[Mick]

Mick, you've badly misread Stanford football's prospects going forward. It's not all sunshine and rainbows and we do face significant challenges, but you're over-reacting to a low point, just as many associated with Stanford did following the 1983, 1988, 1994, 2004, and 2006 seasons. Taylor may or may not be the coach to bring Stanford out of the doldrums but it certainly isn't the case that outlier bad seasons represent the ceiling for Stanford football. To address some of your points:

* Yes, we were bad the last couple of years. But turnarounds do happen. I've previously come up with 50 examples. There are probably 2-3 new coaches a year who go on to execute a turnaround of a flailing Power Five program. Given the significant advantages Power Five programs have, it averages about to about a 50/50 chance an attempted turnaround works to some extent. To me there is no question that if Stanford remains in a major conference there is a chance we can return to football relevance. It's a tossup whether Taylor can do it, but if he can't and Stanford can manage to stay in a power conference, the post-Taylor coach would have a chance too.

* I wonder if you know what you're talking about in saying Stanford hasn't figured out NIL. I think there's an important extent to which nobody has figured NIL out because it's new and evolving and, coupled with the transfer portal, creates retention and attrition dynamics that are very hard to navigate. We aren't the only school that sees contributors transfer out. I also wonder how much you know about the operations of Lifetime Cardinal. The press reports on it, at least, suggest significant and arguably competitive NIL efforts. In our current 2024 class we have a commitment from a player with a $190,000 NIL valuation. Going forward it remains to be seen what NIL deals Stanford players get, how this gets regulated by Congress, and other factors, and I don't think we (at least I) have enough information to say what it means for our competitive prospects going forward.

* Yes, we were decimated by the transfer portal. But that's something that affects our 2024 one year prospects, not something that should be used to cite whether we're major or minor going forward. We had the convergence of a bottoming out in football, transfer-conducive national environment, previous coach who built a program that encouraged individualism/40 year decisions/graduate degrees at the expense of team and football goals, and a coaching transition. Stanford's susceptibility to transfers going forward is another thing that remains to be seen, as does the ability to recruit higher quality transfers. Of course a losing program didn't get high quality transfers. But if you took the current national transfer environment and Stanford's current receptivity/admissions leeway for transfers and paired it with a football program at the level of where Stanford was from 2010-2017, the quality of transfers would have been much higher. If Taylor can start to turn around the program, transfers will look better than they did in 2023. I don't think we will ever rank high in transfer portal rankings, but if we can be #40 or #50 and pair that with top 20 (or even top 40) high school recruiting, that is very much major conference-competitive talent. And keep in mind that high school recruiting is easier now that so many programs are focused on transfers. The transfer portal is no more of a guaranteed death knell than NIL is. [By the way, it's incidental to the larger point but you had several factual errors in your logic. For example, our starting LT actually is poised to be a former 4-star recruit who looks quite promising. I assume you are talking about Alec Bank, who at no point has been a starter in camp last I heard.]

* Taylor will have a chance to prove Stanford made a good call with his hire. We'll see. I strongly believe that it was the type of budget hire Stanford always makes and shows less commitment to competing as a major college program than I think would be optimal or that the vast majority of power programs demonstrate. At the same time, Taylor has a resume, staff, and personal approach that very well could succeed. Jim Harbaugh is an obvious example of the right mentality and staff succeeding even with no prior major college football head coaching experience.

* It deserves a separate post but you are too defeatist about our 2023 schedule. I ran the numbers earlier and David Shaw’s crappy, demoralized, joyless, bad QB play, zero running backs by the end of the season, hapless defense with overmatched linemen 2022 abomination of a team would have been expected to win 3.59 games against this 2023 schedule. Three to five wins is not some radical exercise in optimism. It's common sense confronted with a schedule this favorable. Much more I can say about this and we can go there if you'd like, but predicting one win is radically pessimistic. To start, we are touchdown favorites for a game you're counting as a loss!

* Granted we'd be joining a tougher league with more challenging travel, but joining a tougher league with much closer proximity to football talent bases would very significantly boost our recruiting.

I respect your opinion and analysis. It's a thoughtful approach, and I always enjoy reading your posts. To your points:

- I don't think we're at a low point. I certainly hope we are, after consecutive 3-9 seasons. I think there are depths yet to be plumbed.
- The transfer-conducive environment isn't going away after this year, unless you have inside information that Stanford will throw open its doors to transfers. I would welcome that environment. I hope it materializes.
- I think the NIL environment is anathema to amateur athletics. I'm not saying Stanford is avoiding it, failing to embrace it, or can't understand it. I think they are moving more slowly and with less imagination and flexibility than other programs to succeed, in spite of the anecdotal evidence that you presented.
- Re: the factual errors, both Bank and Mayberry were cited as likely to start by Sports Illustrated, hence my comment. I will retract when Stanford announces its depth chart.
- Harbaugh had a substantial NFL resume, and strong coaching relationships and EUTM. I don't think Taylor will be as successful. I certainly hope he will be successful.
- Totally agree with you that the national exposure will boost Stanford football recruiting, I've made that same point in the last week or so on this board.

How about a friendly wager on the total number of wins and bowl games in 2023, and collectively over the next three years?

