[Hulk01]

Minor nit, the numbers should be adjusted for cost of living, which adjusts geographically, not inflation, which adjusts temporally.

Also, ASU is listed twice and Cal is missing.

BC

Meant to say "cost of living," which is what those numbers reflect.

And here is the corrected list, with my best guess as to where USC and Stanford rank,
and their Pac 12 win-loss records over the past ten years

1.  USC, 61-29
2.  Oregon, 66-24
3.  Stanford, 66-24
4.  Utah, 42-39
5.  Washington, 54-36
6.  WSU, 39-51
7.  ASU, 48-42
8.  UCLA, 43-47
9.  Oregon State, 27-63
10  Arizona, 36-54
11  Colorado, 20-61
12  California, 29-61

[Hulk01]

Minor nit, the numbers should be adjusted for cost of living, which adjusts geographically, not inflation, which adjusts temporally.

Also, ASU is listed twice and Cal is missing.

BC

Meant to say "cost of living," which is what those numbers reflect.

And here is the corrected list, with my best guess as to where USC and Stanford rank,
and their Pac 12 win-loss records over the past ten years

1.  USC, 61-29
2.  Oregon, 66-24
3.  Stanford, 66-24
4.  Utah, 42-39
5.  Washington, 54-36
6.  WSU, 39-51
7.  ASU, 48-42
8.  UCLA, 43-47
9.  Oregon State, 27-63
10  Arizona, 36-54
11  Colorado, 20-61
12  California, 29-61

[JustAnotherFan]

247 has Stanford's recruiting class ranked at 60th nationally. 

https://247sports.com/Season/2021-Footba...mRankings/ 

Seems ... problematic.

[JustAnotherFan]

247 has Stanford's recruiting class ranked at 60th nationally. 

https://247sports.com/Season/2021-Footba...mRankings/ 

Seems ... problematic.

[JohnR34231]

247 has Stanford's recruiting class ranked at 60th nationally. 

https://247sports.com/Season/2021-Footba...mRankings/ 

Seems ... problematic.

That good?
I think we all realized that this is a very forgettable year for recruiting.
Doesn't mean 2022 can't be a good one.

[JohnR34231]

247 has Stanford's recruiting class ranked at 60th nationally. 

https://247sports.com/Season/2021-Footba...mRankings/ 

Seems ... problematic.

That good?
I think we all realized that this is a very forgettable year for recruiting.
Doesn't mean 2022 can't be a good one.

[Papa John]

During Shaw's tenure, his teams have only out-performed preseason expectations twice. According to the AP pre and post season polls, only in 2012 and 2015 did we end up ranked higher at the end of the season than we were at the beginning. Both years we started at #21, and in 2012 we ended up #7 and in 2015 #3. Three times we started ranked and ended the season unranked, including 2014 where we started 11th and 2018 where we started 13th.

Interesting idea. While I respect the AP final polls, I don't think the AP preseason polls are useful as a pre-test here since half of Shaw's seasons are missing data!

For expectations, I propose the Pac-12 writers preseason polls versus final standings:

2011
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #2 Pac-12 North (lost tiebreaker to Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Met

2012
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2013
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2014
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #2 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Met

2015
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2016
Preseason Stanford pick: #1 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Stanford
Stanford results: #3 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Washington
Stanford expectations: Not met

2017
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Washington)
Pac-12 winner: USC
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2018
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Washington
Stanford results: #3 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Washington
Stanford expectations: Not met

2019
Preseason Stanford pick: #3 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Utah
Stanford results: #6 Pac-12 North (lost tiebreaker to WSU)
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Not met

2020
Preseason Stanford pick: #4 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: Currently #3 Pac-12 North, but guaranteed better than #4
Pac-12 winner: Oregon or USC
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

To recap, I'm using data for all 10 years of the Shaw era, plus Pac-12 writers know Stanford football much better than the national media. Here are the cumulative results:

Stanford Expectations
Not met: 3 seasons (2016, 2018, 2019)
Met: 2 seasons (2011, 2014)
Exceeded: 5 seasons (2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020)

For what it's worth, all-in-all, Shaw's teams have exceeded preseason expectations more often than they have not met expectations.

I say "for what it's worth" because the Pac-12 media writers preseason poll has correctly picked the winner of the Pac-12 championship just 4 out of the last 9 years! (I note that this year is still TBD because preseason pick Oregon backed into the championship game.) So, even though I disproved your point, in the long run there are certainly better measures than "expectation"--whatever one's operational definition--to evaluate a football program.

QED

[Papa John]

During Shaw's tenure, his teams have only out-performed preseason expectations twice. According to the AP pre and post season polls, only in 2012 and 2015 did we end up ranked higher at the end of the season than we were at the beginning. Both years we started at #21, and in 2012 we ended up #7 and in 2015 #3. Three times we started ranked and ended the season unranked, including 2014 where we started 11th and 2018 where we started 13th.

Interesting idea. While I respect the AP final polls, I don't think the AP preseason polls are useful as a pre-test here since half of Shaw's seasons are missing data!

For expectations, I propose the Pac-12 writers preseason polls versus final standings:

2011
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #2 Pac-12 North (lost tiebreaker to Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Met

2012
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2013
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2014
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #2 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Met

2015
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2016
Preseason Stanford pick: #1 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Stanford
Stanford results: #3 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Washington
Stanford expectations: Not met

2017
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Washington)
Pac-12 winner: USC
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2018
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Washington
Stanford results: #3 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Washington
Stanford expectations: Not met

2019
Preseason Stanford pick: #3 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Utah
Stanford results: #6 Pac-12 North (lost tiebreaker to WSU)
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Not met

2020
Preseason Stanford pick: #4 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: Currently #3 Pac-12 North, but guaranteed better than #4
Pac-12 winner: Oregon or USC
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

To recap, I'm using data for all 10 years of the Shaw era, plus Pac-12 writers know Stanford football much better than the national media. Here are the cumulative results:

Stanford Expectations
Not met: 3 seasons (2016, 2018, 2019)
Met: 2 seasons (2011, 2014)
Exceeded: 5 seasons (2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020)

For what it's worth, all-in-all, Shaw's teams have exceeded preseason expectations more often than they have not met expectations.

