09-15-2019, 04:55 PM
Can Shaw Fix This?
09-15-2019, 05:03 PM
Here is what has really disappointed me. CMAC had a brobdingnagian year and should have won the Voldemort. He came back and everyone expected he would do even better. But, for some reason his last season was a disappointment. Then Love came on and had a great season. When he decided to come back for his senior season, I was thrilled. Everyone expected him to have a brobdingnagian year. But, his final season was terrible. Granted he was nursing injuries, but still. Last season KJ took over at QB and had a tremendous season at QB. Everyone expected him to come back this year and kill it. But he has looked pretty pedestrian so far. Something is wrong. This is becoming a pattern. Explanations?
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Here is what has really disappointed me. CMAC had a brobdingnagian year and should have won the Voldemort. He came back and everyone expected he would do even better. But, for some reason his last season was a disappointment. Then Love came on and had a great season. When he decided to come back for his senior season, I was thrilled. Everyone expected him to have a brobdingnagian year. But, his final season was terrible. Granted he was nursing injuries, but still. Last season KJ took over at QB and had a tremendous season at QB. Everyone expected him to come back this year and kill it. But he has looked pretty pedestrian so far. Something is wrong. This is becoming a pattern. Explanations?
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-15-2019, 06:35 PM
(09-15-2019, 03:54 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(09-15-2019, 03:27 PM)GK3 Wrote:(09-15-2019, 02:42 PM)yvonne Wrote: I agree. This is the single biggest thing he could do to right the ship, although it won't happen until at least the off season.
The biggest example was promoting Tavita up the ranks. It's not that he's necessarily a bad position coach and someone who is passionate about Stanford, but he has limited perspective. Let him go outside, see some new philosophies, and maybe if there's an opening down the road, bring him back. It's nothing personal. It's about getting a mind trust. When people like Mason and Bloomgren leave, their positions need to be filled with people of equal caliber.
I believe our problem is compounded by the fact that it is now HARDER to get into Stanford than it was when Harbaugh arrived. I am not at all sure the University cuts the athletic department as much slack in recruiting athletes as it used to do. Is the University willing to pay the kind of money it would take to get top notch coordinators? The figure might just be bigger than the University would be willing to pay and face the faculty and staff. The various boards are full of complaints about the people we didn't offer who had 4.0 averages, or a Wunderlich score of such and such. A 4.0 average is rather meaningless in terms of getting accepted, there is so much more that needs to be part of the package.
I am not at all sure that it is all that important to the current administration that we do well in the revenue sports any longer. There a lot of moving pieces involved in this issue and they all probably contribute to the current situation.
Excellent points GK3. As a corollary I think there was a small bump on admissions class size a while back. Perhaps someone here can enlighten us. IMHO class size could increase to 2000-2100 without compromising any standards.
Thanks for the comment. Shaw has been reported to have said it was now harder to find players who could pass through admissions. I have no idea if the he actually said something like that but some people seem to think he did. If we look back at another sport, MM led basketball from the desert to the final 4, then he left, I was never clear why he left, but problems getting players into school was reported as one of the reasons. Since he left, basketball has wandered back into the desert. I hope the football program does not follow the bouncing ball and we end up regressing to the historical mean.
I believe that today, if you want to compete at the top in football and basketball, you need one thing above all others; you MUST have an institution for which winning is more important than education. If you operate with this as your guiding light, admissions won't make life difficult for recruiters, and staff and faculty won't complain about salaries paid to coaches and athletic staff. This does not describe Stanford. Schools like Stanford have to do the best they can, recruit the best kids they can get through admissions and hire the best coaches willing to commute a long ways from their affordable housing to the school. Some years the talent pool of kids thinking that the 40 year decision is important is larger and you get a better class. Sometimes they will come in at the same time there is very capable staff available to coach them. When all the stars line up you end up with a few years of very good teams, then the young assistants get head coach gigs, the size of the 40 year talent pool shrinks and you hire some new assistants who unfortunately are not as good as the ones who left. This leaves us where we are now.
Does anyone on this board think Stanford can actually be Stanford and Alabama at the same time? Can we actually recruit and get through admissions a class consistently ranked in the top 10 and usually in the top 5? My personal opinion is that we can hope to average around 25th, with some years a bit higher, and others a bit lower.
Another question is how often do we fill our full scholarship allotment?. I was of the opinion that in recent years that we have not done so. Would it be possible to fill each class by giving those now known as Preferred Walkons a scholarship from the start, and then bringing in more PWO's who might have the chance to earn a scholarship at a point in the future.
(09-15-2019, 03:54 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(09-15-2019, 03:27 PM)GK3 Wrote:(09-15-2019, 02:42 PM)yvonne Wrote: I agree. This is the single biggest thing he could do to right the ship, although it won't happen until at least the off season.
The biggest example was promoting Tavita up the ranks. It's not that he's necessarily a bad position coach and someone who is passionate about Stanford, but he has limited perspective. Let him go outside, see some new philosophies, and maybe if there's an opening down the road, bring him back. It's nothing personal. It's about getting a mind trust. When people like Mason and Bloomgren leave, their positions need to be filled with people of equal caliber.
I believe our problem is compounded by the fact that it is now HARDER to get into Stanford than it was when Harbaugh arrived. I am not at all sure the University cuts the athletic department as much slack in recruiting athletes as it used to do. Is the University willing to pay the kind of money it would take to get top notch coordinators? The figure might just be bigger than the University would be willing to pay and face the faculty and staff. The various boards are full of complaints about the people we didn't offer who had 4.0 averages, or a Wunderlich score of such and such. A 4.0 average is rather meaningless in terms of getting accepted, there is so much more that needs to be part of the package.
I am not at all sure that it is all that important to the current administration that we do well in the revenue sports any longer. There a lot of moving pieces involved in this issue and they all probably contribute to the current situation.
Excellent points GK3. As a corollary I think there was a small bump on admissions class size a while back. Perhaps someone here can enlighten us. IMHO class size could increase to 2000-2100 without compromising any standards.
Thanks for the comment. Shaw has been reported to have said it was now harder to find players who could pass through admissions. I have no idea if the he actually said something like that but some people seem to think he did. If we look back at another sport, MM led basketball from the desert to the final 4, then he left, I was never clear why he left, but problems getting players into school was reported as one of the reasons. Since he left, basketball has wandered back into the desert. I hope the football program does not follow the bouncing ball and we end up regressing to the historical mean.
