[Goose]

BC, I really liked your post, but the part about Tavita struck me as a bit mealy-mouthed. If you think he should be fired (which is the same as "encouraged to leave"), just say so. Don't come up with an elaborate fantasy where the Stanford Football hero goes off to expand his horizons elsewhere and then returns triumphantly years down the road to bestow his added knowledge on our program. It's highly unlikely, and if he's gone, he's probably gone for good, just like in most other workplaces. I know it's all coming from a good place of not wanting to be harsh to an alum that has devoted so much time and energy to our program, but it just doesn't hold together, in my opinion.

I can't agree that the idea that Tavita going off to expand his horizons and then returning (triumphantly or otherwise) is unrealistic. It happens in academia all the time. It also happens often in the workplace. Firms pay people to go get an MBA or some other advanced degree all the time. It is true that frequently the person who leaves to get an advanced degree finds better opportunities elsewhere and chooses to not return. However they frequently do return. It is not a strange or uncommon event.

You might remember that I was pushing this idea back when "everybody" was saying that Tavita was a bad QB coach, before he became the OC. The reason for this suggestion was not just that he could learn a lot by doing this, but that it would give him the credentials to validate the idea he was qualified. Often times people are sent for advanced degrees not because they couldn't do the next higher ranking job, but rather because people in that job are expected to have such a degree. Tavita would benefit from being an NFL OC. It would give him more clout. NFL QB coach is probably a slight step down, but it might be wise to go that route. However, at this point, anything less probably isn't attractive.

We have even bigger problems on defense right now, too.

For sure! While the offense hasn't been quite as good as it should/could have been, the defense is performing way below expectations, even some of the low ones expressed on this board. We were afraid teams would attack us up the middle on the ground. While that may still become an issue, it is the inability to cover receivers that is killing us.

[Goose]

BC, I really liked your post, but the part about Tavita struck me as a bit mealy-mouthed. If you think he should be fired (which is the same as "encouraged to leave"), just say so. Don't come up with an elaborate fantasy where the Stanford Football hero goes off to expand his horizons elsewhere and then returns triumphantly years down the road to bestow his added knowledge on our program. It's highly unlikely, and if he's gone, he's probably gone for good, just like in most other workplaces. I know it's all coming from a good place of not wanting to be harsh to an alum that has devoted so much time and energy to our program, but it just doesn't hold together, in my opinion.

I can't agree that the idea that Tavita going off to expand his horizons and then returning (triumphantly or otherwise) is unrealistic. It happens in academia all the time. It also happens often in the workplace. Firms pay people to go get an MBA or some other advanced degree all the time. It is true that frequently the person who leaves to get an advanced degree finds better opportunities elsewhere and chooses to not return. However they frequently do return. It is not a strange or uncommon event.

You might remember that I was pushing this idea back when "everybody" was saying that Tavita was a bad QB coach, before he became the OC. The reason for this suggestion was not just that he could learn a lot by doing this, but that it would give him the credentials to validate the idea he was qualified. Often times people are sent for advanced degrees not because they couldn't do the next higher ranking job, but rather because people in that job are expected to have such a degree. Tavita would benefit from being an NFL OC. It would give him more clout. NFL QB coach is probably a slight step down, but it might be wise to go that route. However, at this point, anything less probably isn't attractive.

We have even bigger problems on defense right now, too.

For sure! While the offense hasn't been quite as good as it should/could have been, the defense is performing way below expectations, even some of the low ones expressed on this board. We were afraid teams would attack us up the middle on the ground. While that may still become an issue, it is the inability to cover receivers that is killing us.

[ADPinWDC]

We have been down WORSE before and won... but when we had a better defense. 
Even when Oregon had Mariotta (2012-14), we beat them in 2012 and 2013.  
Derek Mason, aka the Duck Whisperer, did a masterful job in that 2013 game, Oregon came in #2 in USA.  

What both U$C and UCF did with Frosh QBs, combined with Mike Leach's consistent renewal up in WAST woke me up.  
GET A NEW OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR.  Whether the playbook is too complicated, or too predictable -- other teams GET GUYS OPEN.
Clearly we thrive best with a SuperStar:  Gerhart, Luck, McCaff, B.Love.  Those were the difference makers.  KJ could be. 
Austin Jones has the potential... compare him to how McCaff or Love looked as Frosh.  Similar.  
For me, the biggest factor seems to be OTHER TEAMS watch film and ADAPT.  They see our weaknesses on film and go for the jugular. 
Our staff seems to want to "assert our brand of ball".   How about exploiting THEIR WEAKNESSES ?!  UCF and U$C did just that.