I say "for what it's worth" because the Pac-12 media writers preseason poll has correctly picked the winner of the Pac-12 championship just 4 out of the last 9 years! (I note that this year is still TBD because preseason pick Oregon backed into the championship game.) So, even though I disproved your point, in the long run there are certainly better measures than "expectation"--whatever one's operational definition--to evaluate a football program.

QED

[JustAnotherFan]

247 has Stanford's recruiting class ranked at 60th nationally. 

https://247sports.com/Season/2021-Footba...mRankings/ 

Seems ... problematic.

That good?
I think we all realized that this is a very forgettable year for recruiting.
Doesn't mean 2022 can't be a good one.

Taking a year off on recruiting seems like a bad strategy

---

During Shaw's tenure, his teams have only out-performed preseason expectations twice. According to the AP pre and post season polls, only in 2012 and 2015 did we end up ranked higher at the end of the season than we were at the beginning. Both years we started at #21, and in 2012 we ended up #7 and in 2015 #3. Three times we started ranked and ended the season unranked, including 2014 where we started 11th and 2018 where we started 13th.

Interesting idea. While I respect the AP final polls, I don't think the AP preseason polls are useful as a pre-test here since half of Shaw's seasons are missing data!

For expectations, I propose the Pac-12 writers preseason polls versus final standings:

2011
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #2 Pac-12 North (lost tiebreaker to Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Met

2012
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2013
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2014
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #2 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Met

2015
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2016
Preseason Stanford pick: #1 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Stanford
Stanford results: #3 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Washington
Stanford expectations: Not met

2017
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Washington)
Pac-12 winner: USC
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2018
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Washington
Stanford results: #3 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Washington
Stanford expectations: Not met

2019
Preseason Stanford pick: #3 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Utah
Stanford results: #6 Pac-12 North (lost tiebreaker to WSU)
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Not met

2020
Preseason Stanford pick: #4 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: Currently #3 Pac-12 North, but guaranteed better than #4
Pac-12 winner: Oregon or USC
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

To recap, I'm using data for all 10 years of the Shaw era, plus Pac-12 writers know Stanford football much better than the national media. Here are the cumulative results:

Stanford Expectations
Not met: 3 seasons (2016, 2018, 2019)
Met: 2 seasons (2011, 2014)
Exceeded: 5 seasons (2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020)

For what it's worth, all-in-all, Shaw's teams have exceeded preseason expectations more often than they have not met expectations.

I say "for what it's worth" because the Pac-12 media writers preseason poll has correctly picked the winner of the Pac-12 championship just 4 out of the last 9 years! (I note that this year is still TBD because preseason pick Oregon backed into the championship game.) So, even though I disproved your point, in the long run there are certainly better measures than "expectation"--whatever one's operational definition--to evaluate a football program.

QED

"all-in-all, Shaw's teams have exceeded preseason expectations more often than they have not met expectations"

LOL, problem is the expectations have been decreasing!

[JustAnotherFan]

247 has Stanford's recruiting class ranked at 60th nationally. 

https://247sports.com/Season/2021-Footba...mRankings/ 

Seems ... problematic.

That good?
I think we all realized that this is a very forgettable year for recruiting.
Doesn't mean 2022 can't be a good one.

Taking a year off on recruiting seems like a bad strategy

---

During Shaw's tenure, his teams have only out-performed preseason expectations twice. According to the AP pre and post season polls, only in 2012 and 2015 did we end up ranked higher at the end of the season than we were at the beginning. Both years we started at #21, and in 2012 we ended up #7 and in 2015 #3. Three times we started ranked and ended the season unranked, including 2014 where we started 11th and 2018 where we started 13th.

Interesting idea. While I respect the AP final polls, I don't think the AP preseason polls are useful as a pre-test here since half of Shaw's seasons are missing data!

For expectations, I propose the Pac-12 writers preseason polls versus final standings:

2011
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #2 Pac-12 North (lost tiebreaker to Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Met

2012
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2013
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Oregon)
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2014
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: #2 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Met

2015
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Stanford
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2016
Preseason Stanford pick: #1 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Stanford
Stanford results: #3 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Washington
Stanford expectations: Not met

2017
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: USC
Stanford results: #1 Pac-12 North (won tiebreaker over Washington)
Pac-12 winner: USC
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

2018
Preseason Stanford pick: #2 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Washington
Stanford results: #3 Pac-12 North
Pac-12 winner: Washington
Stanford expectations: Not met

2019
Preseason Stanford pick: #3 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Utah
Stanford results: #6 Pac-12 North (lost tiebreaker to WSU)
Pac-12 winner: Oregon
Stanford expectations: Not met

2020
Preseason Stanford pick: #4 Pac-12 North
Preseason Pac-12 winner pick: Oregon
Stanford results: Currently #3 Pac-12 North, but guaranteed better than #4
Pac-12 winner: Oregon or USC
Stanford expectations: Exceeded

To recap, I'm using data for all 10 years of the Shaw era, plus Pac-12 writers know Stanford football much better than the national media. Here are the cumulative results:

Stanford Expectations
Not met: 3 seasons (2016, 2018, 2019)
Met: 2 seasons (2011, 2014)
Exceeded: 5 seasons (2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020)

For what it's worth, all-in-all, Shaw's teams have exceeded preseason expectations more often than they have not met expectations.