I believe that today, if you want to compete at the top in football and basketball, you need one thing above all others; you MUST have an institution for which winning is more important than education. If you operate with this as your guiding light, admissions won't make life difficult for recruiters, and staff and faculty won't complain about salaries paid to coaches and athletic staff. This does not describe Stanford. Schools like Stanford have to do the best they can, recruit the best kids they can get through admissions and hire the best coaches willing to commute a long ways from their affordable housing to the school. Some years the talent pool of kids thinking that the 40 year decision is important is larger and you get a better class. Sometimes they will come in at the same time there is very capable staff available to coach them. When all the stars line up you end up with a few years of very good teams, then the young assistants get head coach gigs, the size of the 40 year talent pool shrinks and you hire some new assistants who unfortunately are not as good as the ones who left. This leaves us where we are now.
Does anyone on this board think Stanford can actually be Stanford and Alabama at the same time? Can we actually recruit and get through admissions a class consistently ranked in the top 10 and usually in the top 5? My personal opinion is that we can hope to average around 25th, with some years a bit higher, and others a bit lower.
Another question is how often do we fill our full scholarship allotment?. I was of the opinion that in recent years that we have not done so. Would it be possible to fill each class by giving those now known as Preferred Walkons a scholarship from the start, and then bringing in more PWO's who might have the chance to earn a scholarship at a point in the future.
09-15-2019, 07:18 PM
To me, this discussion goes far beyond Stanford. The gap between the top programs - Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Georgia - in terms of commitment to winning, is large. Even Notre Dame, who has lower admission standards than Stanford and nationwide TV exposure every week, can't keep up, because when they play one of these powerhouses, they lose.
LSU, Auburn, Texas, Texas A&M, Michigan, USC, Penn State, Oregon, Florida, Washington, Wisconsin, and Florida State all sink giant money into football, and even they can't get to the very top these days. Georgia has massively increased its investment into recruiting and coaching staff salaries and it has the best football talent producing state per capita based on what I can gather.
This week I read an article about an attendance app at Alabama that is giving students reward points if they stay through games from kickoff to final whistle. Nick Saban said something like "if you want to be number one, we need the stands packed." So here Alabama is, already at the top of the mountain or barely off it, and they are taking strong action to shore up the slightest possible weakness they have.
I saw this and thought "we have a problem in college football." Stanford can't even find enough quality players who can qualify for admission, and here Alabama is designing apps to make sure nobody leaves the stadium, fearing that if they do, they might not be as desirable a destination for the best players. There really are not 65 teams that should be competing for playoffs in the Power 5 conferences. The disparities in talent concentration are growing and growing, and the teams spending the most money are getting most of them, and they are in turn collecting the most money.
Stanford might have issues with coaching staff and recruiting, but most of college football can't keep up with a very few programs. It's not good for the game. It will be quite interesting to see how Notre Dame fares in Athens this Saturday.
LSU, Auburn, Texas, Texas A&M, Michigan, USC, Penn State, Oregon, Florida, Washington, Wisconsin, and Florida State all sink giant money into football, and even they can't get to the very top these days. Georgia has massively increased its investment into recruiting and coaching staff salaries and it has the best football talent producing state per capita based on what I can gather.
This week I read an article about an attendance app at Alabama that is giving students reward points if they stay through games from kickoff to final whistle. Nick Saban said something like "if you want to be number one, we need the stands packed." So here Alabama is, already at the top of the mountain or barely off it, and they are taking strong action to shore up the slightest possible weakness they have.
I saw this and thought "we have a problem in college football." Stanford can't even find enough quality players who can qualify for admission, and here Alabama is designing apps to make sure nobody leaves the stadium, fearing that if they do, they might not be as desirable a destination for the best players. There really are not 65 teams that should be competing for playoffs in the Power 5 conferences. The disparities in talent concentration are growing and growing, and the teams spending the most money are getting most of them, and they are in turn collecting the most money.
Stanford might have issues with coaching staff and recruiting, but most of college football can't keep up with a very few programs. It's not good for the game. It will be quite interesting to see how Notre Dame fares in Athens this Saturday.
To me, this discussion goes far beyond Stanford. The gap between the top programs - Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Georgia - in terms of commitment to winning, is large. Even Notre Dame, who has lower admission standards than Stanford and nationwide TV exposure every week, can't keep up, because when they play one of these powerhouses, they lose.
LSU, Auburn, Texas, Texas A&M, Michigan, USC, Penn State, Oregon, Florida, Washington, Wisconsin, and Florida State all sink giant money into football, and even they can't get to the very top these days. Georgia has massively increased its investment into recruiting and coaching staff salaries and it has the best football talent producing state per capita based on what I can gather.
This week I read an article about an attendance app at Alabama that is giving students reward points if they stay through games from kickoff to final whistle. Nick Saban said something like "if you want to be number one, we need the stands packed." So here Alabama is, already at the top of the mountain or barely off it, and they are taking strong action to shore up the slightest possible weakness they have.
I saw this and thought "we have a problem in college football." Stanford can't even find enough quality players who can qualify for admission, and here Alabama is designing apps to make sure nobody leaves the stadium, fearing that if they do, they might not be as desirable a destination for the best players. There really are not 65 teams that should be competing for playoffs in the Power 5 conferences. The disparities in talent concentration are growing and growing, and the teams spending the most money are getting most of them, and they are in turn collecting the most money.
Stanford might have issues with coaching staff and recruiting, but most of college football can't keep up with a very few programs. It's not good for the game. It will be quite interesting to see how Notre Dame fares in Athens this Saturday.
LSU, Auburn, Texas, Texas A&M, Michigan, USC, Penn State, Oregon, Florida, Washington, Wisconsin, and Florida State all sink giant money into football, and even they can't get to the very top these days. Georgia has massively increased its investment into recruiting and coaching staff salaries and it has the best football talent producing state per capita based on what I can gather.
This week I read an article about an attendance app at Alabama that is giving students reward points if they stay through games from kickoff to final whistle. Nick Saban said something like "if you want to be number one, we need the stands packed." So here Alabama is, already at the top of the mountain or barely off it, and they are taking strong action to shore up the slightest possible weakness they have.
