11-28-2022, 10:49 PM
Thanks for listening so I didn't have to. A few thoughts/reactions:
I wouldn't expect Muir to say anything about NIL and transfers until it is a done deal. I was surprised that Shaw did, but maybe he knew he wasn't coming back. When you extract concessions from a negotiating partner, it is better to let them frame it, and that usually means either negotiating the announcement or just letting them do it. The important thing is not to be able to say we are going to allow transfers, but to actually be able to get the transfers.
Culture is a two way street; we both influence it and are influenced by it. In 2007, the team adopted Harbaugh's EUTM and "Tunnel Workers Union" after years of Teevens and Harris. Pretty sure that, for better or worse, the culture at Twitter these days is very different than it was 3 months ago. Not everyone will buy in it, and I expect we might lose some players to the portal or retirement, but hopefully a culture change can be brought in pretty quickly. I expect most players are tired of losing, and will "buy in" pretty quickly to anything that might turn that around. It will help if we see tangible changes next year.
Maybe the Cal game would have turned out differently had we not been depleted by injuries, but, then again, that was Liegber's best game. Who knows.
Agree with you about "David", though I don't want to draw too much of a thing around it; maybe he asked to be called by his first name. I can't stand being referred to by my professional name. On the other hand, if he didn't ask to be called David, I think it is pretty poor form, and while I could speculate as to why, I think it's best that I don't.
I have very mixed feelings about that quote about Shaw being everything that is right about football. One of the reasons that I held onto hope that Shaw would turn things around in the face of increasing evidence that he couldn't was exactly that. College football is ruled by the vanities of middle aged guys (almost always guys) who are living vicariously through the triumphs of young men more than half their age. At least with Stanford football, that facsimile, of guys who were athletes but also scholars had a sense of credibility. As college football descends into semi-pro-dom, with merceneries hired by the highest NIL bidder, only to be discarded without second thought (or a meaningful education) when they don't perform, keeping the fiction that those kids are students, like we were, just bigger, faster, and stronger becomes more and more unsustainable. The quote that has been bandied about that college football need(ed) David Shaw more than David Shaw need(ed) college football is about to be tested, and I fear that college football is about to fail that test. I can only hope that a unicorn exists, someone with the character and integrity of David Shaw, but who also has the wherewithal to bring a winning team.
I can tell you what Muir would have said about conference realignment... “We have not had [formal] contact with any other conference. We believe that the Pac-10 conference can be successful and right now have no intention of leaving.” It's the party line, but it has enough weasel words to let him off the hook if the Big-Ten gives us the time of day. Diplomacy, as they say, is the art of saying "nice doggy" while you fetch a stick.
I would read zero into the fact that Muir was contacted by a search firm, unless he was the one that arranged the call. It would be malpractice for the firm's business development team not to contact a school with a vacancy. I'm sure that as Shaw's prospects dimmed, Muir was getting calls from search firms saying "hey, if you decide to go in another direction, we can help".
You've convinced me that, statistically, a coach in the mold of Haase (up-and-comer successful at a lower division) is the best way to go, but there are a lot of competing criteria, and I'm not sure how best to balance them. I do feel that coaching hires, especially when one doesn't end well, is for the hire to have elements that are opposite of what you are replacing. We were happy with the winning from Harbaugh, but unhappy with his constant dalliances with other teams (Kansas, really?) so we picked someone from his pedigree (hoping the magic would rub off) who was also an alum, and thus unlikely to ever bolt for greener pastures. We like some aspects of Shaw's coaching term (such as his character), but are unhappy with his complacency, so I think we might get the opposite. The question will be whether that energy will be focused (like Harbaugh) or more like Teevens, who was once described to me as having the energy and disposition of a cocker spaniel.
I'm saddened by the McGill transfer as well, but again, for a guy who is a marginal NFL prospect, the calculus changes when the cost of loyalty is an all-expenses-paid graduate degree. I actually think a more meaningful change that can be done is instead of taking in transfers is to find a pathway to make it easier for our own students to move onto a graduate program for their fifth year.