[ADPinWDC]

We have been down WORSE before and won... but when we had a better defense. 
Even when Oregon had Mariotta (2012-14), we beat them in 2012 and 2013.  
Derek Mason, aka the Duck Whisperer, did a masterful job in that 2013 game, Oregon came in #2 in USA.  

What both U$C and UCF did with Frosh QBs, combined with Mike Leach's consistent renewal up in WAST woke me up.  
GET A NEW OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR.  Whether the playbook is too complicated, or too predictable -- other teams GET GUYS OPEN.
Clearly we thrive best with a SuperStar:  Gerhart, Luck, McCaff, B.Love.  Those were the difference makers.  KJ could be. 
Austin Jones has the potential... compare him to how McCaff or Love looked as Frosh.  Similar.  
For me, the biggest factor seems to be OTHER TEAMS watch film and ADAPT.  They see our weaknesses on film and go for the jugular. 
Our staff seems to want to "assert our brand of ball".   How about exploiting THEIR WEAKNESSES ?!  UCF and U$C did just that.

[CardinalSagehen]

BC, I really liked your post, but the part about Tavita struck me as a bit mealy-mouthed. If you think he should be fired (which is the same as "encouraged to leave"), just say so. Don't come up with an elaborate fantasy where the Stanford Football hero goes off to expand his horizons elsewhere and then returns triumphantly years down the road to bestow his added knowledge on our program. It's highly unlikely, and if he's gone, he's probably gone for good, just like in most other workplaces. I know it's all coming from a good place of not wanting to be harsh to an alum that has devoted so much time and energy to our program, but it just doesn't hold together, in my opinion.

I can't agree that the idea that Tavita going off to expand his horizons and then returning (triumphantly or otherwise) is unrealistic. It happens in academia all the time. It also happens often in the workplace. Firms pay people to go get an MBA or some other advanced degree all the time. It is true that frequently the person who leaves to get an advanced degree finds better opportunities elsewhere and chooses to not return. However they frequently do return. It is not a strange or uncommon event.

You might remember that I was pushing this idea back when "everybody" was saying that Tavita was a bad QB coach, before he became the OC. The reason for this suggestion was not just that he could learn a lot by doing this, but that it would give him the credentials to validate the idea he was qualified. Often times people are sent for advanced degrees not because they couldn't do the next higher ranking job, but rather because people in that job are expected to have such a degree. Tavita would benefit from being an NFL OC. It would give him more clout. NFL QB coach is probably a slight step down, but it might be wise to go that route. However, at this point, anything less probably isn't attractive.

Ok, fair enough, it happens sometimes. But the decision right now is whether to let him go, and you don’t do that assuming you’ll ever get him back. It’s not the same as paying for his MBA, with a claw-back clause, and expecting to get him back. Many variables would have to align. 

It seems like everything you say is right - he would be a better coach with outside experiences - but I just think we'd be unlikely to benefit from his return. It strikes me as a rationalization for wanting him gone, so we can improve our team and coaching now.

By the way, on the plus side, offensive recruiting must be in pretty good shape under Tavita, because we have a decently ranked class with almost nobody committed on defense.

[CardinalSagehen]

BC, I really liked your post, but the part about Tavita struck me as a bit mealy-mouthed. If you think he should be fired (which is the same as "encouraged to leave"), just say so. Don't come up with an elaborate fantasy where the Stanford Football hero goes off to expand his horizons elsewhere and then returns triumphantly years down the road to bestow his added knowledge on our program. It's highly unlikely, and if he's gone, he's probably gone for good, just like in most other workplaces. I know it's all coming from a good place of not wanting to be harsh to an alum that has devoted so much time and energy to our program, but it just doesn't hold together, in my opinion.

I can't agree that the idea that Tavita going off to expand his horizons and then returning (triumphantly or otherwise) is unrealistic. It happens in academia all the time. It also happens often in the workplace. Firms pay people to go get an MBA or some other advanced degree all the time. It is true that frequently the person who leaves to get an advanced degree finds better opportunities elsewhere and chooses to not return. However they frequently do return. It is not a strange or uncommon event.

You might remember that I was pushing this idea back when "everybody" was saying that Tavita was a bad QB coach, before he became the OC. The reason for this suggestion was not just that he could learn a lot by doing this, but that it would give him the credentials to validate the idea he was qualified. Often times people are sent for advanced degrees not because they couldn't do the next higher ranking job, but rather because people in that job are expected to have such a degree. Tavita would benefit from being an NFL OC. It would give him more clout. NFL QB coach is probably a slight step down, but it might be wise to go that route. However, at this point, anything less probably isn't attractive.