I saw this and thought "we have a problem in college football." Stanford can't even find enough quality players who can qualify for admission, and here Alabama is designing apps to make sure nobody leaves the stadium, fearing that if they do, they might not be as desirable a destination for the best players. There really are not 65 teams that should be competing for playoffs in the Power 5 conferences. The disparities in talent concentration are growing and growing, and the teams spending the most money are getting most of them, and they are in turn collecting the most money.
Stanford might have issues with coaching staff and recruiting, but most of college football can't keep up with a very few programs. It's not good for the game. It will be quite interesting to see how Notre Dame fares in Athens this Saturday.
09-15-2019, 07:53 PM
(09-15-2019, 07:18 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: To me, this discussion goes far beyond Stanford. The gap between the top programs - Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Georgia - in terms of commitment to winning, is large. Even Notre Dame, who has lower admission standards than Stanford and nationwide TV exposure every week, can't keep up, because when they play one of these powerhouses, they lose.
LSU, Auburn, Texas, Texas A&M, Michigan, USC, Penn State, Oregon, Florida, Washington, Wisconsin, and Florida State all sink giant money into football, and even they can't get to the very top these days. Georgia has massively increased its investment into recruiting and coaching staff salaries and it has the best football talent producing state per capita based on what I can gather.
This week I read an article about an attendance app at Alabama that is giving students reward points if they stay through games from kickoff to final whistle. Nick Saban said something like "if you want to be number one, we need the stands packed." So here Alabama is, already at the top of the mountain or barely off it, and they are taking strong action to shore up the slightest possible weakness they have.
I saw this and thought "we have a problem in college football." Stanford can't even find enough quality players who can qualify for admission, and here Alabama is designing apps to make sure nobody leaves the stadium, fearing that if they do, they might not be as desirable a destination for the best players. There really are not 65 teams that should be competing for playoffs in the Power 5 conferences. The disparities in talent concentration are growing and growing, and the teams spending the most money are getting most of them, and they are in turn collecting the most money.
Stanford might have issues with coaching staff and recruiting, but most of college football can't keep up with a very few programs. It's not good for the game. It will be quite interesting to see how Notre Dame fares in Athens this Saturday.
I feel like related to what you're saying is the trend of increasing numbers of underclassmen entering the draft. Talented NCAA football players seem to have less and less interest in school. It's mostly about finding the best program that gives you a shot to get into the NFL as quickly as possible. Given the nature of injuries in such a violent sport, perhaps this even makes sense, to some degree.
To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
(09-15-2019, 07:18 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: To me, this discussion goes far beyond Stanford. The gap between the top programs - Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Georgia - in terms of commitment to winning, is large. Even Notre Dame, who has lower admission standards than Stanford and nationwide TV exposure every week, can't keep up, because when they play one of these powerhouses, they lose.
LSU, Auburn, Texas, Texas A&M, Michigan, USC, Penn State, Oregon, Florida, Washington, Wisconsin, and Florida State all sink giant money into football, and even they can't get to the very top these days. Georgia has massively increased its investment into recruiting and coaching staff salaries and it has the best football talent producing state per capita based on what I can gather.
This week I read an article about an attendance app at Alabama that is giving students reward points if they stay through games from kickoff to final whistle. Nick Saban said something like "if you want to be number one, we need the stands packed." So here Alabama is, already at the top of the mountain or barely off it, and they are taking strong action to shore up the slightest possible weakness they have.
I saw this and thought "we have a problem in college football." Stanford can't even find enough quality players who can qualify for admission, and here Alabama is designing apps to make sure nobody leaves the stadium, fearing that if they do, they might not be as desirable a destination for the best players. There really are not 65 teams that should be competing for playoffs in the Power 5 conferences. The disparities in talent concentration are growing and growing, and the teams spending the most money are getting most of them, and they are in turn collecting the most money.
Stanford might have issues with coaching staff and recruiting, but most of college football can't keep up with a very few programs. It's not good for the game. It will be quite interesting to see how Notre Dame fares in Athens this Saturday.
I feel like related to what you're saying is the trend of increasing numbers of underclassmen entering the draft. Talented NCAA football players seem to have less and less interest in school. It's mostly about finding the best program that gives you a shot to get into the NFL as quickly as possible. Given the nature of injuries in such a violent sport, perhaps this even makes sense, to some degree.
To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
09-15-2019, 08:01 PM
(09-15-2019, 07:53 PM)needle Wrote: To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
This will never happen for academic/Stanford experience reasons.
(09-15-2019, 07:53 PM)needle Wrote: To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
This will never happen for academic/Stanford experience reasons.
09-15-2019, 08:11 PM
(09-15-2019, 08:01 PM)d4cohn Wrote:(09-15-2019, 07:53 PM)needle Wrote: To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
This will never happen for academic/Stanford experience reasons.
Maybe, maybe not. Examples we know all too well of how other schools have benefited from early enrollment:
Quote:Slovis was a 3-star recruit, passed over by most schools but signed on by USC because, frankly, they needed the bodies. Yet, Slovis has showed out since spring camp after enrolling early, and slowly but steadily made his way up the depth chart.
https://www.12up.com/posts/usc-freshman-...dm7n0s89k0
Quote:He’s the all-time career passing leader in Hawaii High School Football history, and in three weeks, Mililani graduate Dillon Gabriel will break training camp, as the true freshman engages on a mission for immediate playing time at UCF.
The early enrollee who took part in spring training camp this past March is in an open competition for the starting quarterback position that was left void by fellow former Trojan McKenzie Milton, who suffered a knee dislocation last year.
https://www.khon2.com/sports/mililanis-d...arterback/
(09-15-2019, 08:01 PM)d4cohn Wrote:(09-15-2019, 07:53 PM)needle Wrote: To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
This will never happen for academic/Stanford experience reasons.
Maybe, maybe not. Examples we know all too well of how other schools have benefited from early enrollment:
Quote:Slovis was a 3-star recruit, passed over by most schools but signed on by USC because, frankly, they needed the bodies. Yet, Slovis has showed out since spring camp after enrolling early, and slowly but steadily made his way up the depth chart.
https://www.12up.com/posts/usc-freshman-...dm7n0s89k0
Quote:He’s the all-time career passing leader in Hawaii High School Football history, and in three weeks, Mililani graduate Dillon Gabriel will break training camp, as the true freshman engages on a mission for immediate playing time at UCF.
