[msqueri]

* The answer on travel was both amusing and somewhat revealing. Obviously there's the Louis CK echo and nonchalant, keeping things in perspective attitude. I also think it's a vision into wanting so fundamentally to compete in Power Five that anything else is just details, which is where I am too. Travel is such a manageable concern compared to the apocalypse of relegation. In terms of Taylor's minimizing of the impacts of travel, it's generally healthy to have a positive, can-do attitude and to only control what you can control, but I think he significantly understates the inevitably detrimental impact significant travel would have on competitive prospects, student-athlete balancing of responsibilities, and athletic department finances. I won't belabor points on that I've expounded on separately. One thing I will add now is that unless and until Taylor can prove otherwise I am going to be skeptical about his ability to win games traveling east with early start times. Willingham, Teevens, and Harbaugh all struggled with that and only Shaw, whether because of being in more of a bully era of Stanford football for a good chunk of his time or because of his paranoid (well, not paranoid if they really are out to get you) obsession with addressing potential disadvantages related to travel, did ok in those scenarios. Even he did a lot worse in those scenarios than less significant travel scenarios. If we do end up playing a lot of games in Big 10, Big 12, or ACC country I am not going to be assuaged by Taylor's nonchalance in this interview. He'd have some uphill battles and, hopefully, we'd think really hard about how to mitigate those challenges. This best be a brave public face rather than a true attitude that travel doesn't matter that much.

* It may seem like a minor thing, but I liked his matter-of-fact answer on how tv driving what we're seeing is just the way it is because you've got to pay the bills. It inspires confidence when your leaders are adults who see the world clearly for how it is and try to operate in the world accordingly. It seems like a minor thing to recognize reality but I wonder if Stanford would be in a better place right now if this were a more common trait in our ivory towers.

* Such a tease to get Taylor to smile and acknowledge there's no doubt some true freshmen have stood out but then not get any specifics. It piqued my curiosity big-time that Taylor seems to think some guys have definitely stood out and some guys are definitely lagging ("taking a little while longer" is how he put it). I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but in the small scheme of these interviews I was livid to have that question rushed past/not followed up on by one of the reporters belaboring the point (despite saying "not to belabor the point") on conference realignment. Come on. Amateur hour. If you want to ask another question on something there have been eight questions on, fine, but wait until the other more novel line of questioning runs its course. If that question hadn't been rushed in there maybe Jackson or somebody else could have followed up with "any particular freshmen that are jumping out" or some other question that could have put Taylor on the spot to provide more insight, or at the very least kept him talking and gotten him to provide some perspective on position groups, competitive dynamics, or literally anything other than yet another conference realignment question....which, again, still could have been asked 30 seconds later. Ugh. Frustrating to learn absolutely zero about freshmen despite Taylor appearing to have very positive views on at least somebody. For what it's worth, that belabored question was about Stanford's viability as an independent. Taylor was right to demur and we didn't learn much.

[msqueri]

* The answer on travel was both amusing and somewhat revealing. Obviously there's the Louis CK echo and nonchalant, keeping things in perspective attitude. I also think it's a vision into wanting so fundamentally to compete in Power Five that anything else is just details, which is where I am too. Travel is such a manageable concern compared to the apocalypse of relegation. In terms of Taylor's minimizing of the impacts of travel, it's generally healthy to have a positive, can-do attitude and to only control what you can control, but I think he significantly understates the inevitably detrimental impact significant travel would have on competitive prospects, student-athlete balancing of responsibilities, and athletic department finances. I won't belabor points on that I've expounded on separately. One thing I will add now is that unless and until Taylor can prove otherwise I am going to be skeptical about his ability to win games traveling east with early start times. Willingham, Teevens, and Harbaugh all struggled with that and only Shaw, whether because of being in more of a bully era of Stanford football for a good chunk of his time or because of his paranoid (well, not paranoid if they really are out to get you) obsession with addressing potential disadvantages related to travel, did ok in those scenarios. Even he did a lot worse in those scenarios than less significant travel scenarios. If we do end up playing a lot of games in Big 10, Big 12, or ACC country I am not going to be assuaged by Taylor's nonchalance in this interview. He'd have some uphill battles and, hopefully, we'd think really hard about how to mitigate those challenges. This best be a brave public face rather than a true attitude that travel doesn't matter that much.

* It may seem like a minor thing, but I liked his matter-of-fact answer on how tv driving what we're seeing is just the way it is because you've got to pay the bills. It inspires confidence when your leaders are adults who see the world clearly for how it is and try to operate in the world accordingly. It seems like a minor thing to recognize reality but I wonder if Stanford would be in a better place right now if this were a more common trait in our ivory towers.

* Such a tease to get Taylor to smile and acknowledge there's no doubt some true freshmen have stood out but then not get any specifics. It piqued my curiosity big-time that Taylor seems to think some guys have definitely stood out and some guys are definitely lagging ("taking a little while longer" is how he put it). I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but in the small scheme of these interviews I was livid to have that question rushed past/not followed up on by one of the reporters belaboring the point (despite saying "not to belabor the point") on conference realignment. Come on. Amateur hour. If you want to ask another question on something there have been eight questions on, fine, but wait until the other more novel line of questioning runs its course. If that question hadn't been rushed in there maybe Jackson or somebody else could have followed up with "any particular freshmen that are jumping out" or some other question that could have put Taylor on the spot to provide more insight, or at the very least kept him talking and gotten him to provide some perspective on position groups, competitive dynamics, or literally anything other than yet another conference realignment question....which, again, still could have been asked 30 seconds later. Ugh. Frustrating to learn absolutely zero about freshmen despite Taylor appearing to have very positive views on at least somebody. For what it's worth, that belabored question was about Stanford's viability as an independent. Taylor was right to demur and we didn't learn much.