Ok, fair enough, it happens sometimes. But the decision right now is whether to let him go, and you don’t do that assuming you’ll ever get him back. It’s not the same as paying for his MBA, with a claw-back clause, and expecting to get him back. Many variables would have to align. 

It seems like everything you say is right - he would be a better coach with outside experiences - but I just think we'd be unlikely to benefit from his return. It strikes me as a rationalization for wanting him gone, so we can improve our team and coaching now.

By the way, on the plus side, offensive recruiting must be in pretty good shape under Tavita, because we have a decently ranked class with almost nobody committed on defense.

[slide]

I'd appreciate learning the evidence that posters are relying on in concluding that the coaching staff is no longer making as much EFFORT as they used to in recruiting. Simply looking at the recruiting results doesn't do it for me. Has the recruiting budget been cut? Are we not making as many recruiting trips as before? Are we recruiting fewer potential athletes than before? Are the coaches watching less film of potential recruits than they used to? Have coaches been quoted saying anything to support this conclusion? Are there copies of hotel bills showing that they are staying in their hotel rooms and watching movies instead of going out to see the recruits they supposedly came out to see?

oldalum -- I am not sure anyone can answer your questions besides audit and I am not sure Bernie would pay for it.

some tells I look for.  

number of offers and timing of offers.  total offers are down in the '20 class compared to '19 and late especially compared to everyone else in D-1.  we've not offered a '20 recruit in probably 90 days.  I've heard getting a meeting to discuss offers is problematic.  with top recruiting schools such discussions are daily during recruiting season.  and the '21 class is off to an even slower start than '20.

number of official visits used.  each D-1 school is allowed 56.  if we use 28 this year, I'd be surprised.  again, top recruiting schools will use all 56.

number of in-home visits by the head coach when a recruit is still in play.  the number available is pretty high and Shaw may be does 1 annually.  he does visit most of the committed guys before/after Big Slumber OV weekend, but again rarely visits guys still undecided/in play.

activity on social media.  again pretty dormant.  not a high barrier to entry medium.  you can follow Shaw and follow who he is following.  

lastly and more subjective still, how many recruits offer in articles that Stanford is recruiting them the hardest.  it is not often and may be exceed the number of times a recruit says he has an offer but he can't name the coach.

[slide]

I'd appreciate learning the evidence that posters are relying on in concluding that the coaching staff is no longer making as much EFFORT as they used to in recruiting. Simply looking at the recruiting results doesn't do it for me. Has the recruiting budget been cut? Are we not making as many recruiting trips as before? Are we recruiting fewer potential athletes than before? Are the coaches watching less film of potential recruits than they used to? Have coaches been quoted saying anything to support this conclusion? Are there copies of hotel bills showing that they are staying in their hotel rooms and watching movies instead of going out to see the recruits they supposedly came out to see?

oldalum -- I am not sure anyone can answer your questions besides audit and I am not sure Bernie would pay for it.

some tells I look for.  

number of offers and timing of offers.  total offers are down in the '20 class compared to '19 and late especially compared to everyone else in D-1.  we've not offered a '20 recruit in probably 90 days.  I've heard getting a meeting to discuss offers is problematic.  with top recruiting schools such discussions are daily during recruiting season.  and the '21 class is off to an even slower start than '20.

number of official visits used.  each D-1 school is allowed 56.  if we use 28 this year, I'd be surprised.  again, top recruiting schools will use all 56.

number of in-home visits by the head coach when a recruit is still in play.  the number available is pretty high and Shaw may be does 1 annually.  he does visit most of the committed guys before/after Big Slumber OV weekend, but again rarely visits guys still undecided/in play.

activity on social media.  again pretty dormant.  not a high barrier to entry medium.  you can follow Shaw and follow who he is following.  

lastly and more subjective still, how many recruits offer in articles that Stanford is recruiting them the hardest.  it is not often and may be exceed the number of times a recruit says he has an offer but he can't name the coach.

[Goose]

Ok, fair enough, it happens sometimes. But the decision right now is whether to let him go, and you don’t do that assuming you’ll ever get him back. It’s not the same as paying for his MBA, with a claw-back clause, and expecting to get him back. Many variables would have to align.