The early enrollee who took part in spring training camp this past March is in an open competition for the starting quarterback position that was left void by fellow former Trojan McKenzie Milton, who suffered a knee dislocation last year.
https://www.khon2.com/sports/mililanis-d...arterback/
09-15-2019, 08:41 PM
(09-15-2019, 03:54 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(09-15-2019, 03:27 PM)GK3 Wrote:(09-15-2019, 02:42 PM)yvonne Wrote: I agree. This is the single biggest thing he could do to right the ship, although it won't happen until at least the off season.
The biggest example was promoting Tavita up the ranks. It's not that he's necessarily a bad position coach and someone who is passionate about Stanford, but he has limited perspective. Let him go outside, see some new philosophies, and maybe if there's an opening down the road, bring him back. It's nothing personal. It's about getting a mind trust. When people like Mason and Bloomgren leave, their positions need to be filled with people of equal caliber.
I believe our problem is compounded by the fact that it is now HARDER to get into Stanford than it was when Harbaugh arrived. I am not at all sure the University cuts the athletic department as much slack in recruiting athletes as it used to do. Is the University willing to pay the kind of money it would take to get top notch coordinators? The figure might just be bigger than the University would be willing to pay and face the faculty and staff. The various boards are full of complaints about the people we didn't offer who had 4.0 averages, or a Wunderlich score of such and such. A 4.0 average is rather meaningless in terms of getting accepted, there is so much more that needs to be part of the package.
I am not at all sure that it is all that important to the current administration that we do well in the revenue sports any longer. There a lot of moving pieces involved in this issue and they all probably contribute to the current situation.
Excellent points GK3. As a corollary I think there was a small bump on admissions class size a while back. Perhaps someone here can enlighten us. IMHO class size could increase to 2000-2100 without compromising any standards.
Class size is determined by housing availability and comes from the highest of the upper administration. With Stanford guaranteeing four years of housing, the reason class size can't just increase is the same reason the transfer class size is stuck in the upper 20s.
(09-15-2019, 03:54 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(09-15-2019, 03:27 PM)GK3 Wrote:(09-15-2019, 02:42 PM)yvonne Wrote: I agree. This is the single biggest thing he could do to right the ship, although it won't happen until at least the off season.
The biggest example was promoting Tavita up the ranks. It's not that he's necessarily a bad position coach and someone who is passionate about Stanford, but he has limited perspective. Let him go outside, see some new philosophies, and maybe if there's an opening down the road, bring him back. It's nothing personal. It's about getting a mind trust. When people like Mason and Bloomgren leave, their positions need to be filled with people of equal caliber.
I believe our problem is compounded by the fact that it is now HARDER to get into Stanford than it was when Harbaugh arrived. I am not at all sure the University cuts the athletic department as much slack in recruiting athletes as it used to do. Is the University willing to pay the kind of money it would take to get top notch coordinators? The figure might just be bigger than the University would be willing to pay and face the faculty and staff. The various boards are full of complaints about the people we didn't offer who had 4.0 averages, or a Wunderlich score of such and such. A 4.0 average is rather meaningless in terms of getting accepted, there is so much more that needs to be part of the package.
I am not at all sure that it is all that important to the current administration that we do well in the revenue sports any longer. There a lot of moving pieces involved in this issue and they all probably contribute to the current situation.
Excellent points GK3. As a corollary I think there was a small bump on admissions class size a while back. Perhaps someone here can enlighten us. IMHO class size could increase to 2000-2100 without compromising any standards.
Class size is determined by housing availability and comes from the highest of the upper administration. With Stanford guaranteeing four years of housing, the reason class size can't just increase is the same reason the transfer class size is stuck in the upper 20s.
09-15-2019, 09:58 PM
(09-15-2019, 08:01 PM)d4cohn Wrote:(09-15-2019, 07:53 PM)needle Wrote: To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
This will never happen for academic/Stanford experience reasons.
This will never happen as long as Shaw is around. How long that is, and what his successor decides to do, are both unknowns
(09-15-2019, 08:01 PM)d4cohn Wrote:(09-15-2019, 07:53 PM)needle Wrote: To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
This will never happen for academic/Stanford experience reasons.
This will never happen as long as Shaw is around. How long that is, and what his successor decides to do, are both unknowns
09-15-2019, 10:02 PM
(09-15-2019, 09:58 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-15-2019, 08:01 PM)d4cohn Wrote:(09-15-2019, 07:53 PM)needle Wrote: To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
This will never happen for academic/Stanford experience reasons.
This will never happen as long as Shaw is around. How long that is, and what his successor decides to do, are both unknowns
It will not be his successor's call to make. But of course, the administration is not entirely immovable. I think it would be a heavy lift for someone to convince the administration to allow early entry for reasons that have already been articulated, but Shaw has been content to take "no" for an answer.
My best guess is that Shaw's successor, unless they come from within the program, will try hard to get it changed, and will fail. But at least they will try.
BC
(09-15-2019, 09:58 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-15-2019, 08:01 PM)d4cohn Wrote:(09-15-2019, 07:53 PM)needle Wrote: To take a position contrary to most on this board, I believe Stanford should allow its football student-athletes to begin school early and take part in spring drills. This would fit with what top athletes want the most these days out of college: an express train to the NFL.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...remaining/
This will never happen for academic/Stanford experience reasons.
This will never happen as long as Shaw is around. How long that is, and what his successor decides to do, are both unknowns
It will not be his successor's call to make. But of course, the administration is not entirely immovable. I think it would be a heavy lift for someone to convince the administration to allow early entry for reasons that have already been articulated, but Shaw has been content to take "no" for an answer.
My best guess is that Shaw's successor, unless they come from within the program, will try hard to get it changed, and will fail. But at least they will try.
BC
09-16-2019, 04:37 AM
(09-15-2019, 03:27 PM)GK3 Wrote: I believe our problem is compounded by the fact that it is now HARDER to get into Stanford than it was when Harbaugh arrived. I am not at all sure the University cuts the athletic department as much slack in recruiting athletes as it used to do. Is the University willing to pay the kind of money it would take to get top notch coordinators? The figure might just be bigger than the University would be willing to pay and face the faculty and staff. The various boards are full of complaints about the people we didn't offer who had 4.0 averages, or a Wunderlich score of such and such. A 4.0 average is rather meaningless in terms of getting accepted, there is so much more that needs to be part of the package.
