I keep seeing a re-hash of praise for Harbaugh.
My view analyzing it is to go beyond "Shaw is good" or "Shaw is bad" and to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each coach, and how those traits relate to a given circumstance. I also start with a score card for how to consider a Power 5 coaching candidate.
The traits I think a >>college<< coach needs are:
1) They need to be an executive who strives for excellence in building their organization, in solving organizational issues, in fundraising.
2) They need to be excellent recruiters of high school kids.
3) They need to be a motivator to get the best out of kids.
4) They should have exceptional knowledge and insights of at least some aspects of the game.
5) They should have exceptional knowledge of current coaches in college football
6) They should be exceptional innovators of the game at the X's and O's level.
And then, they might have additional superpowers.
As an aside, the scorecard for the NFL is totally different.
Let's consider Jim Harbaugh. I'd rate him:
1) Executive/Organization Builder: A+, he is maniacal in his desire to build a college organization up to what is needed to compete against the best.
2) Recruiter: A at first, now a B, At first, his messianic line works great recruiting, but over time, when he doesn't deliver on the goods for his brobdingnagian promises, his stock drops and his routine begins to look like a cheesy "shtick."
3) Motivator: A+ at first, now a B+, At first, his messianic line fires people up -- at Stanford, at the 49ers, at Michigan. But over time, when he doesn't deliver on the goods, people catch on, and it becomes a turn off for some.
4) Knowledge of at least One Aspect: C. He has some ideas, and I think he had good ideas of how to get quarterbacks into a groove, but he's never struck me as an ideas guy, not even of one aspect of the game.
5) Knowledge of College Coaches: A+ at first, but a B now. He did hire some great people at Stanford, but some of the best picks, like Vic Fangio, came from his brother, and the problem with that help is that it may not be forthcoming again in the future.
6) Innovator: D-. Harbaugh tries to find the best and to hire them and get the organization going. I've never seen anyone praise him as an X's and O's kind of guy.
Additional Superpowers: Harbaugh's messianic schtick makes him a perfect turnaround artist. He was a **perfect** fit for Stanford in 2007. He inherited a program that had lost its fire, had no mojo, had a mess of a recruiting system, and had poor systems/resources all over the place. And it's hard to imagine a more perfect fit for that situation. Shaw could not have fixed that mess as well. Maybe no one could. He brought attitude and pride to a hapless program. He demanded many facilities upgrades (even his bathroom!). He streamlined the process for admissions to make Stanford recruiting more competitive.
The odd thing is, when people make odd yearnings for Harbaugh now, I wonder why? He is not a fit for Stanford's current situation. Harbaugh accomplished what he did because his strengths were a perfect fit for that particular time, and that particular set of needs.
Now let's consider David Shaw. I'd rate him:
1) Executive/Organization Builder: C (A+ for niceness, but nice doesn't win games). This is my biggest complaint with him, and I think it's the biggest cause for Stanford's deterioration. He faces a lot of bullsh!t, and he is just too damned passive about it. A fit for Stanford is someone who loves the institution, but can still see the flaws and demand fixes right now. Arguably, one of the root causes of recent problems have been the problems in Strength & Conditioning and sports trainers/medicine? (I don't know the exact source. And in interviews, Shaw just says, "well gosh, this is what we're stuck with so shucks I guess we just have to make do this season with what we have." Shaw is right that if the administration finds that Shannon Turley needs to be fired, he needs to be fired. At Stanford, the institution runs the sports, not the other way around. But after that, you shouldn't just "accept" whatever falls in your lap. It CAN be done at Stanford in a way that still prioritizes the institution over sports.
2) Recruiter: A. Shaw is the perfect fit for Stanford.
3) Motivator: A. I do like that the kids at Stanford play hard and play well. They play like Stanford student athletes. I do wonder, though, why the D line doesn't develop over the years like they used to.
4) Knowledge of at least one aspect: A+. David Shaw is one of the most respected students of the game of football. One of the reasons why people keep mentioning Shaw for the NFL is that this is more important in the NFL.
