[OutsiderFan]

The idea that we should give up football, or at least relegate it to the club level or join an Ivy League type Conference.
Do you think it should be considered?

Yes, I do. My belief is if you are going to compete in something, you owe it to everyone making an investment in the enterprise, to push the envelope and hold people accountable for performance to stay competitive. I can understand, accept, even admire Stanford having higher admissions requirements than other football programs, but the purposeful hand tying beyond that, is just stupid, IMO.

Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic as it goes way beyond the Utah game abortion.

[OutsiderFan]

The idea that we should give up football, or at least relegate it to the club level or join an Ivy League type Conference.
Do you think it should be considered?

Yes, I do. My belief is if you are going to compete in something, you owe it to everyone making an investment in the enterprise, to push the envelope and hold people accountable for performance to stay competitive. I can understand, accept, even admire Stanford having higher admissions requirements than other football programs, but the purposeful hand tying beyond that, is just stupid, IMO.

Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic as it goes way beyond the Utah game abortion.

[Goose]

Yes, if McKee is still out I'd really like to see Patu start. Sanders can still come in as a changeup but must be allowed to check into a pass when they load the box.



Of course it's all academic if the line can't block and the D can't tackle.

West simply can't play. Period. That means Patu has to be in the mix. However, you are also correct that if the D gets pushed back 5 yards on every play before the handoff to the back is even made, it isn't going to matter. Utah just destroyed our DL and ILBs. The rest of the D was usually out of position, but that really didn't matter much. The OL got stood up on every running play. There were no holes.

Most PAC-12 teams aren't disciplined enough to do what Utah did on offense. They knew what their assignments were and they completed them over and over again. OSU is one team that can pretty much do that as well. It could be another very long game.

We also have real trouble dealing with a QB that can run. Kal doesn't have the discipline Utah does and they certainly make more mistakes. However, Garbers can for sure run. Another not good match-up. Not looking very encouraging for Stanford.

---

Seeing McKee on a crutch makes it hard to believe he will be ready for the River Rodents. In that case, I'm all for starting Patu to see what he can do. West is not a Division 1 QB. He's proven that everytime he gets on the field. Sanders is strictly a running QB. No choice but to go with Patu.

Totally agree West shouldn't play. He is unable to cope with the in-game situation. He may be fine when he has good pass protection, but he can't make quick decisions (pre or post snap) and he can't deal with any pressure. Sanders at AF was not strictly a running QB. He isn't John Elway but he can throw the ball. Stanford hasn't needed him to do that, so he probably hasn't practiced that for two years. If he plays, he should have some pass plays available to him.

I have mixed feelings about playing Patu. The good news is it won't burn his shirt if he only plays four games. The fear I have is that he gits hurt or that he discovers how hard it is to play behind our current OL and looks elsewhere. The real decider will be the fact we really have no choice.West simply can't be out there.

[Goose]

Yes, if McKee is still out I'd really like to see Patu start. Sanders can still come in as a changeup but must be allowed to check into a pass when they load the box.



Of course it's all academic if the line can't block and the D can't tackle.

West simply can't play. Period. That means Patu has to be in the mix. However, you are also correct that if the D gets pushed back 5 yards on every play before the handoff to the back is even made, it isn't going to matter. Utah just destroyed our DL and ILBs. The rest of the D was usually out of position, but that really didn't matter much. The OL got stood up on every running play. There were no holes.

Most PAC-12 teams aren't disciplined enough to do what Utah did on offense. They knew what their assignments were and they completed them over and over again. OSU is one team that can pretty much do that as well. It could be another very long game.

We also have real trouble dealing with a QB that can run. Kal doesn't have the discipline Utah does and they certainly make more mistakes. However, Garbers can for sure run. Another not good match-up. Not looking very encouraging for Stanford.

---

Seeing McKee on a crutch makes it hard to believe he will be ready for the River Rodents. In that case, I'm all for starting Patu to see what he can do. West is not a Division 1 QB. He's proven that everytime he gets on the field. Sanders is strictly a running QB. No choice but to go with Patu.

Totally agree West shouldn't play. He is unable to cope with the in-game situation. He may be fine when he has good pass protection, but he can't make quick decisions (pre or post snap) and he can't deal with any pressure. Sanders at AF was not strictly a running QB. He isn't John Elway but he can throw the ball. Stanford hasn't needed him to do that, so he probably hasn't practiced that for two years. If he plays, he should have some pass plays available to him.

I have mixed feelings about playing Patu. The good news is it won't burn his shirt if he only plays four games. The fear I have is that he gits hurt or that he discovers how hard it is to play behind our current OL and looks elsewhere. The real decider will be the fact we really have no choice.West simply can't be out there.