I am not at all sure that it is all that important to the current administration that we do well in the revenue sports any longer. There a lot of moving pieces involved in this issue and they all probably contribute to the current situation.
the numbers for football seem to be in the Durrett scale norm (not like the scores demanded under Robin's Reign of Terror). I think the big difference between now and Harbs is Harbs was willing to push for guys he thought could thrive at Stanford and beyond (e.g. MT3). I haven't seen evidence of this type of push from the current coach.
(09-15-2019, 03:27 PM)GK3 Wrote: I believe our problem is compounded by the fact that it is now HARDER to get into Stanford than it was when Harbaugh arrived. I am not at all sure the University cuts the athletic department as much slack in recruiting athletes as it used to do. Is the University willing to pay the kind of money it would take to get top notch coordinators? The figure might just be bigger than the University would be willing to pay and face the faculty and staff. The various boards are full of complaints about the people we didn't offer who had 4.0 averages, or a Wunderlich score of such and such. A 4.0 average is rather meaningless in terms of getting accepted, there is so much more that needs to be part of the package.
I am not at all sure that it is all that important to the current administration that we do well in the revenue sports any longer. There a lot of moving pieces involved in this issue and they all probably contribute to the current situation.
the numbers for football seem to be in the Durrett scale norm (not like the scores demanded under Robin's Reign of Terror). I think the big difference between now and Harbs is Harbs was willing to push for guys he thought could thrive at Stanford and beyond (e.g. MT3). I haven't seen evidence of this type of push from the current coach.
I'm having a hard time taking some of the most sweeping criticism of Shaw seriously. It reminds me of what was being said on this board after the Northwestern loss a couple of years ago. Let me remind everyone:
1) Shaw has won more games than any other coach in 127 years of Stanford football history.
2) Shaw has been Pac 12 coach of the year 4 times. Walsh and Willingham managed once, Harbaugh none.
3) Under Shaw, Stanford has won the Rose Bowl twice, after a 31 year drought.
4) Shaw has managed all this while apparently upholding high academic standards and avoiding (or weeding out, in the case of Turley?) corruption in the program.
5) Shaw is an alum of our program and school, whose ability to personify the value of a Stanford education gives him a major advantage over nearly any possible replacement.
Shaw has certainly made mistakes, probably in recruiting, in trusting assistant coaches he should not have trusted (Bloomgren), in some game plans (MSU), in some play calls (numerous.) I have no problem with criticizing particular mistakes--and I imagine Shaw doesn't either. Does anyone here really believe that external criticism of Shaw is any harsher than the criticism he makes of himself?
I'm reminded of the 2000s with Tara. Was Tara a lesser coach during those years, when her team was not flying as high as it did in the decade earlier or the decade after? Of course not. The truth that fans don't want to hear is that at Stanford, coaches do not have complete control. Recruiting is an imprecise science, there are unpredictable ups and downs, injuries take a toll. A couple of unheralded recruits can prove to be special talents, or a couple of heralded recruits can turn out to be duds, and the whole complexion of a season changes.
Two bad games against rising star quarterbacks, in hostile territory and hostile weather, during a spate of injuries, does not convince me that Shaw is anything less that the same terrific coach we have watched perform miracles with the program for years. A couple of losing seasons would be necessary to do that. Let's keep things in perspective.
1) Shaw has won more games than any other coach in 127 years of Stanford football history.
2) Shaw has been Pac 12 coach of the year 4 times. Walsh and Willingham managed once, Harbaugh none.
3) Under Shaw, Stanford has won the Rose Bowl twice, after a 31 year drought.
4) Shaw has managed all this while apparently upholding high academic standards and avoiding (or weeding out, in the case of Turley?) corruption in the program.
5) Shaw is an alum of our program and school, whose ability to personify the value of a Stanford education gives him a major advantage over nearly any possible replacement.
Shaw has certainly made mistakes, probably in recruiting, in trusting assistant coaches he should not have trusted (Bloomgren), in some game plans (MSU), in some play calls (numerous.) I have no problem with criticizing particular mistakes--and I imagine Shaw doesn't either. Does anyone here really believe that external criticism of Shaw is any harsher than the criticism he makes of himself?
I'm reminded of the 2000s with Tara. Was Tara a lesser coach during those years, when her team was not flying as high as it did in the decade earlier or the decade after? Of course not. The truth that fans don't want to hear is that at Stanford, coaches do not have complete control. Recruiting is an imprecise science, there are unpredictable ups and downs, injuries take a toll. A couple of unheralded recruits can prove to be special talents, or a couple of heralded recruits can turn out to be duds, and the whole complexion of a season changes.
Two bad games against rising star quarterbacks, in hostile territory and hostile weather, during a spate of injuries, does not convince me that Shaw is anything less that the same terrific coach we have watched perform miracles with the program for years. A couple of losing seasons would be necessary to do that. Let's keep things in perspective.
I'm having a hard time taking some of the most sweeping criticism of Shaw seriously. It reminds me of what was being said on this board after the Northwestern loss a couple of years ago. Let me remind everyone:
1) Shaw has won more games than any other coach in 127 years of Stanford football history.
2) Shaw has been Pac 12 coach of the year 4 times. Walsh and Willingham managed once, Harbaugh none.
3) Under Shaw, Stanford has won the Rose Bowl twice, after a 31 year drought.
4) Shaw has managed all this while apparently upholding high academic standards and avoiding (or weeding out, in the case of Turley?) corruption in the program.
5) Shaw is an alum of our program and school, whose ability to personify the value of a Stanford education gives him a major advantage over nearly any possible replacement.
Shaw has certainly made mistakes, probably in recruiting, in trusting assistant coaches he should not have trusted (Bloomgren), in some game plans (MSU), in some play calls (numerous.) I have no problem with criticizing particular mistakes--and I imagine Shaw doesn't either. Does anyone here really believe that external criticism of Shaw is any harsher than the criticism he makes of himself?
I'm reminded of the 2000s with Tara. Was Tara a lesser coach during those years, when her team was not flying as high as it did in the decade earlier or the decade after? Of course not. The truth that fans don't want to hear is that at Stanford, coaches do not have complete control. Recruiting is an imprecise science, there are unpredictable ups and downs, injuries take a toll. A couple of unheralded recruits can prove to be special talents, or a couple of heralded recruits can turn out to be duds, and the whole complexion of a season changes.
