[gailtate]

I think we'll be much better.

1) COVID no longer a factor.
2) Departing Shaw no longer a factor.
3) Tighter portal rules.
4) The players are a year older/better/faster/stronger.
5) The coaches are a year further into their big boy jobs, and will have worked out the kinks by then.
6) The ACC is a weaker football league. Had to say it.

I'm thinking 4-5 wins next year.  8-9 the year after.

Hope springs eternal...

Hope Springs, Arkansas  is a fictional city  and the main setting for the "God's Not Dead" series of Christian drama films, which have been produced since 2014. It's also where I would put the chances of an 8-9 win season in 2025

I remember posting on the old Bootleg circa 2007-2008 that under the new coach (Harbaugh) we would have a chance to get to 8-9 wins by 2010.
I was met by peals of derisive laughter.
Yes, I know that the rules of college football have changed to Stanford's detriment since then, but I thought I would just throw this in.

This was the moment when (1) Harbaugh rolled out "EUTM" and "We bow to no program" and (2) there was a football friendly president who listened to his football-savvy A.D., Bob Bowlsby. None of this exists today, above and beyond the new landscape.

---

The elephant in the room for me is whether we can move on from fifth years becoming so rare. That's not the way to run a football team. Anybody who talks about college being four years or business being complete when your degree is complete or it being rational for players to move on is not serious about football.

Obviously, I do not agree. The analog would be to say that anybody who acknowledges the law of gravity can't be serious about building airplanes. The concepts you decry exist and in many cases following those concepts may be the "right choice" for some football players. Denying that fact (like denying the law of gravity) will greatly interfere with one's ability to cope with said facts. It is also counter-productive for the program to deprecate these choices, because the players will very quickly realize the coaching staff does not have the player's best interests at heart, only the needs of the program. That  results in an instant loss of respect.

This is a disease Taylor needs to eradicate.

Eradicating this "disease" is impossible. It isn't a "disease". It is a set of facts, and "facts are persistent things".

You can't develop the Tobin Phillips and Connor McLaughlins of the world for four years and then just shrug as they move on before reaching their potential. 

In order to minimize the attrition of certain "key" players, the staff is going to need to establish a relationship with them that acknowledges the other forces operating in the player's choice set. In some cases, the coach can explain the benefits of remaining another year and be convincing. It is easier to do this when the team is clearly on the "upswing" and when their is a significant bond among the position group. Creating a bond among the players is not something that is formulaic. The Tunnel Workers Union was not created by the coaches. They embraced it, but they did not create it. It is also easier to retain players if the NIL money is significant enough to be attractive. In other cases, the player will not be convinced and chose to move on. In that case all the coaches can do is wish bonne chance. It will happen. That is part of coaching at Stanford (and really everywhere else too, just more so at Stanford).

Even more importantly, the idea of remaining for a fifth year needs to be possible. The coaches need to identify players they may want to keep early on and inform them of the potential benefits of staying. The players then need to establish an academic path that gives them a chance at going to graduate school/co-terminal at Stanford. IMO postponing graduation by not pursuing a path to graduate in 4 years will be very unpopular with the players (who need to keep their options open) and even more unpopular (to the point of forbidding it) with the administration. Possibly some kind of double major situation may work for both groups, but the coaches (and players) can't ignore this issue.

This is just "how it is" at Stanford. You can develop programs to keep the players, but even best case, it won't always work. One can talk about the idea that the players themselves aren't "serious" about football if the chose to leave. However, even that idea is difficult to defend. Many players leaving after year 4 are going elsewhere because it allows them to play football in what they believe is a better situation for them. They may be correct in many cases. Doesn't mean they don't care about football (but often does mean they didn't get into graduate school at Stanford :-). It is also possible to be "serious" about football and also "serious" about other things. At Stanford, that probably is more of a problem than elsewhere. The coaches ignore this at their peril. They need to keep recruiting their players all 4 years. That is just a fact.

"They need to keep recruiting their players all 4 years. That is just a fact."
Apparently, this is precisely what David Shaw grew weary of doing.