5) Knowledge of College Coaches: A mostly, C for accountability. I think he's hired some good assistants, but I think there have been duds. And I don't know where to put this -- as a failure as an executive/organization builder or as a hirer of assistants, but his willingness to demand the best staff and to fire when necessary is poor. I get that he wants to be a good guy and cares about people, but part of being a people manager is getting what is needed, and that may require correcting mistakes without demoralizing the staff or being untrue to the university's values.
6) Innovator: B+ average. Shaw is such a great student of the game, he tries a lot of new things, and I think his offense did amazing things from 2010-2015. But Stanford's running game has consistently gotten worse since Bloomgren left. If Shaw, Pritchard, Gould and Heffernan don't have the qualities to get some running yards, some people may need to go. Also, the Pac-12 is a conference where teams know each other intimately and beat each other up like no other Power 5 conference, and it's starting to feel like everyone's getting a feel for Shaw. So, somehow, Stanford needs some new juice here one way or another.
Additional Superpowers: By every account, David Shaw is an exceptional person and an extraordinary representative of the university. He is an A++ as a representative of the university. He is intelligent, he shows great character during games, he clearly cares for the students and for the institution, he works to do things the right away. He gets kids to graduate and sets them on a good path for life. He takes on major issues of the day like sexual assault by athletes and works for solutions for the whole country. The program under his watch has made many efforts to contribute to the field of reducing concussions in football. But the issue is, there are a lot of extraordinary people at Stanford who represent the university well, who make contributions for all of society, who genuinely care for people, and who are among the brightest in their field, but only one of them made $8.9 MILLION dollars in 2019. An extraordinary faculty member can have tenure and can conduct great research with integrity, but you don't pay $8.9 million for that. About $8.5 million for his pay is as an executive manager, and executive management pay is based on results.
Shaw is such a perfect representative of the university and does so many great things outside of football, I hope he is affiliated with the university forever. I also hope he can be the right person to lead the football program, but for that person, the pay beyond what a faculty member earns needs to be based on results.
My view analyzing it is to go beyond "Shaw is good" or "Shaw is bad" and to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each coach, and how those traits relate to a given circumstance. I also start with a score card for how to consider a Power 5 coaching candidate.
The traits I think a >>college<< coach needs are:
1) They need to be an executive who strives for excellence in building their organization, in solving organizational issues, in fundraising.
2) They need to be excellent recruiters of high school kids.
3) They need to be a motivator to get the best out of kids.
4) They should have exceptional knowledge and insights of at least some aspects of the game.
5) They should have exceptional knowledge of current coaches in college football
6) They should be exceptional innovators of the game at the X's and O's level.
And then, they might have additional superpowers.
As an aside, the scorecard for the NFL is totally different.
Let's consider Jim Harbaugh. I'd rate him:
1) Executive/Organization Builder: A+, he is maniacal in his desire to build a college organization up to what is needed to compete against the best.
2) Recruiter: A at first, now a B, At first, his messianic line works great recruiting, but over time, when he doesn't deliver on the goods for his brobdingnagian promises, his stock drops and his routine begins to look like a cheesy "shtick."
3) Motivator: A+ at first, now a B+, At first, his messianic line fires people up -- at Stanford, at the 49ers, at Michigan. But over time, when he doesn't deliver on the goods, people catch on, and it becomes a turn off for some.
4) Knowledge of at least One Aspect: C. He has some ideas, and I think he had good ideas of how to get quarterbacks into a groove, but he's never struck me as an ideas guy, not even of one aspect of the game.
5) Knowledge of College Coaches: A+ at first, but a B now. He did hire some great people at Stanford, but some of the best picks, like Vic Fangio, came from his brother, and the problem with that help is that it may not be forthcoming again in the future.
6) Innovator: D-. Harbaugh tries to find the best and to hire them and get the organization going. I've never seen anyone praise him as an X's and O's kind of guy.