Two bad games against rising star quarterbacks, in hostile territory and hostile weather, during a spate of injuries, does not convince me that Shaw is anything less that the same terrific coach we have watched perform miracles with the program for years. A couple of losing seasons would be necessary to do that. Let's keep things in perspective.
1) Shaw has won more games than any other coach in 127 years of Stanford football history.
2) Shaw has been Pac 12 coach of the year 4 times. Walsh and Willingham managed once, Harbaugh none.
3) Under Shaw, Stanford has won the Rose Bowl twice, after a 31 year drought.
4) Shaw has managed all this while apparently upholding high academic standards and avoiding (or weeding out, in the case of Turley?) corruption in the program.
5) Shaw is an alum of our program and school, whose ability to personify the value of a Stanford education gives him a major advantage over nearly any possible replacement.
Shaw has certainly made mistakes, probably in recruiting, in trusting assistant coaches he should not have trusted (Bloomgren), in some game plans (MSU), in some play calls (numerous.) I have no problem with criticizing particular mistakes--and I imagine Shaw doesn't either. Does anyone here really believe that external criticism of Shaw is any harsher than the criticism he makes of himself?
I'm reminded of the 2000s with Tara. Was Tara a lesser coach during those years, when her team was not flying as high as it did in the decade earlier or the decade after? Of course not. The truth that fans don't want to hear is that at Stanford, coaches do not have complete control. Recruiting is an imprecise science, there are unpredictable ups and downs, injuries take a toll. A couple of unheralded recruits can prove to be special talents, or a couple of heralded recruits can turn out to be duds, and the whole complexion of a season changes.
Two bad games against rising star quarterbacks, in hostile territory and hostile weather, during a spate of injuries, does not convince me that Shaw is anything less that the same terrific coach we have watched perform miracles with the program for years. A couple of losing seasons would be necessary to do that. Let's keep things in perspective.
09-16-2019, 06:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-16-2019, 06:26 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Highly competitive enterprises don’t allow those who have succeeded in the past to become complacent. The phrase “adapt or die” is as true in sports as it is in form of life survival or business. Company leaders don’t want to lay-off employees, but neither do they want to go out of business sticking with what they have always done, or falling on their swords to feel good about themselves. How do you feel good about yourself when everything you worked to build is dead?
There is always a fine line between adapting and selling out your values to stay competitive. Recruiting is the lifeblood of college sports. Stanford puts more obstacles in its own way than seems smart. In fact, it can be argued Stanford doesn’t recruit as much as select from a pool that comes to it, maybe not in all cases, but certainly many. What happens when the best players no longer see Stanford as the place to become NFL-ready?
The Wesley Steiner recruitment is an object lesson in extinction. This ain’t even a case where a recruit demanded to enroll early. All he wanted was to take an official visit in Spring to see if he would like Stanford because he wanted to decide his school before season. Like it or not, the best players want to win and have the schools demonstrate they will do what it takes to win. Elite prospects will now more frequently conclude Stanford isn’t committed to winning if not allowing early entries or Spring visits. Requiring kids to pay their own way for unofficial visits means only privileged kids will comprise the roster. This is terrible for the competitiveness of the program. You need the Richard Shermans and Doug Baldwins who have nothing but can still come to Stanford for the team to have the diversity and edge it needs - guys who act like their sport is life and won’t give it up for a cushy job with eligibility remaining.
No Spring official visits, no early enrollment, leave small margin of error with so few offers, make recruits go through admission gauntlets no competitor requires, and then require academic performance numbers that are quite rare to achieve from kids focused on developing their athletic skill. But even if Stanford gets some elite talent through its gauntlet, they leave early many times now after just two years of playing. This is a recipe for disaster and not being competitive with your peers. Something has to change because Stanford’s ability to compete isn’t getting developed on too many fronts right now.
Harbaugh didn’t really have the early enrollment issue to deal with so much, and Spring official visits weren’t even a thing when he was at Stanford. At the end of the day, Stanford can’t succeed in the revenue sports without a willingness to make some compromises. Waiting until you are on the bottom to make changes is really, really dumb. It’s hard enough to stay on top, but way harder to get there from the bottom in big time college sports.
None of these issues have anything to do with coaching staff, which has its own problems. So yes, there should be great concern for both the near and long term Stanford Football outlook right now.
There is always a fine line between adapting and selling out your values to stay competitive. Recruiting is the lifeblood of college sports. Stanford puts more obstacles in its own way than seems smart. In fact, it can be argued Stanford doesn’t recruit as much as select from a pool that comes to it, maybe not in all cases, but certainly many. What happens when the best players no longer see Stanford as the place to become NFL-ready?
The Wesley Steiner recruitment is an object lesson in extinction. This ain’t even a case where a recruit demanded to enroll early. All he wanted was to take an official visit in Spring to see if he would like Stanford because he wanted to decide his school before season. Like it or not, the best players want to win and have the schools demonstrate they will do what it takes to win. Elite prospects will now more frequently conclude Stanford isn’t committed to winning if not allowing early entries or Spring visits. Requiring kids to pay their own way for unofficial visits means only privileged kids will comprise the roster. This is terrible for the competitiveness of the program. You need the Richard Shermans and Doug Baldwins who have nothing but can still come to Stanford for the team to have the diversity and edge it needs - guys who act like their sport is life and won’t give it up for a cushy job with eligibility remaining.
No Spring official visits, no early enrollment, leave small margin of error with so few offers, make recruits go through admission gauntlets no competitor requires, and then require academic performance numbers that are quite rare to achieve from kids focused on developing their athletic skill. But even if Stanford gets some elite talent through its gauntlet, they leave early many times now after just two years of playing. This is a recipe for disaster and not being competitive with your peers. Something has to change because Stanford’s ability to compete isn’t getting developed on too many fronts right now.
Harbaugh didn’t really have the early enrollment issue to deal with so much, and Spring official visits weren’t even a thing when he was at Stanford. At the end of the day, Stanford can’t succeed in the revenue sports without a willingness to make some compromises. Waiting until you are on the bottom to make changes is really, really dumb. It’s hard enough to stay on top, but way harder to get there from the bottom in big time college sports.
None of these issues have anything to do with coaching staff, which has its own problems. So yes, there should be great concern for both the near and long term Stanford Football outlook right now.