I say "for what it's worth" because the Pac-12 media writers preseason poll has correctly picked the winner of the Pac-12 championship just 4 out of the last 9 years! (I note that this year is still TBD because preseason pick Oregon backed into the championship game.) So, even though I disproved your point, in the long run there are certainly better measures than "expectation"--whatever one's operational definition--to evaluate a football program.

QED

"all-in-all, Shaw's teams have exceeded preseason expectations more often than they have not met expectations"

LOL, problem is the expectations have been decreasing!

[Hulk01]

Hulk -- what is your guess on the Stanford number?  may be $2M?  
we know Shaw is $4.5+M and recently extended...

here's the numbers from USA Today for public Universities

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salarie...hotline-nl 

in the Pac-12

UW $5.1m
OU $4.8m
UU $4.3m
UCLA $4.3m
ASU $3.7m
WSU $3.6m
Cal $3.6m
OSU $3.4m
CU $3.3m
UA $3.1m

USC ??
LSJU ??

thanks Eric and Hulk.

my guess is we'd be closer to 9th in the Pac-12 in assistant's pay as opposed to 3rd.  3rd in Pac is $4.3m/10 ($430,000 per coach).  I'd guess again that figure would be close to our highest paid assistant coach with the lowest in the $150,000 range.
[/quote]

I was left to guessing.   If we're ninth in pay, we are the brobdingnagian outlier in the conference.   Otherwise, win-loss records and assistant pay, adjusted for cost of living, correlate very closely.

[Hulk01]

Hulk -- what is your guess on the Stanford number?  may be $2M?  
we know Shaw is $4.5+M and recently extended...

here's the numbers from USA Today for public Universities

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salarie...hotline-nl 

in the Pac-12

UW $5.1m
OU $4.8m
UU $4.3m
UCLA $4.3m
ASU $3.7m
WSU $3.6m
Cal $3.6m
OSU $3.4m
CU $3.3m
UA $3.1m

USC ??
LSJU ??

thanks Eric and Hulk.

my guess is we'd be closer to 9th in the Pac-12 in assistant's pay as opposed to 3rd.  3rd in Pac is $4.3m/10 ($430,000 per coach).  I'd guess again that figure would be close to our highest paid assistant coach with the lowest in the $150,000 range.
[/quote]

I was left to guessing.   If we're ninth in pay, we are the brobdingnagian outlier in the conference.   Otherwise, win-loss records and assistant pay, adjusted for cost of living, correlate very closely.

[BostonCard]

On evolution:

Shaw's 2011 team was an offensive juggernaut.  Per BCF Tools, offensive efficiency was 1.38 (3rd in the country).  Points per drive was 3.52 (2nd in the country).  The defense was adequate (25th in defensive efficiency, 33rd in defensive points per drive).  Then Andrew graduated.

Shaw's 2012 and 2013 teams were no longer offensive juggernauts (especially 2012, with Nunes at QB for a bunch of games).  Offensive efficiency was .10 (52nd in the country) in 2012 and 0.52 (30th in the country) in 2013.  Offensive points per drive were 2.06 (73rd in the country) in 2012, and 2.61 (29th in the country) in 2013.  Yet we went to a Rose Bowl both years, mostly on the strength of the defense (1.37 defensive ppd, 14th in the country in 2012 and 1.57 defensive ppd, 18th in the country in 2013).  To me, that is evidence of evolution.

By 2015, the standouts on defense had left and Shaw's 2015 team was back to relying on its offense.  Its offensive efficiency was 1.27 (4th in the country) and defensive efficiency was .15 (52nd); ppd were 3.56 (2nd in the country) for offense; 1.93 (48th) for the defense.  Again, evidence of evolution.

As CTCard has noted many times, the offense that we run now bears little resemblance to the power running, play-action passing offense we ran from 2011 to 2017 (and even 2015 to 2017, though they featured heavy running with McCaffrey and then Love were different than what we did earlier in Shaw's term in 2011 to 2013).  Now, the offense has generally been worse than it was in 2011 and 2015 when it was at its peak, but we are definitely running a very different offense now, so the idea that Shaw has not changed a style of offense that he has been running since 2011 challenges the premise of this thread.

BC

[BostonCard]

On evolution:

Shaw's 2011 team was an offensive juggernaut.  Per BCF Tools, offensive efficiency was 1.38 (3rd in the country).  Points per drive was 3.52 (2nd in the country).  The defense was adequate (25th in defensive efficiency, 33rd in defensive points per drive).  Then Andrew graduated.

Shaw's 2012 and 2013 teams were no longer offensive juggernauts (especially 2012, with Nunes at QB for a bunch of games).  Offensive efficiency was .10 (52nd in the country) in 2012 and 0.52 (30th in the country) in 2013.  Offensive points per drive were 2.06 (73rd in the country) in 2012, and 2.61 (29th in the country) in 2013.  Yet we went to a Rose Bowl both years, mostly on the strength of the defense (1.37 defensive ppd, 14th in the country in 2012 and 1.57 defensive ppd, 18th in the country in 2013).  To me, that is evidence of evolution.

By 2015, the standouts on defense had left and Shaw's 2015 team was back to relying on its offense.  Its offensive efficiency was 1.27 (4th in the country) and defensive efficiency was .15 (52nd); ppd were 3.56 (2nd in the country) for offense; 1.93 (48th) for the defense.  Again, evidence of evolution.