I need to be more clear here. I do not believe that replacing Tavita will make Stanford better. I don't know if he is in any way the "root of the problem", whatever that may be. I just don't have the "insider perspective" to know one way or the other. My belief that Tavita should consider moving on is for his sake, not for Stanford's sake.  Shaw should tell him something like the following: "Look, you are the OC. If/when I leave, you are probably out of a job here. You aren't going to get any kind of head coaching job with your current resume. I like the work you are doing, but we have to look at your future. If you go to the NFL as an OC and do pretty well, you will have a shot at a lower-tier college head coaching job. Further, if the stars align, I can get you back here as an Assistant Head Coach/OC with the idea you take my job when I go. Otherwise, you are maxed out here. I will help you out all I can if you decide to look". This is, I think, an accurate statement of reality.
I do not share the belief that promoting from inside is necessarily bad. I do understand the idea that developing a "house palette" is not a good thing. What is most important is that you put together the best functioning team of coaches possible. You can only look at replacing Tavita with a real person, not a "coach to be named later". Also, I am not aware of a meaningful WAR rating for assistant football coaches. Whoever you name must be willing to put up with Coach Shaw calling the plays, or has the ability to convince Shaw to not do so. I don't know the answer, but saying "replace person X" makes sense only when you can show person X is not getting it done ATM, I haven't heard anyone make a good argument that Tavita should be replaced.

It seems like everything you say is right - he would be a better coach with outside experiences

Probably so. Experience is good even if all it does is confirm what you already believe. What it will for sure do is remove the argument he doesn't have any.

It strikes me as a rationalization for wanting him gone, so we can improve our team and coaching now.

To be clear, I am not sure we can improve our coaching by replacing him. Who will replace him? Then I can have an opinion. A new body often just makes things worse. It is also true that fit is important. Would you replace Tavita with Beau Baldwin (assuming we could get him)?  How about Graham Harrell? "Give reasons for your answer".

[Goose]

Ok, fair enough, it happens sometimes. But the decision right now is whether to let him go, and you don’t do that assuming you’ll ever get him back. It’s not the same as paying for his MBA, with a claw-back clause, and expecting to get him back. Many variables would have to align.

I need to be more clear here. I do not believe that replacing Tavita will make Stanford better. I don't know if he is in any way the "root of the problem", whatever that may be. I just don't have the "insider perspective" to know one way or the other. My belief that Tavita should consider moving on is for his sake, not for Stanford's sake.  Shaw should tell him something like the following: "Look, you are the OC. If/when I leave, you are probably out of a job here. You aren't going to get any kind of head coaching job with your current resume. I like the work you are doing, but we have to look at your future. If you go to the NFL as an OC and do pretty well, you will have a shot at a lower-tier college head coaching job. Further, if the stars align, I can get you back here as an Assistant Head Coach/OC with the idea you take my job when I go. Otherwise, you are maxed out here. I will help you out all I can if you decide to look". This is, I think, an accurate statement of reality.
I do not share the belief that promoting from inside is necessarily bad. I do understand the idea that developing a "house palette" is not a good thing. What is most important is that you put together the best functioning team of coaches possible. You can only look at replacing Tavita with a real person, not a "coach to be named later". Also, I am not aware of a meaningful WAR rating for assistant football coaches. Whoever you name must be willing to put up with Coach Shaw calling the plays, or has the ability to convince Shaw to not do so. I don't know the answer, but saying "replace person X" makes sense only when you can show person X is not getting it done ATM, I haven't heard anyone make a good argument that Tavita should be replaced.

It seems like everything you say is right - he would be a better coach with outside experiences

Probably so. Experience is good even if all it does is confirm what you already believe. What it will for sure do is remove the argument he doesn't have any.

It strikes me as a rationalization for wanting him gone, so we can improve our team and coaching now.

To be clear, I am not sure we can improve our coaching by replacing him. Who will replace him? Then I can have an opinion. A new body often just makes things worse. It is also true that fit is important. Would you replace Tavita with Beau Baldwin (assuming we could get him)?  How about Graham Harrell? "Give reasons for your answer".

[CardinalSagehen]

Ok, fair enough, it happens sometimes. But the decision right now is whether to let him go, and you don’t do that assuming you’ll ever get him back. It’s not the same as paying for his MBA, with a claw-back clause, and expecting to get him back. Many variables would have to align.