[gailtate]

I think we'll be much better.

1) COVID no longer a factor.
2) Departing Shaw no longer a factor.
3) Tighter portal rules.
4) The players are a year older/better/faster/stronger.
5) The coaches are a year further into their big boy jobs, and will have worked out the kinks by then.
6) The ACC is a weaker football league. Had to say it.

I'm thinking 4-5 wins next year.  8-9 the year after.

Hope springs eternal...

Hope Springs, Arkansas  is a fictional city  and the main setting for the "God's Not Dead" series of Christian drama films, which have been produced since 2014. It's also where I would put the chances of an 8-9 win season in 2025

I remember posting on the old Bootleg circa 2007-2008 that under the new coach (Harbaugh) we would have a chance to get to 8-9 wins by 2010.
I was met by peals of derisive laughter.
Yes, I know that the rules of college football have changed to Stanford's detriment since then, but I thought I would just throw this in.

This was the moment when (1) Harbaugh rolled out "EUTM" and "We bow to no program" and (2) there was a football friendly president who listened to his football-savvy A.D., Bob Bowlsby. None of this exists today, above and beyond the new landscape.

---

The elephant in the room for me is whether we can move on from fifth years becoming so rare. That's not the way to run a football team. Anybody who talks about college being four years or business being complete when your degree is complete or it being rational for players to move on is not serious about football.

Obviously, I do not agree. The analog would be to say that anybody who acknowledges the law of gravity can't be serious about building airplanes. The concepts you decry exist and in many cases following those concepts may be the "right choice" for some football players. Denying that fact (like denying the law of gravity) will greatly interfere with one's ability to cope with said facts. It is also counter-productive for the program to deprecate these choices, because the players will very quickly realize the coaching staff does not have the player's best interests at heart, only the needs of the program. That  results in an instant loss of respect.

This is a disease Taylor needs to eradicate.

Eradicating this "disease" is impossible. It isn't a "disease". It is a set of facts, and "facts are persistent things".

You can't develop the Tobin Phillips and Connor McLaughlins of the world for four years and then just shrug as they move on before reaching their potential. 

In order to minimize the attrition of certain "key" players, the staff is going to need to establish a relationship with them that acknowledges the other forces operating in the player's choice set. In some cases, the coach can explain the benefits of remaining another year and be convincing. It is easier to do this when the team is clearly on the "upswing" and when their is a significant bond among the position group. Creating a bond among the players is not something that is formulaic. The Tunnel Workers Union was not created by the coaches. They embraced it, but they did not create it. It is also easier to retain players if the NIL money is significant enough to be attractive. In other cases, the player will not be convinced and chose to move on. In that case all the coaches can do is wish bonne chance. It will happen. That is part of coaching at Stanford (and really everywhere else too, just more so at Stanford).

Even more importantly, the idea of remaining for a fifth year needs to be possible. The coaches need to identify players they may want to keep early on and inform them of the potential benefits of staying. The players then need to establish an academic path that gives them a chance at going to graduate school/co-terminal at Stanford. IMO postponing graduation by not pursuing a path to graduate in 4 years will be very unpopular with the players (who need to keep their options open) and even more unpopular (to the point of forbidding it) with the administration. Possibly some kind of double major situation may work for both groups, but the coaches (and players) can't ignore this issue.

This is just "how it is" at Stanford. You can develop programs to keep the players, but even best case, it won't always work. One can talk about the idea that the players themselves aren't "serious" about football if the chose to leave. However, even that idea is difficult to defend. Many players leaving after year 4 are going elsewhere because it allows them to play football in what they believe is a better situation for them. They may be correct in many cases. Doesn't mean they don't care about football (but often does mean they didn't get into graduate school at Stanford :-). It is also possible to be "serious" about football and also "serious" about other things. At Stanford, that probably is more of a problem than elsewhere. The coaches ignore this at their peril. They need to keep recruiting their players all 4 years. That is just a fact.

"They need to keep recruiting their players all 4 years. That is just a fact."
Apparently, this is precisely what David Shaw grew weary of doing.