As CTCard has noted many times, the offense that we run now bears little resemblance to the power running, play-action passing offense we ran from 2011 to 2017 (and even 2015 to 2017, though they featured heavy running with McCaffrey and then Love were different than what we did earlier in Shaw's term in 2011 to 2013).  Now, the offense has generally been worse than it was in 2011 and 2015 when it was at its peak, but we are definitely running a very different offense now, so the idea that Shaw has not changed a style of offense that he has been running since 2011 challenges the premise of this thread.

BC

[teejers1]

On evolution:

Shaw's 2011 team was an offensive juggernaut.  Per BCF Tools, offensive efficiency was 1.38 (3rd in the country).  Points per drive was 3.52 (2nd in the country).  The defense was adequate (25th in defensive efficiency, 33rd in defensive points per drive).  Then Andrew graduated.

Shaw's 2012 and 2013 teams were no longer offensive juggernauts (especially 2012, with Nunes at QB for a bunch of games).  Offensive efficiency was .10 (52nd in the country) in 2012 and 0.52 (30th in the country) in 2013.  Offensive points per drive were 2.06 (73rd in the country) in 2012, and 2.61 (29th in the country) in 2013.  Yet we went to a Rose Bowl both years, mostly on the strength of the defense (1.37 defensive ppd, 14th in the country in 2012 and 1.57 defensive ppd, 18th in the country in 2013).  To me, that is evidence of evolution.

By 2015, the standouts on defense had left and Shaw's 2015 team was back to relying on its offense.  Its offensive efficiency was 1.27 (4th in the country) and defensive efficiency was .15 (52nd); ppd were 3.56 (2nd in the country) for offense; 1.93 (48th) for the defense.  Again, evidence of evolution.

As CTCard has noted many times, the offense that we run now bears little resemblance to the power running, play-action passing offense we ran from 2011 to 2017 (and even 2015 to 2017, though they featured heavy running with McCaffrey and then Love were different than what we did earlier in Shaw's term in 2011 to 2013).  Now, the offense has generally been worse than it was in 2011 and 2015 when it was at its peak, but we are definitely running a very different offense now, so the idea that Shaw has not changed a style of offense that he has been running since 2011 challenges the premise of this thread.

BC

When you have superior players, even a HS offense can be effective, in theory, because (as someone in these parts noted) every play is designed to go for a TD with perfect execution.  Shaw has had effective offenses with superior talent.  The problem is when he doesn't have superior talent.  Which now, unfortunately, is all the time.  [And if the 2021 class is a harbinger, we are in for a brutal year or two down the road].  Shaw's offenses never scheme anybody open; the offenses are never better than the sum of their individual parts.  But hey, pitch it to Love and hope he breaks a long one; throw jump balls to JJAW; get the ball to C-Mac as much as you can.  Those can lead to some good games and results, but the offensive scheme is not sound.  

You can throw stats around till the cows come home and it won't change the fundamental truth about the above.  

P.S.  To be fair, there have been flashes of improvement in this Covid season.  DOGs and burned timeouts to avoid same are down; there has been some running against formation tendency (a little of that); and we've seen an interesting play or two.  [I think the TE screen in the last game for the rumbling TD is one that comes immediately to mind, and perhaps the misfire on the wide open TE down the right sideline - also in the last game].  But again, I think Stanford Fandom has been so bludgeoned down by the plodding nature of Shaw's offenses that we've forgotten what a real, diversified offense looks like and can do.  Instead, the "Lex" argument is that Shaw has shown that the best way for Stanford to win is to have a ball control offense that limits opposing teams' possessions.  My response is that strategy only works when you have superior talent on O with Shaw because otherwise, he cannot impose anything.  But guess what?  A more balanced, diversified O works better with superior talent, too!

I keep reverting to the eye test - trust what your eyes tell you.  And my eyes tell me that Mills is an elite QB; that he has completed numerous passes into incredibly tight windows, including some passes he probably should not have thrown, given the tight coverage.  But how come our guys never get any/much separation?  How come Mills feels compelled to throw into good coverage?  It's because we rarely, if ever, scheme anybody open.  Having 2 guys run curls at the sticks and the third receiver run a streak is rather easy to "figure out" and that makes it tough on Mills and Company.  That's an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Mini-rant over. I just smh at stats thrown around to rationalize the very mediocre offenses we've seen under Shaw, especially considering the talent on the O side of the ball over the years.

[teejers1]

On evolution:

Shaw's 2011 team was an offensive juggernaut.  Per BCF Tools, offensive efficiency was 1.38 (3rd in the country).  Points per drive was 3.52 (2nd in the country).  The defense was adequate (25th in defensive efficiency, 33rd in defensive points per drive).  Then Andrew graduated.

Shaw's 2012 and 2013 teams were no longer offensive juggernauts (especially 2012, with Nunes at QB for a bunch of games).  Offensive efficiency was .10 (52nd in the country) in 2012 and 0.52 (30th in the country) in 2013.  Offensive points per drive were 2.06 (73rd in the country) in 2012, and 2.61 (29th in the country) in 2013.  Yet we went to a Rose Bowl both years, mostly on the strength of the defense (1.37 defensive ppd, 14th in the country in 2012 and 1.57 defensive ppd, 18th in the country in 2013).  To me, that is evidence of evolution.

By 2015, the standouts on defense had left and Shaw's 2015 team was back to relying on its offense.  Its offensive efficiency was 1.27 (4th in the country) and defensive efficiency was .15 (52nd); ppd were 3.56 (2nd in the country) for offense; 1.93 (48th) for the defense.  Again, evidence of evolution.

As CTCard has noted many times, the offense that we run now bears little resemblance to the power running, play-action passing offense we ran from 2011 to 2017 (and even 2015 to 2017, though they featured heavy running with McCaffrey and then Love were different than what we did earlier in Shaw's term in 2011 to 2013).  Now, the offense has generally been worse than it was in 2011 and 2015 when it was at its peak, but we are definitely running a very different offense now, so the idea that Shaw has not changed a style of offense that he has been running since 2011 challenges the premise of this thread.