I need to be more clear here. I do not believe that replacing Tavita will make Stanford better. I don't know if he is in any way the "root of the problem", whatever that may be. I just don't have the "insider perspective" to know one way or the other. My belief that Tavita should consider moving on is for his sake, not for Stanford's sake.  Shaw should tell him something like the following: "Look, you are the OC. If/when I leave, you are probably out of a job here. You aren't going to get any kind of head coaching job with your current resume. I like the work you are doing, but we have to look at your future. If you go to the NFL as an OC and do pretty well, you will have a shot at a lower-tier college head coaching job. Further, if the stars align, I can get you back here as an Assistant Head Coach/OC with the idea you take my job when I go. Otherwise, you are maxed out here. I will help you out all I can if you decide to look". This is, I think, an accurate statement of reality.
I do not share the belief that promoting from inside is necessarily bad. I do understand the idea that developing a "house palette" is not a good thing. What is most important is that you put together the best functioning team of coaches possible. You can only look at replacing Tavita with a real person, not a "coach to be named later". Also, I am not aware of a meaningful WAR rating for assistant football coaches. Whoever you name must be willing to put up with Coach Shaw calling the plays, or has the ability to convince Shaw to not do so. I don't know the answer, but saying "replace person X" makes sense only when you can show person X is not getting it done ATM, I haven't heard anyone make a good argument that Tavita should be replaced.

It seems like everything you say is right - he would be a better coach with outside experiences

Probably so. Experience is good even if all it does is confirm what you already believe. What it will for sure do is remove the argument he doesn't have any.

It strikes me as a rationalization for wanting him gone, so we can improve our team and coaching now.

To be clear, I am not sure we can improve our coaching by replacing him. Who will replace him? Then I can have an opinion. A new body often just makes things worse. It is also true that fit is important. Would you replace Tavita with Beau Baldwin (assuming we could get him)?  How about Graham Harrell? "Give reasons for your answer".

I think we’re pretty much in agreement about everything, then. I didn’t love the idea of the internal promotion when it happened, because I thought there might have been an opportunity to inject some outside knowledge and influence into the program. But ultimately, I have confidence in Shaw’s judgment and I tend to value continuity in my own pursuits. I don’t really see the rationale for turning over our OC right now, 1.5 years into the job. I assume you lose a lot of momentum in recruiting (see 2018 OL class) when that occurs, and many other things have the potential to get worse.  

I was just inferring (incorrectly, in some cases) that people calling for Tavita to leave are not happy with his performance. The results haven’t been phenomenal, but it’s still early, he’s had a run of bad injury luck, and offensive recruiting actually seems to be in decent shape. 

By the way, in response to the insinuations (from others, not you) of complacency, while I don’t have inside knowledge, I did happen to work with the wife of an assistant coach for a few years through last year.  She talked about the crazy round-the-clock schedule and the tension in the staff when we were losing.  Shaw does not accept losing or let the staff get comfortable with losing.  I don’t think it’s fair to allege that Shaw has become complacent.

[CardinalSagehen]

Ok, fair enough, it happens sometimes. But the decision right now is whether to let him go, and you don’t do that assuming you’ll ever get him back. It’s not the same as paying for his MBA, with a claw-back clause, and expecting to get him back. Many variables would have to align.

I need to be more clear here. I do not believe that replacing Tavita will make Stanford better. I don't know if he is in any way the "root of the problem", whatever that may be. I just don't have the "insider perspective" to know one way or the other. My belief that Tavita should consider moving on is for his sake, not for Stanford's sake.  Shaw should tell him something like the following: "Look, you are the OC. If/when I leave, you are probably out of a job here. You aren't going to get any kind of head coaching job with your current resume. I like the work you are doing, but we have to look at your future. If you go to the NFL as an OC and do pretty well, you will have a shot at a lower-tier college head coaching job. Further, if the stars align, I can get you back here as an Assistant Head Coach/OC with the idea you take my job when I go. Otherwise, you are maxed out here. I will help you out all I can if you decide to look". This is, I think, an accurate statement of reality.
I do not share the belief that promoting from inside is necessarily bad. I do understand the idea that developing a "house palette" is not a good thing. What is most important is that you put together the best functioning team of coaches possible. You can only look at replacing Tavita with a real person, not a "coach to be named later". Also, I am not aware of a meaningful WAR rating for assistant football coaches. Whoever you name must be willing to put up with Coach Shaw calling the plays, or has the ability to convince Shaw to not do so. I don't know the answer, but saying "replace person X" makes sense only when you can show person X is not getting it done ATM, I haven't heard anyone make a good argument that Tavita should be replaced.

It seems like everything you say is right - he would be a better coach with outside experiences

Probably so. Experience is good even if all it does is confirm what you already believe. What it will for sure do is remove the argument he doesn't have any.

