[Goose]

The comparison to the law of gravity rings hollow. There is nothing immutable about the notion that became popular under Shaw that a Stanford career was four years. 

It appears you didn't understand my point. My point was not directed at what football players should do. It was directed at what the can do and what options they may consider. The fact these options exist in the present indeed a fact. Pretending it isn't denies reality.

I have compiled data sets on hundreds of Stanford football players going back decades and as recently as under Teevens, Harris, and Harbaugh 54 percent of OL stayed five years and 71 percent of DL stayed five years, compared to less than 30 percent at both positions under Shaw. Stanford cared about academics in the 2000s too and, in fact, almost certainly had higher standards for football players than it has today.

Indeed. Back in the past grad transfers were almost unknown. Transferring before graduation was possible but virtually nobody did because you had to sit out a year. When you signed up to play football at Stanford, you were pretty much stuck at Stanford if you wanted to play. All those statistics describe a different world. Not relevant to today at all. I am also not certain where you get the belief that Stanford had higher standards  in the past than they do now. I am certainly familiar with Stanford's Rose Bowl teams in 1971 and 1972. There were several JC transfers on that team that were at best pretty marginal :-).

But programs and administrations can make decisions about how to operate within their given landscape. The football team can recruit players who care more about team goals than individual goals.

True, but identifying such players is far from an exact science. What coach would want players that explicitly said it was all about them? I think it is also not an either-or. Everybody has personal goals that the football program may not be meeting. Today, unlike in the past, you can just leave (as many people do). If you want to play, but aren't playing and the coach says you won't, leaving isn't deserting the team.

It can recruit players who care more about football than academics.

Good luck with that, especially at Stanford. First, you need to find somebody that can get in. A lot of people who care more about football than academics cannot. Even if you can get in, why would you go to Stanford instead of USC or even Indiana? You have to work harder on subjects you don't care about. You want to play football in a full stadium and be a Big Man On Campus. The "Stanford Hates Fun" issue is real. Also, you probably will find you don't fit in socially that well. On top of that, if you become dissatisfied with your situation, the transfer portal is a quick fix. The "40 year decision", such as it may be, doesn't mean squat to such players.

It can have the conversations you talk about with regard to long-term academic plans and options to stay on campus for the years of maximum football impact. If the administration is going to insist that only people still completing degrees can stay on the team or that football players need to get into grad school on non-football merits, a coach who cares about what he's hired to do can and should push back at that and find a way to not be overseeing a football suicide cult.

Indeed he should. However, I think "pushing back" isn't going to work. The coach is going to have to work with the administration to come up with something that "works". It may not be perfect, but stomping your foot and making demands isn't going to do it.

It's glib of you to say that the statements I decried are "facts." No, they are normative. Me saying it's a problem to view it as acceptable that the norm would be for linemen to only stay four years and you saying it's just the way it is at Stanford are both opinions about the way football at Stanford should be.

Not at all. From the coaching point of view, he wants some players to stay and some players to go. It is by definition "acceptable" for a player to leave to play football elsewhere or to just get on with life.  That is "ok" and saying it isn't is silly, these guys are not slaves (which arguably they were pretty much in the past). The thing you decry is how many of the players are choosing that option. There are indeed ways to affect that, and both the coach and the administration need to be involved. However, it still true this is an option and probably more players will chose it than you would wish.

These things can change with changes in the landscape, changes in the program, and changes within the university. 

We come at this from different places, as exemplified by your statement "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." It was a set of Shaw choices to populate a roster full of football-interested (rather than football-obsessed) Renaissance Men, operate with a closed door/aloof/imperialist mindset (rather than create a family-like atmosphere), and prize long-term individual career ambitions over the team experience. The players under Shaw realized he didn't have the team's best interests at heart, which made the experience for individuals less good too. They voted with their feet. In droves. For years.

Not sure I can say Shaw did all this. I do think he recruited "Renaissance Men" to a large extent, but one could argue that such men would be exactly the ones that should be altruistic team first guys. In any case, I don't think trying to BS your players will ever work. They know the situation pretty well.

What I'm talking about isn't deprecating individual choices, it's attracting players who want to accomplish team goals and making them want to stay because the football-obsessed, competitive, team-focused, family-oriented, fun environment is one they want to be in. I don't think players will feel this has their best interests at heart less than Shaw did.

Football obsessed guys will leave in a heartbeat if they view it as an advantage. They would be stupid not to. We see it all over NCAA football. If you can't convince them Stanford is their best option, they are gone, team or no team. I think the team oriented, family-oriented fun environment is indeed an attraction. It will make people want to stay, and if a reasonable way to do that can be created, more guys will stay for year 5. However, most NCAA football programs are not that. A few are. You might talk to Dabo Swinney about how that is working out for him right now, as well as the guys who have transferred out (Uiagalelei in particular).

You say that the way things have been is just the way Stanford is but that's bogus. Stanford was still Stanford when Bill Walsh, Denny Green, and Jim Harbaugh were there. We can have football coaches and still be Stanford. We can care about football and still be Stanford.

Indeed. Although it is pretty hard to classify any of those programs as "friendly" in any sense :-). No transfer portal then, few grad transfers. Different world.