BC

When you have superior players, even a HS offense can be effective, in theory, because (as someone in these parts noted) every play is designed to go for a TD with perfect execution.  Shaw has had effective offenses with superior talent.  The problem is when he doesn't have superior talent.  Which now, unfortunately, is all the time.  [And if the 2021 class is a harbinger, we are in for a brutal year or two down the road].  Shaw's offenses never scheme anybody open; the offenses are never better than the sum of their individual parts.  But hey, pitch it to Love and hope he breaks a long one; throw jump balls to JJAW; get the ball to C-Mac as much as you can.  Those can lead to some good games and results, but the offensive scheme is not sound.  

You can throw stats around till the cows come home and it won't change the fundamental truth about the above.  

P.S.  To be fair, there have been flashes of improvement in this Covid season.  DOGs and burned timeouts to avoid same are down; there has been some running against formation tendency (a little of that); and we've seen an interesting play or two.  [I think the TE screen in the last game for the rumbling TD is one that comes immediately to mind, and perhaps the misfire on the wide open TE down the right sideline - also in the last game].  But again, I think Stanford Fandom has been so bludgeoned down by the plodding nature of Shaw's offenses that we've forgotten what a real, diversified offense looks like and can do.  Instead, the "Lex" argument is that Shaw has shown that the best way for Stanford to win is to have a ball control offense that limits opposing teams' possessions.  My response is that strategy only works when you have superior talent on O with Shaw because otherwise, he cannot impose anything.  But guess what?  A more balanced, diversified O works better with superior talent, too!

I keep reverting to the eye test - trust what your eyes tell you.  And my eyes tell me that Mills is an elite QB; that he has completed numerous passes into incredibly tight windows, including some passes he probably should not have thrown, given the tight coverage.  But how come our guys never get any/much separation?  How come Mills feels compelled to throw into good coverage?  It's because we rarely, if ever, scheme anybody open.  Having 2 guys run curls at the sticks and the third receiver run a streak is rather easy to "figure out" and that makes it tough on Mills and Company.  That's an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Mini-rant over. I just smh at stats thrown around to rationalize the very mediocre offenses we've seen under Shaw, especially considering the talent on the O side of the ball over the years.

[cardcrimson]

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

On evolution:

Shaw's 2011 team was an offensive juggernaut.  Per BCF Tools, offensive efficiency was 1.38 (3rd in the country).  Points per drive was 3.52 (2nd in the country).  The defense was adequate (25th in defensive efficiency, 33rd in defensive points per drive).  Then Andrew graduated.

Shaw's 2012 and 2013 teams were no longer offensive juggernauts (especially 2012, with Nunes at QB for a bunch of games).  Offensive efficiency was .10 (52nd in the country) in 2012 and 0.52 (30th in the country) in 2013.  Offensive points per drive were 2.06 (73rd in the country) in 2012, and 2.61 (29th in the country) in 2013.  Yet we went to a Rose Bowl both years, mostly on the strength of the defense (1.37 defensive ppd, 14th in the country in 2012 and 1.57 defensive ppd, 18th in the country in 2013).  To me, that is evidence of evolution.

By 2015, the standouts on defense had left and Shaw's 2015 team was back to relying on its offense.  Its offensive efficiency was 1.27 (4th in the country) and defensive efficiency was .15 (52nd); ppd were 3.56 (2nd in the country) for offense; 1.93 (48th) for the defense.  Again, evidence of evolution.

As CTCard has noted many times, the offense that we run now bears little resemblance to the power running, play-action passing offense we ran from 2011 to 2017 (and even 2015 to 2017, though they featured heavy running with McCaffrey and then Love were different than what we did earlier in Shaw's term in 2011 to 2013).  Now, the offense has generally been worse than it was in 2011 and 2015 when it was at its peak, but we are definitely running a very different offense now, so the idea that Shaw has not changed a style of offense that he has been running since 2011 challenges the premise of this thread.

BC

[cardcrimson]

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

On evolution:

Shaw's 2011 team was an offensive juggernaut.  Per BCF Tools, offensive efficiency was 1.38 (3rd in the country).  Points per drive was 3.52 (2nd in the country).  The defense was adequate (25th in defensive efficiency, 33rd in defensive points per drive).  Then Andrew graduated.

Shaw's 2012 and 2013 teams were no longer offensive juggernauts (especially 2012, with Nunes at QB for a bunch of games).  Offensive efficiency was .10 (52nd in the country) in 2012 and 0.52 (30th in the country) in 2013.  Offensive points per drive were 2.06 (73rd in the country) in 2012, and 2.61 (29th in the country) in 2013.  Yet we went to a Rose Bowl both years, mostly on the strength of the defense (1.37 defensive ppd, 14th in the country in 2012 and 1.57 defensive ppd, 18th in the country in 2013).  To me, that is evidence of evolution.

By 2015, the standouts on defense had left and Shaw's 2015 team was back to relying on its offense.  Its offensive efficiency was 1.27 (4th in the country) and defensive efficiency was .15 (52nd); ppd were 3.56 (2nd in the country) for offense; 1.93 (48th) for the defense.  Again, evidence of evolution.

As CTCard has noted many times, the offense that we run now bears little resemblance to the power running, play-action passing offense we ran from 2011 to 2017 (and even 2015 to 2017, though they featured heavy running with McCaffrey and then Love were different than what we did earlier in Shaw's term in 2011 to 2013).  Now, the offense has generally been worse than it was in 2011 and 2015 when it was at its peak, but we are definitely running a very different offense now, so the idea that Shaw has not changed a style of offense that he has been running since 2011 challenges the premise of this thread.