[CardinalSagehen]

Fun fact:
BOTH the NFL's all-time rushing leader and Stanford's career rushing TDs leader were in attendance last night.  They witnessed an affront to the integrity of offensive line play, running games, and offensive football everywhere. (For good measure, they also witnessed total domination of our defense.)  

I should note that it wasn't our running backs' faults, and EJ actually had a couple great runs with shifty moves.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/EmmittSmith22/status/1456776193009672193?s=20[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordBSB/status/1456839624165244929?s=20[/tweet]

In a tweet that now seems to have been deleted, Emmitt was openly critical during last week's game, saying our offense was too predictable.

[CardinalSagehen]

Fun fact:
BOTH the NFL's all-time rushing leader and Stanford's career rushing TDs leader were in attendance last night.  They witnessed an affront to the integrity of offensive line play, running games, and offensive football everywhere. (For good measure, they also witnessed total domination of our defense.)  

I should note that it wasn't our running backs' faults, and EJ actually had a couple great runs with shifty moves.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/EmmittSmith22/status/1456776193009672193?s=20[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordBSB/status/1456839624165244929?s=20[/tweet]

In a tweet that now seems to have been deleted, Emmitt was openly critical during last week's game, saying our offense was too predictable.

[JohnR34231]

The idea that we should give up football, or at least relegate it to the club level or join an Ivy League type Conference.
Do you think it should be considered?

Yes, I do. My belief is if you are going to compete in something, you owe it to everyone making an investment in the enterprise, to push the envelope and hold people accountable for performance to stay competitive. I can understand, accept, even admire Stanford having higher admissions requirements than other football programs, but the purposeful hand tying beyond that, is just stupid, IMO.

Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic as it goes way beyond the Utah game abortion.

We can discuss it if people want, but it ain't going to happen. Anytime soon anyway.

[JohnR34231]

The idea that we should give up football, or at least relegate it to the club level or join an Ivy League type Conference.
Do you think it should be considered?

Yes, I do. My belief is if you are going to compete in something, you owe it to everyone making an investment in the enterprise, to push the envelope and hold people accountable for performance to stay competitive. I can understand, accept, even admire Stanford having higher admissions requirements than other football programs, but the purposeful hand tying beyond that, is just stupid, IMO.

Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic as it goes way beyond the Utah game abortion.

We can discuss it if people want, but it ain't going to happen. Anytime soon anyway.

[gailtate]

The idea that we should give up football, or at least relegate it to the club level or join an Ivy League type Conference.

Do you think it should be considered?

Yes, I do. My belief is if you are going to compete in something, you owe it to everyone making an investment in the enterprise, to push the envelope and hold people accountable for performance to stay competitive. I can understand, accept, even admire Stanford having higher admissions requirements than other football programs, but the purposeful hand tying beyond that, is just stupid, IMO.



Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic as it goes way beyond the Utah game abortion.

We can discuss it if people want, but it ain't going to happen. Anytime soon anywa

This is a pile of defeatist Bee-Ess. It was BS during the late '50s and early '60s, before Chuck Taylor hired John Ralston. It was BS just before Walsh arrived (the first time). It was again during end of the Ted "We're not Nebraska" Leland administration. White-flag wavers were silenced again when Jim Harbaugh demonstrated what a Stanford Football program can and should look like. The current guy, ironically a Harbaugh acolyte, has presided over the current deterioration for several years. He's fat, happy and delusional, blaming the players HE recruited. Who are "coached" by the sycophants he coddles. This has been discussed to death. The decision that Muir is in the position to make will not be made until someone above HIM gives him no choice. I know that Tab Taube was blown off by the A.D. during the Buddy/Wlat debacle -- until Bob Bowlsby was hired. Don't know what John A. thinks about the current cluster*** but he can't be happy with it. When it was time for Jack Elway to go, it took a locker-room insurrection. Shaw's Roses have withered and died but some here still smell them.

[gailtate]

The idea that we should give up football, or at least relegate it to the club level or join an Ivy League type Conference.

Do you think it should be considered?

Yes, I do. My belief is if you are going to compete in something, you owe it to everyone making an investment in the enterprise, to push the envelope and hold people accountable for performance to stay competitive. I can understand, accept, even admire Stanford having higher admissions requirements than other football programs, but the purposeful hand tying beyond that, is just stupid, IMO.



Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic as it goes way beyond the Utah game abortion.