[Goose]

The comparison to the law of gravity rings hollow. There is nothing immutable about the notion that became popular under Shaw that a Stanford career was four years. 

It appears you didn't understand my point. My point was not directed at what football players should do. It was directed at what the can do and what options they may consider. The fact these options exist in the present indeed a fact. Pretending it isn't denies reality.

I have compiled data sets on hundreds of Stanford football players going back decades and as recently as under Teevens, Harris, and Harbaugh 54 percent of OL stayed five years and 71 percent of DL stayed five years, compared to less than 30 percent at both positions under Shaw. Stanford cared about academics in the 2000s too and, in fact, almost certainly had higher standards for football players than it has today.

Indeed. Back in the past grad transfers were almost unknown. Transferring before graduation was possible but virtually nobody did because you had to sit out a year. When you signed up to play football at Stanford, you were pretty much stuck at Stanford if you wanted to play. All those statistics describe a different world. Not relevant to today at all. I am also not certain where you get the belief that Stanford had higher standards  in the past than they do now. I am certainly familiar with Stanford's Rose Bowl teams in 1971 and 1972. There were several JC transfers on that team that were at best pretty marginal :-).

But programs and administrations can make decisions about how to operate within their given landscape. The football team can recruit players who care more about team goals than individual goals.

True, but identifying such players is far from an exact science. What coach would want players that explicitly said it was all about them? I think it is also not an either-or. Everybody has personal goals that the football program may not be meeting. Today, unlike in the past, you can just leave (as many people do). If you want to play, but aren't playing and the coach says you won't, leaving isn't deserting the team.

It can recruit players who care more about football than academics.

Good luck with that, especially at Stanford. First, you need to find somebody that can get in. A lot of people who care more about football than academics cannot. Even if you can get in, why would you go to Stanford instead of USC or even Indiana? You have to work harder on subjects you don't care about. You want to play football in a full stadium and be a Big Man On Campus. The "Stanford Hates Fun" issue is real. Also, you probably will find you don't fit in socially that well. On top of that, if you become dissatisfied with your situation, the transfer portal is a quick fix. The "40 year decision", such as it may be, doesn't mean squat to such players.

It can have the conversations you talk about with regard to long-term academic plans and options to stay on campus for the years of maximum football impact. If the administration is going to insist that only people still completing degrees can stay on the team or that football players need to get into grad school on non-football merits, a coach who cares about what he's hired to do can and should push back at that and find a way to not be overseeing a football suicide cult.

Indeed he should. However, I think "pushing back" isn't going to work. The coach is going to have to work with the administration to come up with something that "works". It may not be perfect, but stomping your foot and making demands isn't going to do it.

It's glib of you to say that the statements I decried are "facts." No, they are normative. Me saying it's a problem to view it as acceptable that the norm would be for linemen to only stay four years and you saying it's just the way it is at Stanford are both opinions about the way football at Stanford should be.

Not at all. From the coaching point of view, he wants some players to stay and some players to go. It is by definition "acceptable" for a player to leave to play football elsewhere or to just get on with life.  That is "ok" and saying it isn't is silly, these guys are not slaves (which arguably they were pretty much in the past). The thing you decry is how many of the players are choosing that option. There are indeed ways to affect that, and both the coach and the administration need to be involved. However, it still true this is an option and probably more players will chose it than you would wish.

These things can change with changes in the landscape, changes in the program, and changes within the university. 

We come at this from different places, as exemplified by your statement "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." It was a set of Shaw choices to populate a roster full of football-interested (rather than football-obsessed) Renaissance Men, operate with a closed door/aloof/imperialist mindset (rather than create a family-like atmosphere), and prize long-term individual career ambitions over the team experience. The players under Shaw realized he didn't have the team's best interests at heart, which made the experience for individuals less good too. They voted with their feet. In droves. For years.

Not sure I can say Shaw did all this. I do think he recruited "Renaissance Men" to a large extent, but one could argue that such men would be exactly the ones that should be altruistic team first guys. In any case, I don't think trying to BS your players will ever work. They know the situation pretty well.

What I'm talking about isn't deprecating individual choices, it's attracting players who want to accomplish team goals and making them want to stay because the football-obsessed, competitive, team-focused, family-oriented, fun environment is one they want to be in. I don't think players will feel this has their best interests at heart less than Shaw did.

Football obsessed guys will leave in a heartbeat if they view it as an advantage. They would be stupid not to. We see it all over NCAA football. If you can't convince them Stanford is their best option, they are gone, team or no team. I think the team oriented, family-oriented fun environment is indeed an attraction. It will make people want to stay, and if a reasonable way to do that can be created, more guys will stay for year 5. However, most NCAA football programs are not that. A few are. You might talk to Dabo Swinney about how that is working out for him right now, as well as the guys who have transferred out (Uiagalelei in particular).

You say that the way things have been is just the way Stanford is but that's bogus. Stanford was still Stanford when Bill Walsh, Denny Green, and Jim Harbaugh were there. We can have football coaches and still be Stanford. We can care about football and still be Stanford.

Indeed. Although it is pretty hard to classify any of those programs as "friendly" in any sense :-). No transfer portal then, few grad transfers. Different world.