BC

[slide]

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

cardcrimson -- I was thinking along the same lines, but may be more direct.  as BC lays out, so we finally get change from Shaw and it is for the worse?

[slide]

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

cardcrimson -- I was thinking along the same lines, but may be more direct.  as BC lays out, so we finally get change from Shaw and it is for the worse?

[cardcrimson]

Nowhere did I write that I want to see Shaw replaced. I simply hope that he finds the stones to hire some assistants that actually challenge him. 

Not a fan of Sark, Kiffen, or Saban for that matter. The latter however, I have to respect his ability to pull creative coaches off the scrap heap, give them the keys, and give them the support to help them succeed. 

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

cardcrimson -- I was thinking along the same lines, but may be more direct.  as BC lays out, so we finally get change from Shaw and it is for the worse?

[cardcrimson]

Nowhere did I write that I want to see Shaw replaced. I simply hope that he finds the stones to hire some assistants that actually challenge him. 

Not a fan of Sark, Kiffen, or Saban for that matter. The latter however, I have to respect his ability to pull creative coaches off the scrap heap, give them the keys, and give them the support to help them succeed. 

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

cardcrimson -- I was thinking along the same lines, but may be more direct.  as BC lays out, so we finally get change from Shaw and it is for the worse?

[Phogge]

The other factor is that the program is behind everybody else in inducements. No January enrollment, adherence to the Big Visit, no JC kids, virtually no transfers (except future fighter pilots who don't get any snaps). That puts them behind the eight ball with a lot of kids. Then there is the early signing date which has thrown off Shaw and staff.

But the bright side is that the conference is mediocre giving Stanford a slight chance to make an occasional Rose Bowl except in a season in which the RB is a semifinalist game.

[Phogge]

The other factor is that the program is behind everybody else in inducements. No January enrollment, adherence to the Big Visit, no JC kids, virtually no transfers (except future fighter pilots who don't get any snaps). That puts them behind the eight ball with a lot of kids. Then there is the early signing date which has thrown off Shaw and staff.

But the bright side is that the conference is mediocre giving Stanford a slight chance to make an occasional Rose Bowl except in a season in which the RB is a semifinalist game.

[lex24]

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

cardcrimson -- I was thinking along the same lines, but may be more direct.  as BC lays out, so we finally get change from Shaw and it is for the worse?

This years offense is not worse. And if they had a full season, I think it would have turned out to be pretty darn good.  It’s been damn efficient since the second half of Cal.  

But they have gotten significantly worse on defense.  That makes it harder to play complimentary football.  Stanford has controlled the LOS on offense pretty well.  So they have ran well.  And passed efficiently.  Even last week without their top 3 receivers.   Conversely, they cannot control the LOS on the other side of the ball.  So they struggle to stop anyone. 

So this week they (hopefully) play UCLA. What is their best chance to win ?  Try to match firepower - against an uptempo team with an explosive dual threat QB. Or take the air out of the ball, control the clock, and limit possessions?  I think the answer is obvious.  And if you don’t, think Oregon 2010 through 2013.

[lex24]

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

cardcrimson -- I was thinking along the same lines, but may be more direct.  as BC lays out, so we finally get change from Shaw and it is for the worse?

This years offense is not worse. And if they had a full season, I think it would have turned out to be pretty darn good.  It’s been damn efficient since the second half of Cal.  

But they have gotten significantly worse on defense.  That makes it harder to play complimentary football.  Stanford has controlled the LOS on offense pretty well.  So they have ran well.  And passed efficiently.  Even last week without their top 3 receivers.   Conversely, they cannot control the LOS on the other side of the ball.  So they struggle to stop anyone. 

So this week they (hopefully) play UCLA. What is their best chance to win ?  Try to match firepower - against an uptempo team with an explosive dual threat QB. Or take the air out of the ball, control the clock, and limit possessions?  I think the answer is obvious.  And if you don’t, think Oregon 2010 through 2013.

[AlbanyCardinal]

We've seen this refrain posted a million times -- "I'm not saying fire the guy, but make him get a real O coordinator and give him the keys, blah, blah, blah." I've posted it at least a dozen times. If we aren't convinced now that it'll never happen, then we might as well be arguing that Earth's flat. 

This season has shown me that Shaw/Tavita is/are trying to mix it up this (truncated) year. I've seen fewer delay of games and much more unpredictable play calling. I've even seen some slants and quick outs! I've seen more offensive flow/rhythm and fewer drive-ending playcalls. It's all I can hope for given that a) Shaw won't bring in a coordinator and give him/her all the keys and b) Shaw won't get fired anytime soon, which, like you, I don't advocate for.

Nowhere did I write that I want to see Shaw replaced. I simply hope that he finds the stones to hire some assistants that actually challenge him. 

Not a fan of Sark, Kiffen, or Saban for that matter. The latter however, I have to respect his ability to pull creative  coaches off the scrap heap, give them the keys, and give them the support to help them succeed. 

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

cardcrimson -- I was thinking along the same lines, but may be more direct.  as BC lays out, so we finally get change from Shaw and it is for the worse?

[AlbanyCardinal]

We've seen this refrain posted a million times -- "I'm not saying fire the guy, but make him get a real O coordinator and give him the keys, blah, blah, blah." I've posted it at least a dozen times. If we aren't convinced now that it'll never happen, then we might as well be arguing that Earth's flat. 

This season has shown me that Shaw/Tavita is/are trying to mix it up this (truncated) year. I've seen fewer delay of games and much more unpredictable play calling. I've even seen some slants and quick outs! I've seen more offensive flow/rhythm and fewer drive-ending playcalls. It's all I can hope for given that a) Shaw won't bring in a coordinator and give him/her all the keys and b) Shaw won't get fired anytime soon, which, like you, I don't advocate for.