It strikes me as a rationalization for wanting him gone, so we can improve our team and coaching now.

To be clear, I am not sure we can improve our coaching by replacing him. Who will replace him? Then I can have an opinion. A new body often just makes things worse. It is also true that fit is important. Would you replace Tavita with Beau Baldwin (assuming we could get him)?  How about Graham Harrell? "Give reasons for your answer".

I think we’re pretty much in agreement about everything, then. I didn’t love the idea of the internal promotion when it happened, because I thought there might have been an opportunity to inject some outside knowledge and influence into the program. But ultimately, I have confidence in Shaw’s judgment and I tend to value continuity in my own pursuits. I don’t really see the rationale for turning over our OC right now, 1.5 years into the job. I assume you lose a lot of momentum in recruiting (see 2018 OL class) when that occurs, and many other things have the potential to get worse.  

I was just inferring (incorrectly, in some cases) that people calling for Tavita to leave are not happy with his performance. The results haven’t been phenomenal, but it’s still early, he’s had a run of bad injury luck, and offensive recruiting actually seems to be in decent shape. 

By the way, in response to the insinuations (from others, not you) of complacency, while I don’t have inside knowledge, I did happen to work with the wife of an assistant coach for a few years through last year.  She talked about the crazy round-the-clock schedule and the tension in the staff when we were losing.  Shaw does not accept losing or let the staff get comfortable with losing.  I don’t think it’s fair to allege that Shaw has become complacent.

[oldalum]

number of offers and timing of offers.  total offers are down in the '20 class compared to '19 and late especially compared to everyone else in D-1.  we've not offered a '20 recruit in probably 90 days.  I've heard getting a meeting to discuss offers is problematic.  with top recruiting schools such discussions are daily during recruiting season.  and the '21 class is off to an even slower start than '20.

number of official visits used.  each D-1 school is allowed 56.  if we use 28 this year, I'd be surprised.  again, top recruiting schools will use all 56.

number of in-home visits by the head coach when a recruit is still in play.  the number available is pretty high and Shaw may be does 1 annually.  he does visit most of the committed guys before/after Big Slumber OV weekend, but again rarely visits guys still undecided/in play.

activity on social media.  again pretty dormant.  not a high barrier to entry medium.  you can follow Shaw and follow who he is following.  

lastly and more subjective still, how many recruits offer in articles that Stanford is recruiting them the hardest.  it is not often and may be exceed the number of times a recruit says he has an offer but he can't name the coach.

that's some really helpful and relevant info, thanks!

[oldalum]

number of offers and timing of offers.  total offers are down in the '20 class compared to '19 and late especially compared to everyone else in D-1.  we've not offered a '20 recruit in probably 90 days.  I've heard getting a meeting to discuss offers is problematic.  with top recruiting schools such discussions are daily during recruiting season.  and the '21 class is off to an even slower start than '20.

number of official visits used.  each D-1 school is allowed 56.  if we use 28 this year, I'd be surprised.  again, top recruiting schools will use all 56.

number of in-home visits by the head coach when a recruit is still in play.  the number available is pretty high and Shaw may be does 1 annually.  he does visit most of the committed guys before/after Big Slumber OV weekend, but again rarely visits guys still undecided/in play.

activity on social media.  again pretty dormant.  not a high barrier to entry medium.  you can follow Shaw and follow who he is following.  

lastly and more subjective still, how many recruits offer in articles that Stanford is recruiting them the hardest.  it is not often and may be exceed the number of times a recruit says he has an offer but he can't name the coach.

that's some really helpful and relevant info, thanks!

[ADPinWDC]

NO -- Shaw cannot fix this by himself with this staff.  

Troy Walters makes $700,000 in Lincoln, Nebraska as Husker OffCo -- mgiht take a $1.8M equivalent in Palo Alto.  www.omaha.com/huskers/football/nebraska-officially-announces-additions-of-troy-walters-sean-beckton-zach/article_ec2f2006-dc61-11e7-bdb2-073c3de04d41.html

[ADPinWDC]

NO -- Shaw cannot fix this by himself with this staff.  

Troy Walters makes $700,000 in Lincoln, Nebraska as Husker OffCo -- mgiht take a $1.8M equivalent in Palo Alto.  www.omaha.com/huskers/football/nebraska-officially-announces-additions-of-troy-walters-sean-beckton-zach/article_ec2f2006-dc61-11e7-bdb2-073c3de04d41.html