(This post was last modified: 09-16-2019, 06:26 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Highly competitive enterprises don’t allow those who have succeeded in the past to become complacent. The phrase “adapt or die” is as true in sports as it is in form of life survival or business. Company leaders don’t want to lay-off employees, but neither do they want to go out of business sticking with what they have always done, or falling on their swords to feel good about themselves. How do you feel good about yourself when everything you worked to build is dead?
There is always a fine line between adapting and selling out your values to stay competitive. Recruiting is the lifeblood of college sports. Stanford puts more obstacles in its own way than seems smart. In fact, it can be argued Stanford doesn’t recruit as much as select from a pool that comes to it, maybe not in all cases, but certainly many. What happens when the best players no longer see Stanford as the place to become NFL-ready?
The Wesley Steiner recruitment is an object lesson in extinction. This ain’t even a case where a recruit demanded to enroll early. All he wanted was to take an official visit in Spring to see if he would like Stanford because he wanted to decide his school before season. Like it or not, the best players want to win and have the schools demonstrate they will do what it takes to win. Elite prospects will now more frequently conclude Stanford isn’t committed to winning if not allowing early entries or Spring visits. Requiring kids to pay their own way for unofficial visits means only privileged kids will comprise the roster. This is terrible for the competitiveness of the program. You need the Richard Shermans and Doug Baldwins who have nothing but can still come to Stanford for the team to have the diversity and edge it needs - guys who act like their sport is life and won’t give it up for a cushy job with eligibility remaining.
No Spring official visits, no early enrollment, leave small margin of error with so few offers, make recruits go through admission gauntlets no competitor requires, and then require academic performance numbers that are quite rare to achieve from kids focused on developing their athletic skill. But even if Stanford gets some elite talent through its gauntlet, they leave early many times now after just two years of playing. This is a recipe for disaster and not being competitive with your peers. Something has to change because Stanford’s ability to compete isn’t getting developed on too many fronts right now.
Harbaugh didn’t really have the early enrollment issue to deal with so much, and Spring official visits weren’t even a thing when he was at Stanford. At the end of the day, Stanford can’t succeed in the revenue sports without a willingness to make some compromises. Waiting until you are on the bottom to make changes is really, really dumb. It’s hard enough to stay on top, but way harder to get there from the bottom in big time college sports.
None of these issues have anything to do with coaching staff, which has its own problems. So yes, there should be great concern for both the near and long term Stanford Football outlook right now.
There is always a fine line between adapting and selling out your values to stay competitive. Recruiting is the lifeblood of college sports. Stanford puts more obstacles in its own way than seems smart. In fact, it can be argued Stanford doesn’t recruit as much as select from a pool that comes to it, maybe not in all cases, but certainly many. What happens when the best players no longer see Stanford as the place to become NFL-ready?
The Wesley Steiner recruitment is an object lesson in extinction. This ain’t even a case where a recruit demanded to enroll early. All he wanted was to take an official visit in Spring to see if he would like Stanford because he wanted to decide his school before season. Like it or not, the best players want to win and have the schools demonstrate they will do what it takes to win. Elite prospects will now more frequently conclude Stanford isn’t committed to winning if not allowing early entries or Spring visits. Requiring kids to pay their own way for unofficial visits means only privileged kids will comprise the roster. This is terrible for the competitiveness of the program. You need the Richard Shermans and Doug Baldwins who have nothing but can still come to Stanford for the team to have the diversity and edge it needs - guys who act like their sport is life and won’t give it up for a cushy job with eligibility remaining.
No Spring official visits, no early enrollment, leave small margin of error with so few offers, make recruits go through admission gauntlets no competitor requires, and then require academic performance numbers that are quite rare to achieve from kids focused on developing their athletic skill. But even if Stanford gets some elite talent through its gauntlet, they leave early many times now after just two years of playing. This is a recipe for disaster and not being competitive with your peers. Something has to change because Stanford’s ability to compete isn’t getting developed on too many fronts right now.
Harbaugh didn’t really have the early enrollment issue to deal with so much, and Spring official visits weren’t even a thing when he was at Stanford. At the end of the day, Stanford can’t succeed in the revenue sports without a willingness to make some compromises. Waiting until you are on the bottom to make changes is really, really dumb. It’s hard enough to stay on top, but way harder to get there from the bottom in big time college sports.
None of these issues have anything to do with coaching staff, which has its own problems. So yes, there should be great concern for both the near and long term Stanford Football outlook right now.
09-16-2019, 07:03 AM
(09-15-2019, 08:41 PM)Stanford2020 Wrote: Class size is determined by housing availability and comes from the highest of the upper administration. With Stanford guaranteeing four years of housing, the reason class size can't just increase is the same reason the transfer class size is stuck in the upper 20s.
We need recruits badly. Housing can be increase rapidly in an emergency. This is definitely Def Con 1.
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fweburbanist.com%2Fwp-con...f=1&nofb=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fweburbanist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2Fdynamic-shipping-container-shelter.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(09-15-2019, 08:41 PM)Stanford2020 Wrote: Class size is determined by housing availability and comes from the highest of the upper administration. With Stanford guaranteeing four years of housing, the reason class size can't just increase is the same reason the transfer class size is stuck in the upper 20s.
We need recruits badly. Housing can be increase rapidly in an emergency. This is definitely Def Con 1.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-16-2019, 07:50 AM
(09-16-2019, 05:19 AM)81alum Wrote: Two bad games against rising star quarterbacks, in hostile territory and hostile weather, during a spate of injuries,
Rising stars? Wasn't it their first starts? Road games? Weather? Injuries? Can we come up with more excuses? Wasn't there a harvest moon, too?
I've like Shaw for his integrity, etc. and want him to continue the success he's had. The biggest complaint over the last few years is his apparent stubbornness and hence his reluctance to change and adapt. And it's been the same criticism for several years and it's going to kill the program.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(09-16-2019, 05:19 AM)81alum Wrote: Two bad games against rising star quarterbacks, in hostile territory and hostile weather, during a spate of injuries,
Rising stars? Wasn't it their first starts? Road games? Weather? Injuries? Can we come up with more excuses? Wasn't there a harvest moon, too?