Nowhere did I write that I want to see Shaw replaced. I simply hope that he finds the stones to hire some assistants that actually challenge him. 

Not a fan of Sark, Kiffen, or Saban for that matter. The latter however, I have to respect his ability to pull creative  coaches off the scrap heap, give them the keys, and give them the support to help them succeed. 

Evolution typically refers to something inferior being pushed out/replaced by something superior. De-evolution is the opposite. 

Considering the points you stated, which better represents the Stanford offense under Shaw?

cardcrimson -- I was thinking along the same lines, but may be more direct.  as BC lays out, so we finally get change from Shaw and it is for the worse?

[Phogge]

Wow. Where do you guys find the time?

[Phogge]

Wow. Where do you guys find the time?

[Snorlax94]

Saban's first NC team in 2009 averaged 187 in the air, and 215 on the ground; scored 32 per game and gave up 12. This year, the Tide is averaging 347 in the air and 190 on the ground; scoring 50 per game and giving up 17.

You are aware, aren’t you, that this is a bulletin board for fans of the Stanford Cardinal. I couldn’t care less about Nick Saban. I imagine he is an effective fundraiser, befitting his locale and employer.

I wouldn’t trade any Stanford team for any other team in the country. I am proud of how each team of student athletes represent the university. And Coach Shaw is a great coach and a great fit. And so far this season, he has shown he still has some juice in the tank.

Who do I think has done a better job as coach this season — overall, including challenges, character and perspective? Keeping in mind coaches play a role in their communities during a global pandemic?  Keeping their players and communities safe, creating as positive an experience as possible for their student athletes during extraordinary challenges? Who has been the better coach, mentor, role model, community member, and university representative this season — Shaw or Saban? It is not even close.

[Snorlax94]

Saban's first NC team in 2009 averaged 187 in the air, and 215 on the ground; scored 32 per game and gave up 12. This year, the Tide is averaging 347 in the air and 190 on the ground; scoring 50 per game and giving up 17.

You are aware, aren’t you, that this is a bulletin board for fans of the Stanford Cardinal. I couldn’t care less about Nick Saban. I imagine he is an effective fundraiser, befitting his locale and employer.

I wouldn’t trade any Stanford team for any other team in the country. I am proud of how each team of student athletes represent the university. And Coach Shaw is a great coach and a great fit. And so far this season, he has shown he still has some juice in the tank.

Who do I think has done a better job as coach this season — overall, including challenges, character and perspective? Keeping in mind coaches play a role in their communities during a global pandemic?  Keeping their players and communities safe, creating as positive an experience as possible for their student athletes during extraordinary challenges? Who has been the better coach, mentor, role model, community member, and university representative this season — Shaw or Saban? It is not even close.

[teejers1]

Saban's first NC team in 2009 averaged 187 in the air, and 215 on the ground; scored 32 per game and gave up 12. This year, the Tide is averaging 347 in the air and 190 on the ground; scoring 50 per game and giving up 17.

You are aware, aren’t you, that this is a bulletin board for fans of the Stanford Cardinal. I couldn’t care less about Nick Saban. I imagine he is an effective fundraiser, befitting his locale and employer.

I wouldn’t trade any Stanford team for any other team in the country. I am proud of how each team of student athletes represent the university. And Coach Shaw is a great coach and a great fit. And so far this season, he has shown he still has some juice in the tank.

Who do I think has done a better job as coach this season — overall, including challenges, character and perspective? Keeping in mind coaches play a role in their communities during a global pandemic?  Keeping their players and communities safe, creating as positive an experience as possible for their student athletes during extraordinary challenges? Who has been the better coach, mentor, role model, community member, and university representative this season — Shaw or Saban? It is not even close.

And we wonder why Stanford gets zero traction with Joe Sports Fan in the surrounding area, who (correctly) views Stanford students and alums, by and large, as elitist, sanctimonious snobs.  By 2022, there will be tens of fans like you in the stands supporting the Stanford football program, the only one with its priorities straight.

[teejers1]

Saban's first NC team in 2009 averaged 187 in the air, and 215 on the ground; scored 32 per game and gave up 12. This year, the Tide is averaging 347 in the air and 190 on the ground; scoring 50 per game and giving up 17.

You are aware, aren’t you, that this is a bulletin board for fans of the Stanford Cardinal. I couldn’t care less about Nick Saban. I imagine he is an effective fundraiser, befitting his locale and employer.

I wouldn’t trade any Stanford team for any other team in the country. I am proud of how each team of student athletes represent the university. And Coach Shaw is a great coach and a great fit. And so far this season, he has shown he still has some juice in the tank.

Who do I think has done a better job as coach this season — overall, including challenges, character and perspective? Keeping in mind coaches play a role in their communities during a global pandemic?  Keeping their players and communities safe, creating as positive an experience as possible for their student athletes during extraordinary challenges? Who has been the better coach, mentor, role model, community member, and university representative this season — Shaw or Saban? It is not even close.

And we wonder why Stanford gets zero traction with Joe Sports Fan in the surrounding area, who (correctly) views Stanford students and alums, by and large, as elitist, sanctimonious snobs.  By 2022, there will be tens of fans like you in the stands supporting the Stanford football program, the only one with its priorities straight.

[pefloresjr]

Saban's first NC team in 2009 averaged 187 in the air, and 215 on the ground; scored 32 per game and gave up 12. This year, the Tide is averaging 347 in the air and 190 on the ground; scoring 50 per game and giving up 17.

You are aware, aren’t you, that this is a bulletin board for fans of the Stanford Cardinal. I couldn’t care less about Nick Saban. I imagine he is an effective fundraiser, befitting his locale and employer.