I'm glad Shaw is at peace with himself. He deserves that much.
BC
I wouldn't expect Muir to say anything about NIL and transfers until it is a done deal. I was surprised that Shaw did, but maybe he knew he wasn't coming back. When you extract concessions from a negotiating partner, it is better to let them frame it, and that usually means either negotiating the announcement or just letting them do it. The important thing is not to be able to say we are going to allow transfers, but to actually be able to get the transfers.
Culture is a two way street; we both influence it and are influenced by it. In 2007, the team adopted Harbaugh's EUTM and "Tunnel Workers Union" after years of Teevens and Harris. Pretty sure that, for better or worse, the culture at Twitter these days is very different than it was 3 months ago. Not everyone will buy in it, and I expect we might lose some players to the portal or retirement, but hopefully a culture change can be brought in pretty quickly. I expect most players are tired of losing, and will "buy in" pretty quickly to anything that might turn that around. It will help if we see tangible changes next year.
Maybe the Cal game would have turned out differently had we not been depleted by injuries, but, then again, that was Liegber's best game. Who knows.
Agree with you about "David", though I don't want to draw too much of a thing around it; maybe he asked to be called by his first name. I can't stand being referred to by my professional name. On the other hand, if he didn't ask to be called David, I think it is pretty poor form, and while I could speculate as to why, I think it's best that I don't.
I have very mixed feelings about that quote about Shaw being everything that is right about football. One of the reasons that I held onto hope that Shaw would turn things around in the face of increasing evidence that he couldn't was exactly that. College football is ruled by the vanities of middle aged guys (almost always guys) who are living vicariously through the triumphs of young men more than half their age. At least with Stanford football, that facsimile, of guys who were athletes but also scholars had a sense of credibility. As college football descends into semi-pro-dom, with merceneries hired by the highest NIL bidder, only to be discarded without second thought (or a meaningful education) when they don't perform, keeping the fiction that those kids are students, like we were, just bigger, faster, and stronger becomes more and more unsustainable. The quote that has been bandied about that college football need(ed) David Shaw more than David Shaw need(ed) college football is about to be tested, and I fear that college football is about to fail that test. I can only hope that a unicorn exists, someone with the character and integrity of David Shaw, but who also has the wherewithal to bring a winning team.
I can tell you what Muir would have said about conference realignment... “We have not had [formal] contact with any other conference. We believe that the Pac-10 conference can be successful and right now have no intention of leaving.” It's the party line, but it has enough weasel words to let him off the hook if the Big-Ten gives us the time of day. Diplomacy, as they say, is the art of saying "nice doggy" while you fetch a stick.
I would read zero into the fact that Muir was contacted by a search firm, unless he was the one that arranged the call. It would be malpractice for the firm's business development team not to contact a school with a vacancy. I'm sure that as Shaw's prospects dimmed, Muir was getting calls from search firms saying "hey, if you decide to go in another direction, we can help".
You've convinced me that, statistically, a coach in the mold of Haase (up-and-comer successful at a lower division) is the best way to go, but there are a lot of competing criteria, and I'm not sure how best to balance them. I do feel that coaching hires, especially when one doesn't end well, is for the hire to have elements that are opposite of what you are replacing. We were happy with the winning from Harbaugh, but unhappy with his constant dalliances with other teams (Kansas, really?) so we picked someone from his pedigree (hoping the magic would rub off) who was also an alum, and thus unlikely to ever bolt for greener pastures. We like some aspects of Shaw's coaching term (such as his character), but are unhappy with his complacency, so I think we might get the opposite. The question will be whether that energy will be focused (like Harbaugh) or more like Teevens, who was once described to me as having the energy and disposition of a cocker spaniel.
I'm saddened by the McGill transfer as well, but again, for a guy who is a marginal NFL prospect, the calculus changes when the cost of loyalty is an all-expenses-paid graduate degree. I actually think a more meaningful change that can be done is instead of taking in transfers is to find a pathway to make it easier for our own students to move onto a graduate program for their fifth year.
I'm glad Shaw is at peace with himself. He deserves that much.
BC