and I fully understand Shaw is the news maker/historical figure/household name, but I wish there were a few more questions for Muir. I think it was a missed opportunity that when Muir talked about "the assistant coaches that remain" and coaches going back on the road for recruiting when they're allowed to nobody followed up asking for details. I'd like to know who all is still around, as a starting point. I also think it's unfortunate in November 2022 to get a big honking press conference with Bernard Muir about the future of Stanford football and not ask him anything about Stanford's place in conference realignment. I get he almost certainly would have evaded or obfuscated but it's such an important question and I'm itching for clarity. I just struggle to see the Pac-12 as viable without USC.
* Muir had numerous references that evinced high confidence in the pool of potential replacements. He noted that he got back home at 2 o'clock (I assume a.m. since it was a home game) and had a call from a search firm at 4 o'clock. He referenced the interest he's received several times. He touted this job as an "opportunity" for a head coach for various reasons (which Shaw also laid out pretty well, though neither leaned into football arguments as much as they could have). That's good, I want him to think of this as a winning hand he has to play and to have high ambitions of the kind of coach we can get. I'm happier to see signs of confidence and ambition, which abounded at least on the surface in this press conference, than signs of trimming our sails. I didn't read anything one way or another into the practiced and vague line about trying to move quickly but be deliberate to find the right person as quickly as we can, although the reference to recruiting windows is highly suggestive we should expect a hire in the next couple of weeks. I just don't know if we should expect one in the first week of December or second week.
* In terms of criteria, Muir said the main thing is proper fit (e..g, not Power Five experience, geography, etc.). Specifically, he said a candidate needs to value what Stanford offers and be able to use that to our advantage in bringing in the best and brightest. Fair enough. We can't have somebody who is a bad fit. I do wish he had talked about the thing I care the most about, which is being well-suited (and ideally proven) at leading a football program and crafting a roster/staff/operation that succeeds in winning games. It bugs me that he didn't make a nod to that, as one of my big worries is that he will fall in love with his own judgment and forecasting to pluck somebody from a non-proven head coach background to show his own brilliance, as the Jerod Haase hire was a more conventional pedigree and hasn't worked out. I'd be far more supportive of him following a model like he did with Haase. I also would like to see evidence Muir is tacking against the Shaw deontological impulses and instead treating us like a winner. He talked a lot about our high standards and championship mentality across sports and was moderately convincing, but talking about fit rather than competence didn't inspire confidence. By the way, if anybody catches wind of who is on the search committee I'd appreciate a DM. No idea if my ideas would be well-received by anyone but happy to pass on thoughts if there is an avenue for that. Muir talked about the power of the network of people affiliated with Stanford who work in college or pro football or otherwise really know the sport well. I am hoping folks on these boards can pass some of the better thinking/analysis on to these folks.
* Confident Muir loved the data point that we got a couple of commits yesterday without a head coach, which he repeated twice (and clearly was eager to as it's been seen as somewhat uncouth for Stanford to publicly discuss recruiting like this before Signing Day). This somewhat tells the story Muir wants to tell about how attractive Stanford is but it also very well could indicate recruits wanting to try to get their commitments in before a new staff reconsiders offers.