[msqueri]

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

Umm, the four names you took exception to weren't actually on my list. I said I liked them (and I do think I can defend them each individually) and I wouldn't mind Muir taking a look at them but among the Power Five guys I listed in that paragraph those ones weren't the ones who made my list. That was Fleck, Klieman, Brohm, and Campbell (plus Clawson). You'll notice that those guys better fit my desired sweet spot of proven Power Five coaches who have also succeeded at levels below Power Five. All five of those guys meet that criteria, which is why they're on my list. While I like some of the guys you don't like, they weren't on the list so not sure why you focused on them so much.

If you do want to argue about those, I'm happy to just for fun:

* I'm much more impressed with Kiffin's (notably, post-Alabama finishing school) Ole Miss performance, which had a 10 win season last year and and 8 or 9 win season this year with a current Sagarin ranking of #21. More subjectively, I also think he's the offensive coach David Shaw wishes he was and would be a palate/soul cleanser for Stanford fans.

* Illinois' record this year is misleading as Sagarin has them top 25, which I consider impressive for a program that has been a joke for most of the last 30 years. That, coupled with 8+ win seasons at each of his previous two schools, gives me high confidence that if he came to Stanford he probably could get some decent results.

* You and I are on different planets on Dykes. He's an awesome coach. Awesome. He made his teams better three years in a row at Louisiana Tech. Then he did it again before a disappointing fourth year that was his last. Then he got SMU to 25 wins in his last three years there (before he got there they had won 14 games in three years and had won 8+ games, which he did twice, twice since the 1988 death penalty). And now he's got national coach of the year locked up in his first year at TCU. It's crystal clear that Cal is the anomaly. That's because Cal sucks. (That's not rivalry talking, I root for Cal). Even at Cal Dykes was basically par for the course and they won more in the second half of his tenure than the first half. Over the sweep of his career, it's clear he's great. He makes everywhere better. Notably on that score, Wilcox' tenure is a mirror of Dykes such that the first half of Wilcox' time had results like the second half of Dykes' and the second half of Wilcox' time has been more like Dykes' initial struggles. The reason is obvious: Dykes was the good coach, not Wilcox.

* Sarkisian is one I'll admit to personal bias/affection. Just kind of like him and think he's better than often credited. He's got a pretty solid track record of his teams improving over time. Certainly not world-beating and I know I've got a soft spot for him.

Anyway, all that is just for fun. My bottom line is I don't think you were responding to the actual wish list I was proposing. I hear you on Group of Five/FCS up-and-comers but a) my research showed that NFL retreads proven Power Five coaches are more fertile ground for the kind of turnaround we're looking for, b) I did include some Group of Five/FCS guys I find attractive (Taylor, Brennan, Sanders, Chadwell, Cignetti, Huff) as well as several in the honorable mention category, and c) the up-and-comers have limitations such as being FCS (not as promising as Group of Five) or having small samples or never having coached as an assistant at a Power Five school or being old. Ultimately, I think the NFL retreads and proven Power Five guys are our best bet but I'd still be thrilled with these Group of Five/FCS guys I listed.

On Pritchard, I don't disagree with you. I don't think he's a good candidate for Stanford now but am not writing him off. The new Idaho State opening could be an interesting opportunity for either him or Anderson to try out being a head coach.

[msqueri]

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

Umm, the four names you took exception to weren't actually on my list. I said I liked them (and I do think I can defend them each individually) and I wouldn't mind Muir taking a look at them but among the Power Five guys I listed in that paragraph those ones weren't the ones who made my list. That was Fleck, Klieman, Brohm, and Campbell (plus Clawson). You'll notice that those guys better fit my desired sweet spot of proven Power Five coaches who have also succeeded at levels below Power Five. All five of those guys meet that criteria, which is why they're on my list. While I like some of the guys you don't like, they weren't on the list so not sure why you focused on them so much.

If you do want to argue about those, I'm happy to just for fun:

* I'm much more impressed with Kiffin's (notably, post-Alabama finishing school) Ole Miss performance, which had a 10 win season last year and and 8 or 9 win season this year with a current Sagarin ranking of #21. More subjectively, I also think he's the offensive coach David Shaw wishes he was and would be a palate/soul cleanser for Stanford fans.

* Illinois' record this year is misleading as Sagarin has them top 25, which I consider impressive for a program that has been a joke for most of the last 30 years. That, coupled with 8+ win seasons at each of his previous two schools, gives me high confidence that if he came to Stanford he probably could get some decent results.

* You and I are on different planets on Dykes. He's an awesome coach. Awesome. He made his teams better three years in a row at Louisiana Tech. Then he did it again before a disappointing fourth year that was his last. Then he got SMU to 25 wins in his last three years there (before he got there they had won 14 games in three years and had won 8+ games, which he did twice, twice since the 1988 death penalty). And now he's got national coach of the year locked up in his first year at TCU. It's crystal clear that Cal is the anomaly. That's because Cal sucks. (That's not rivalry talking, I root for Cal). Even at Cal Dykes was basically par for the course and they won more in the second half of his tenure than the first half. Over the sweep of his career, it's clear he's great. He makes everywhere better. Notably on that score, Wilcox' tenure is a mirror of Dykes such that the first half of Wilcox' time had results like the second half of Dykes' and the second half of Wilcox' time has been more like Dykes' initial struggles. The reason is obvious: Dykes was the good coach, not Wilcox.

* Sarkisian is one I'll admit to personal bias/affection. Just kind of like him and think he's better than often credited. He's got a pretty solid track record of his teams improving over time. Certainly not world-beating and I know I've got a soft spot for him.

Anyway, all that is just for fun. My bottom line is I don't think you were responding to the actual wish list I was proposing. I hear you on Group of Five/FCS up-and-comers but a) my research showed that NFL retreads proven Power Five coaches are more fertile ground for the kind of turnaround we're looking for, b) I did include some Group of Five/FCS guys I find attractive (Taylor, Brennan, Sanders, Chadwell, Cignetti, Huff) as well as several in the honorable mention category, and c) the up-and-comers have limitations such as being FCS (not as promising as Group of Five) or having small samples or never having coached as an assistant at a Power Five school or being old. Ultimately, I think the NFL retreads and proven Power Five guys are our best bet but I'd still be thrilled with these Group of Five/FCS guys I listed.

On Pritchard, I don't disagree with you. I don't think he's a good candidate for Stanford now but am not writing him off. The new Idaho State opening could be an interesting opportunity for either him or Anderson to try out being a head coach.