I wouldn’t trade any Stanford team for any other team in the country. I am proud of how each team of student athletes represent the university. And Coach Shaw is a great coach and a great fit. And so far this season, he has shown he still has some juice in the tank.

Who do I think has done a better job as coach this season — overall, including challenges, character and perspective? Keeping in mind coaches play a role in their communities during a global pandemic?  Keeping their players and communities safe, creating as positive an experience as possible for their student athletes during extraordinary challenges? Who has been the better coach, mentor, role model, community member, and university representative this season — Shaw or Saban? It is not even close.

And we wonder why Stanford gets zero traction with Joe Sports Fan in the surrounding area, who (correctly) views Stanford students and alums, by and large, as elitist, sanctimonious snobs.  By 2022, there will be tens of fans like you in the stands supporting the Stanford football program, the only one with its priorities straight.

That's ridiculous.  It seems to be your position that Stanford should move to the lowest common denominator to appeal to the average sports fan.  If only Shaw would do that, we would be competing for the national championship every year, right?  It's not going to happen and shouldn't.  Fans are there when the team performs well.  I care whether all of Stanford's teams perform well and whether they do it the right way.  I don't give a damn if you think that's elitist, it's the way Stanford has run its sports programs for over a century and has won more NCAA titles than any other school.  If it's elitist to care about sports other than football and men's basketball and, gasp, to care about women's sports, than I am happy to be elitist.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Saban's first NC team in 2009 averaged 187 in the air, and 215 on the ground; scored 32 per game and gave up 12. This year, the Tide is averaging 347 in the air and 190 on the ground; scoring 50 per game and giving up 17.

You are aware, aren’t you, that this is a bulletin board for fans of the Stanford Cardinal. I couldn’t care less about Nick Saban. I imagine he is an effective fundraiser, befitting his locale and employer.

I wouldn’t trade any Stanford team for any other team in the country. I am proud of how each team of student athletes represent the university. And Coach Shaw is a great coach and a great fit. And so far this season, he has shown he still has some juice in the tank.

Who do I think has done a better job as coach this season — overall, including challenges, character and perspective? Keeping in mind coaches play a role in their communities during a global pandemic?  Keeping their players and communities safe, creating as positive an experience as possible for their student athletes during extraordinary challenges? Who has been the better coach, mentor, role model, community member, and university representative this season — Shaw or Saban? It is not even close.

And we wonder why Stanford gets zero traction with Joe Sports Fan in the surrounding area, who (correctly) views Stanford students and alums, by and large, as elitist, sanctimonious snobs.  By 2022, there will be tens of fans like you in the stands supporting the Stanford football program, the only one with its priorities straight.

That's ridiculous.  It seems to be your position that Stanford should move to the lowest common denominator to appeal to the average sports fan.  If only Shaw would do that, we would be competing for the national championship every year, right?  It's not going to happen and shouldn't.  Fans are there when the team performs well.  I care whether all of Stanford's teams perform well and whether they do it the right way.  I don't give a damn if you think that's elitist, it's the way Stanford has run its sports programs for over a century and has won more NCAA titles than any other school.  If it's elitist to care about sports other than football and men's basketball and, gasp, to care about women's sports, than I am happy to be elitist.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[Phogge]

Pete, Stanford is elitist and has little following outside of alumni. He’s correct. Elitist doesn’t mean that all Stanford people are pricks but it doesn’t sell to the public. In general the Bay Area could care less about college football and that will never change.

Unless you have a guy so successful (Saban, The Bear, Woody, Ara) in towns where there is no NFL, MLB and NBA there is always turmoil about the head coach. What is going on on this board is intellectual chat re Shaw at a school that rarely fires anyone.

I have thought that for a couple of years Shaw has sunk into complacency augmented with a burning desire not to be questioned. Ergo, never fired a coach he’s hired or elevated.

In the big picture (IMO having spent six years making films for the AD and getting to know a bunch of people)yeah the decade was great but let’s just be Stanford and not worry about it.

[Phogge]

Pete, Stanford is elitist and has little following outside of alumni. He’s correct. Elitist doesn’t mean that all Stanford people are pricks but it doesn’t sell to the public. In general the Bay Area could care less about college football and that will never change.

Unless you have a guy so successful (Saban, The Bear, Woody, Ara) in towns where there is no NFL, MLB and NBA there is always turmoil about the head coach. What is going on on this board is intellectual chat re Shaw at a school that rarely fires anyone.

I have thought that for a couple of years Shaw has sunk into complacency augmented with a burning desire not to be questioned. Ergo, never fired a coach he’s hired or elevated.

In the big picture (IMO having spent six years making films for the AD and getting to know a bunch of people)yeah the decade was great but let’s just be Stanford and not worry about it.

[slide]

And we wonder why Stanford gets zero traction with Joe Sports Fan in the surrounding area, who (correctly) views Stanford students and alums, by and large, as elitist, sanctimonious snobs.  By 2022, there will be tens of fans like you in the stands supporting the Stanford football program, the only one with its priorities straight.

very different approach today than say when your parents settled in Palo Alto or mine lived in Ladera decades ago.  Stanford was more the community's team rather than just the alumni's team.  fwiw, I liked the old approach.

[slide]

And we wonder why Stanford gets zero traction with Joe Sports Fan in the surrounding area, who (correctly) views Stanford students and alums, by and large, as elitist, sanctimonious snobs.  By 2022, there will be tens of fans like you in the stands supporting the Stanford football program, the only one with its priorities straight.

very different approach today than say when your parents settled in Palo Alto or mine lived in Ladera decades ago.  Stanford was more the community's team rather than just the alumni's team.  fwiw, I liked the old approach.