I've like Shaw for his integrity, etc. and want him to continue the success he's had. The biggest complaint over the last few years is his apparent stubbornness and hence his reluctance to change and adapt. And it's been the same criticism for several years and it's going to kill the program.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
09-16-2019, 08:07 AM
Think back to high school folks. How many of the very best athletes were thinking of the hallowed “40 year decision.” The very best athletes today are thinking of the NFL and the NBA. When the moons of Saturn align Stanford can get one of these kids. Those moons aligned for about eight years in a way that hadn’t happened since the early 30’s and the Vow Boys. Stop the angst. It really isn’t that important nor worth it. You will learn that lesson when you turn 70.
Just one time however I would like to see a somewhat emotional moment from the coach.
Just one time however I would like to see a somewhat emotional moment from the coach.
Think back to high school folks. How many of the very best athletes were thinking of the hallowed “40 year decision.” The very best athletes today are thinking of the NFL and the NBA. When the moons of Saturn align Stanford can get one of these kids. Those moons aligned for about eight years in a way that hadn’t happened since the early 30’s and the Vow Boys. Stop the angst. It really isn’t that important nor worth it. You will learn that lesson when you turn 70.
Just one time however I would like to see a somewhat emotional moment from the coach.
Just one time however I would like to see a somewhat emotional moment from the coach.
09-16-2019, 08:32 AM
I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I think a large part of what's gone wrong is a general shift in college football that massively disadvantages Stanford. We've touched on this before, but the 2011 NFL CBA that created the rookie wage scale made early entry smart for basically every player who can make a roster. It took a few seasons for everyone to realize that, but eventually they did. Additionally, the nationalization of the sport has made going to all but a few blue bloods unattractive. It used to be that the non-BCS games were roughly on par with the championship in prestige, but now they are very much afterthoughts in the media. So why go anywhere but one of the ~10 schools that can actually make the CFP?
I don't think Shaw has handled this well, as other people have covered. He's clearly not adapting to the new landscape and he still makes the same stupid conservative mistakes. Those used to be minor annoyances because the program was otherwise so excellent, but when you're a perpetual underdog you need to act like it and play aggressively.
Can he change? At this point, I honestly don't know. Stanford has the resources to throw a bunch of money at an OC who can be more creative, but I'm not sure the offense is really the problem. Our defense has been mediocre-to-bad for years now, and I'm not sure it has the same injury excuse the offense has. Costello playing a bit off after missing a game is one thing, but Adebo being a liability in coverage is ridiculous. What are the coaches doing?
Anyway, I don't know what to think, but I hope Shaw has a plan. It doesn't really seem like it right now.
I don't think Shaw has handled this well, as other people have covered. He's clearly not adapting to the new landscape and he still makes the same stupid conservative mistakes. Those used to be minor annoyances because the program was otherwise so excellent, but when you're a perpetual underdog you need to act like it and play aggressively.
Can he change? At this point, I honestly don't know. Stanford has the resources to throw a bunch of money at an OC who can be more creative, but I'm not sure the offense is really the problem. Our defense has been mediocre-to-bad for years now, and I'm not sure it has the same injury excuse the offense has. Costello playing a bit off after missing a game is one thing, but Adebo being a liability in coverage is ridiculous. What are the coaches doing?
Anyway, I don't know what to think, but I hope Shaw has a plan. It doesn't really seem like it right now.
I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I think a large part of what's gone wrong is a general shift in college football that massively disadvantages Stanford. We've touched on this before, but the 2011 NFL CBA that created the rookie wage scale made early entry smart for basically every player who can make a roster. It took a few seasons for everyone to realize that, but eventually they did. Additionally, the nationalization of the sport has made going to all but a few blue bloods unattractive. It used to be that the non-BCS games were roughly on par with the championship in prestige, but now they are very much afterthoughts in the media. So why go anywhere but one of the ~10 schools that can actually make the CFP?
I don't think Shaw has handled this well, as other people have covered. He's clearly not adapting to the new landscape and he still makes the same stupid conservative mistakes. Those used to be minor annoyances because the program was otherwise so excellent, but when you're a perpetual underdog you need to act like it and play aggressively.
Can he change? At this point, I honestly don't know. Stanford has the resources to throw a bunch of money at an OC who can be more creative, but I'm not sure the offense is really the problem. Our defense has been mediocre-to-bad for years now, and I'm not sure it has the same injury excuse the offense has. Costello playing a bit off after missing a game is one thing, but Adebo being a liability in coverage is ridiculous. What are the coaches doing?
Anyway, I don't know what to think, but I hope Shaw has a plan. It doesn't really seem like it right now.
I don't think Shaw has handled this well, as other people have covered. He's clearly not adapting to the new landscape and he still makes the same stupid conservative mistakes. Those used to be minor annoyances because the program was otherwise so excellent, but when you're a perpetual underdog you need to act like it and play aggressively.
Can he change? At this point, I honestly don't know. Stanford has the resources to throw a bunch of money at an OC who can be more creative, but I'm not sure the offense is really the problem. Our defense has been mediocre-to-bad for years now, and I'm not sure it has the same injury excuse the offense has. Costello playing a bit off after missing a game is one thing, but Adebo being a liability in coverage is ridiculous. What are the coaches doing?
Anyway, I don't know what to think, but I hope Shaw has a plan. It doesn't really seem like it right now.
09-16-2019, 08:39 AM
(09-16-2019, 08:26 AM)oldalum Wrote: why don't we allow official visits in the spring?
Someone more knowledgeable than I please answer that.
Yet another structural disadvantage for Stanford, however, is going to be the transfer portal. Our competition gets a way to make up for a recruiting mistake or shortfall by taking in a transfer player. E.g., Minshew at WSU or this years qb at UW. With the notable exception of Brennan Scarlett, this is an option that we can rarely utilize to find an impact player.
We may start finding that we’re sending Coach Shaw to play a golf match using a persimmon driver.
(09-16-2019, 08:26 AM)oldalum Wrote: why don't we allow official visits in the spring?
Someone more knowledgeable than I please answer that.
Yet another structural disadvantage for Stanford, however, is going to be the transfer portal. Our competition gets a way to make up for a recruiting mistake or shortfall by taking in a transfer player. E.g., Minshew at WSU or this years qb at UW. With the notable exception of Brennan Scarlett, this is an option that we can rarely utilize to find an impact player.
We may start finding that we’re sending Coach Shaw to play a golf match using a persimmon driver.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »