[BostonCard]

For instance, I think highly of guys like... Lane Kiffin... Bret Bielema... Sonny Dykes... Steve Sarkisian 

Uh, what?

Lane Kiffin continually failed upwards.  You would have to make the case for why Stanford should be different than his stints at Oakland, Tennessee or USC.  He did well at Florida Atlantic, but Ole Miss is TBD: a nice season in 2021 but an overall 14-11 conference record in 2+ seasons.  The theory for the case is very flawed.

Bret Bielema bailed on Wisconsin for Arkansas?  Really?  He's done a nice job this year at Illinois, but he bailed on Wisconsin and then was a disaster at Arkansas (three last place finishes in five years).

Sonny Dykes was fired from Cal, and most of us were very sorry to see him go.  Very nice job this year at TCU, but I would like evidence that he'd be able to sustain that defense.  Also, you would have to convince me that his tenure at Cal was the fluke, and that TCU is his real level.  Aside from this year, he's only ever led his team (La Tech, Cal, SMU) to higher than a third place finish once, and he has four winning conference seasons in twelve years as a head coach.  Hell no.

Steve Sarkisian was "poached" from UW and Husky fans celebrated, then fired from USC after going to practices drunk. I hope he is healthy now, but I have not seen any evidence that he is an effective head coach.

What you have is a bunch of big names, but all of them have failed in one way or another, many, multiple times, and any theory for the case for them would have to convince me that those failures are the anomaly that won't translate to Stanford, and (for the ones who have had successes) that those successes really demonstrate their capabilities, and, crucially, that we would expect them to be sustainable and translate to Stanford.  I'm dubious.

There are some guys on your list that I would be excited about (eg Fleck), if they were happy to entertain a call from Shaw, but I think the sweet spot is the one you identified earlier: successful G5 and FCS coaches, especially those who have revived or turned programs around.

I'm surprised you put Pritchard in the HM category.  Notwithstanding his failure as OC, I do think he has a future in coaching, likely as a head coach.  I'm more bullish than most people here, because he is a smart and likable guy, who I think has a future as a head coach, and most of his shortcomings arose because he was never given a chance to develop his career outside of Stanford.  I think he could have been a good OC had he gone to a different school, been mentored and learned a different system, and then come back to integrate bits and pieces into his own style.  I feel the same way about him as a potential head coach; he really should go somewhere else, learn from a broader network, and come back when he is ready.

BC

[BostonCard]

For instance, I think highly of guys like... Lane Kiffin... Bret Bielema... Sonny Dykes... Steve Sarkisian 

Uh, what?

Lane Kiffin continually failed upwards.  You would have to make the case for why Stanford should be different than his stints at Oakland, Tennessee or USC.  He did well at Florida Atlantic, but Ole Miss is TBD: a nice season in 2021 but an overall 14-11 conference record in 2+ seasons.  The theory for the case is very flawed.

Bret Bielema bailed on Wisconsin for Arkansas?  Really?  He's done a nice job this year at Illinois, but he bailed on Wisconsin and then was a disaster at Arkansas (three last place finishes in five years).

Sonny Dykes was fired from Cal, and most of us were very sorry to see him go.  Very nice job this year at TCU, but I would like evidence that he'd be able to sustain that defense.  Also, you would have to convince me that his tenure at Cal was the fluke, and that TCU is his real level.  Aside from this year, he's only ever led his team (La Tech, Cal, SMU) to higher than a third place finish once, and he has four winning conference seasons in twelve years as a head coach.  Hell no.

Steve Sarkisian was "poached" from UW and Husky fans celebrated, then fired from USC after going to practices drunk. I hope he is healthy now, but I have not seen any evidence that he is an effective head coach.

What you have is a bunch of big names, but all of them have failed in one way or another, many, multiple times, and any theory for the case for them would have to convince me that those failures are the anomaly that won't translate to Stanford, and (for the ones who have had successes) that those successes really demonstrate their capabilities, and, crucially, that we would expect them to be sustainable and translate to Stanford.  I'm dubious.

There are some guys on your list that I would be excited about (eg Fleck), if they were happy to entertain a call from Shaw, but I think the sweet spot is the one you identified earlier: successful G5 and FCS coaches, especially those who have revived or turned programs around.

I'm surprised you put Pritchard in the HM category.  Notwithstanding his failure as OC, I do think he has a future in coaching, likely as a head coach.  I'm more bullish than most people here, because he is a smart and likable guy, who I think has a future as a head coach, and most of his shortcomings arose because he was never given a chance to develop his career outside of Stanford.  I think he could have been a good OC had he gone to a different school, been mentored and learned a different system, and then come back to integrate bits and pieces into his own style.  I feel the same way about him as a potential head coach; he really should go somewhere else, learn from a broader network, and come back when he is ready.

BC