[Mick]

Mick, you've badly misread Stanford football's prospects going forward. It's not all sunshine and rainbows and we do face significant challenges, but you're over-reacting to a low point, just as many associated with Stanford did following the 1983, 1988, 1994, 2004, and 2006 seasons. Taylor may or may not be the coach to bring Stanford out of the doldrums but it certainly isn't the case that outlier bad seasons represent the ceiling for Stanford football. To address some of your points:

* Yes, we were bad the last couple of years. But turnarounds do happen. I've previously come up with 50 examples. There are probably 2-3 new coaches a year who go on to execute a turnaround of a flailing Power Five program. Given the significant advantages Power Five programs have, it averages about to about a 50/50 chance an attempted turnaround works to some extent. To me there is no question that if Stanford remains in a major conference there is a chance we can return to football relevance. It's a tossup whether Taylor can do it, but if he can't and Stanford can manage to stay in a power conference, the post-Taylor coach would have a chance too.

* I wonder if you know what you're talking about in saying Stanford hasn't figured out NIL. I think there's an important extent to which nobody has figured NIL out because it's new and evolving and, coupled with the transfer portal, creates retention and attrition dynamics that are very hard to navigate. We aren't the only school that sees contributors transfer out. I also wonder how much you know about the operations of Lifetime Cardinal. The press reports on it, at least, suggest significant and arguably competitive NIL efforts. In our current 2024 class we have a commitment from a player with a $190,000 NIL valuation. Going forward it remains to be seen what NIL deals Stanford players get, how this gets regulated by Congress, and other factors, and I don't think we (at least I) have enough information to say what it means for our competitive prospects going forward.

* Yes, we were decimated by the transfer portal. But that's something that affects our 2024 one year prospects, not something that should be used to cite whether we're major or minor going forward. We had the convergence of a bottoming out in football, transfer-conducive national environment, previous coach who built a program that encouraged individualism/40 year decisions/graduate degrees at the expense of team and football goals, and a coaching transition. Stanford's susceptibility to transfers going forward is another thing that remains to be seen, as does the ability to recruit higher quality transfers. Of course a losing program didn't get high quality transfers. But if you took the current national transfer environment and Stanford's current receptivity/admissions leeway for transfers and paired it with a football program at the level of where Stanford was from 2010-2017, the quality of transfers would have been much higher. If Taylor can start to turn around the program, transfers will look better than they did in 2023. I don't think we will ever rank high in transfer portal rankings, but if we can be #40 or #50 and pair that with top 20 (or even top 40) high school recruiting, that is very much major conference-competitive talent. And keep in mind that high school recruiting is easier now that so many programs are focused on transfers. The transfer portal is no more of a guaranteed death knell than NIL is. [By the way, it's incidental to the larger point but you had several factual errors in your logic. For example, our starting LT actually is poised to be a former 4-star recruit who looks quite promising. I assume you are talking about Alec Bank, who at no point has been a starter in camp last I heard.]

* Taylor will have a chance to prove Stanford made a good call with his hire. We'll see. I strongly believe that it was the type of budget hire Stanford always makes and shows less commitment to competing as a major college program than I think would be optimal or that the vast majority of power programs demonstrate. At the same time, Taylor has a resume, staff, and personal approach that very well could succeed. Jim Harbaugh is an obvious example of the right mentality and staff succeeding even with no prior major college football head coaching experience.

* It deserves a separate post but you are too defeatist about our 2023 schedule. I ran the numbers earlier and David Shaw’s crappy, demoralized, joyless, bad QB play, zero running backs by the end of the season, hapless defense with overmatched linemen 2022 abomination of a team would have been expected to win 3.59 games against this 2023 schedule. Three to five wins is not some radical exercise in optimism. It's common sense confronted with a schedule this favorable. Much more I can say about this and we can go there if you'd like, but predicting one win is radically pessimistic. To start, we are touchdown favorites for a game you're counting as a loss!

* Granted we'd be joining a tougher league with more challenging travel, but joining a tougher league with much closer proximity to football talent bases would very significantly boost our recruiting.

I respect your opinion and analysis. It's a thoughtful approach, and I always enjoy reading your posts. To your points:

- I don't think we're at a low point. I certainly hope we are, after consecutive 3-9 seasons. I think there are depths yet to be plumbed.
- The transfer-conducive environment isn't going away after this year, unless you have inside information that Stanford will throw open its doors to transfers. I would welcome that environment. I hope it materializes.
- I think the NIL environment is anathema to amateur athletics. I'm not saying Stanford is avoiding it, failing to embrace it, or can't understand it. I think they are moving more slowly and with less imagination and flexibility than other programs to succeed, in spite of the anecdotal evidence that you presented.
- Re: the factual errors, both Bank and Mayberry were cited as likely to start by Sports Illustrated, hence my comment. I will retract when Stanford announces its depth chart.
- Harbaugh had a substantial NFL resume, and strong coaching relationships and EUTM. I don't think Taylor will be as successful. I certainly hope he will be successful.
- Totally agree with you that the national exposure will boost Stanford football recruiting, I've made that same point in the last week or so on this board.

How about a friendly wager on the total number of wins and bowl games in 2023, and collectively over the next three years?