Additional Superpowers: Harbaugh's messianic schtick makes him a perfect turnaround artist. He was a **perfect** fit for Stanford in 2007. He inherited a program that had lost its fire, had no mojo, had a mess of a recruiting system, and had poor systems/resources all over the place. And it's hard to imagine a more perfect fit for that situation. Shaw could not have fixed that mess as well. Maybe no one could. He brought attitude and pride to a hapless program. He demanded many facilities upgrades (even his bathroom!). He streamlined the process for admissions to make Stanford recruiting more competitive.
The odd thing is, when people make odd yearnings for Harbaugh now, I wonder why? He is not a fit for Stanford's current situation. Harbaugh accomplished what he did because his strengths were a perfect fit for that particular time, and that particular set of needs.
Now let's consider David Shaw. I'd rate him:
1) Executive/Organization Builder: C (A+ for niceness, but nice doesn't win games). This is my biggest complaint with him, and I think it's the biggest cause for Stanford's deterioration. He faces a lot of bullsh!t, and he is just too damned passive about it. A fit for Stanford is someone who loves the institution, but can still see the flaws and demand fixes right now. Arguably, one of the root causes of recent problems have been the problems in Strength & Conditioning and sports trainers/medicine? (I don't know the exact source. And in interviews, Shaw just says, "well gosh, this is what we're stuck with so shucks I guess we just have to make do this season with what we have." Shaw is right that if the administration finds that Shannon Turley needs to be fired, he needs to be fired. At Stanford, the institution runs the sports, not the other way around. But after that, you shouldn't just "accept" whatever falls in your lap. It CAN be done at Stanford in a way that still prioritizes the institution over sports.
2) Recruiter: A. Shaw is the perfect fit for Stanford.
3) Motivator: A. I do like that the kids at Stanford play hard and play well. They play like Stanford student athletes. I do wonder, though, why the D line doesn't develop over the years like they used to.
4) Knowledge of at least one aspect: A+. David Shaw is one of the most respected students of the game of football. One of the reasons why people keep mentioning Shaw for the NFL is that this is more important in the NFL.
5) Knowledge of College Coaches: A mostly, C for accountability. I think he's hired some good assistants, but I think there have been duds. And I don't know where to put this -- as a failure as an executive/organization builder or as a hirer of assistants, but his willingness to demand the best staff and to fire when necessary is poor. I get that he wants to be a good guy and cares about people, but part of being a people manager is getting what is needed, and that may require correcting mistakes without demoralizing the staff or being untrue to the university's values.
6) Innovator: B+ average. Shaw is such a great student of the game, he tries a lot of new things, and I think his offense did amazing things from 2010-2015. But Stanford's running game has consistently gotten worse since Bloomgren left. If Shaw, Pritchard, Gould and Heffernan don't have the qualities to get some running yards, some people may need to go. Also, the Pac-12 is a conference where teams know each other intimately and beat each other up like no other Power 5 conference, and it's starting to feel like everyone's getting a feel for Shaw. So, somehow, Stanford needs some new juice here one way or another.
Additional Superpowers: By every account, David Shaw is an exceptional person and an extraordinary representative of the university. He is an A++ as a representative of the university. He is intelligent, he shows great character during games, he clearly cares for the students and for the institution, he works to do things the right away. He gets kids to graduate and sets them on a good path for life. He takes on major issues of the day like sexual assault by athletes and works for solutions for the whole country. The program under his watch has made many efforts to contribute to the field of reducing concussions in football. But the issue is, there are a lot of extraordinary people at Stanford who represent the university well, who make contributions for all of society, who genuinely care for people, and who are among the brightest in their field, but only one of them made $8.9 MILLION dollars in 2019. An extraordinary faculty member can have tenure and can conduct great research with integrity, but you don't pay $8.9 million for that. About $8.5 million for his pay is as an executive manager, and executive management pay is based on results.
Shaw is such a perfect representative of the university and does so many great things outside of football, I hope he is affiliated with the university forever. I also hope he can be the right person to lead the football program, but for that person, the pay beyond what a faculty member earns needs to be based on results.