We can discuss it if people want, but it ain't going to happen. Anytime soon anywa

This is a pile of defeatist Bee-Ess. It was BS during the late '50s and early '60s, before Chuck Taylor hired John Ralston. It was BS just before Walsh arrived (the first time). It was again during end of the Ted "We're not Nebraska" Leland administration. White-flag wavers were silenced again when Jim Harbaugh demonstrated what a Stanford Football program can and should look like. The current guy, ironically a Harbaugh acolyte, has presided over the current deterioration for several years. He's fat, happy and delusional, blaming the players HE recruited. Who are "coached" by the sycophants he coddles. This has been discussed to death. The decision that Muir is in the position to make will not be made until someone above HIM gives him no choice. I know that Tab Taube was blown off by the A.D. during the Buddy/Wlat debacle -- until Bob Bowlsby was hired. Don't know what John A. thinks about the current cluster*** but he can't be happy with it. When it was time for Jack Elway to go, it took a locker-room insurrection. Shaw's Roses have withered and died but some here still smell them.

[JohnR34231]

The idea that we should give up football, or at least relegate it to the club level or join an Ivy League type Conference.

Do you think it should be considered?

Yes, I do. My belief is if you are going to compete in something, you owe it to everyone making an investment in the enterprise, to push the envelope and hold people accountable for performance to stay competitive. I can understand, accept, even admire Stanford having higher admissions requirements than other football programs, but the purposeful hand tying beyond that, is just stupid, IMO.



Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic as it goes way beyond the Utah game abortion.

We can discuss it if people want, but it ain't going to happen. Anytime soon anywa

This is a pile of defeatist Bee-Ess. It was BS during the late '50s and early '60s, before Chuck Taylor hired John Ralston. It was BS just before Walsh arrived (the first time). It was again during end of the Ted "We're not Nebraska" Leland administration. White-flag wavers were silenced again when Jim Harbaugh demonstrated what a Stanford Football program can and should look like. The current guy, ironically a Harbaugh acolyte, has presided over the current deterioration for several years. He's fat, happy and delusional, blaming the players HE recruited. Who are "coached" by the sycophants he coddles. This has been discussed to death. The decision that Muir is in the position to make will not be made until someone above HIM gives him no choice. I know that Tab Taube was blown off by the A.D. during the Buddy/Wlat debacle -- until Bob Bowlsby was hired. Don't know what John A. thinks about the current cluster*** but he can't be happy with it. When it was time for Jack Elway to go, it took a locker-room insurrection. Shaw's Roses have withered and died but some here still smell them.

Hey, I even agree with you Gail. Stanford can compete at the Pac 12 level, and if Shaw can't get this turned around let's get him out of there and get someone in who can. Shaw will be given some time to do it (much to the dismay of his detractors) but if he can't hopefully someone will have the stones to give him his walking papers.

[JohnR34231]

The idea that we should give up football, or at least relegate it to the club level or join an Ivy League type Conference.

Do you think it should be considered?

Yes, I do. My belief is if you are going to compete in something, you owe it to everyone making an investment in the enterprise, to push the envelope and hold people accountable for performance to stay competitive. I can understand, accept, even admire Stanford having higher admissions requirements than other football programs, but the purposeful hand tying beyond that, is just stupid, IMO.



Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic as it goes way beyond the Utah game abortion.

We can discuss it if people want, but it ain't going to happen. Anytime soon anywa

This is a pile of defeatist Bee-Ess. It was BS during the late '50s and early '60s, before Chuck Taylor hired John Ralston. It was BS just before Walsh arrived (the first time). It was again during end of the Ted "We're not Nebraska" Leland administration. White-flag wavers were silenced again when Jim Harbaugh demonstrated what a Stanford Football program can and should look like. The current guy, ironically a Harbaugh acolyte, has presided over the current deterioration for several years. He's fat, happy and delusional, blaming the players HE recruited. Who are "coached" by the sycophants he coddles. This has been discussed to death. The decision that Muir is in the position to make will not be made until someone above HIM gives him no choice. I know that Tab Taube was blown off by the A.D. during the Buddy/Wlat debacle -- until Bob Bowlsby was hired. Don't know what John A. thinks about the current cluster*** but he can't be happy with it. When it was time for Jack Elway to go, it took a locker-room insurrection. Shaw's Roses have withered and died but some here still smell them.

Hey, I even agree with you Gail. Stanford can compete at the Pac 12 level, and if Shaw can't get this turned around let's get him out of there and get someone in who can. Shaw will be given some time to do it (much to the dismay of his detractors) but if he can't hopefully someone will have the stones to give him his walking papers.

[chrisk]

Arizona is catching a break today since Garbers is among 2 dozen Cal players out today because of COVID protocol. They have a great shot at ending their 20-game losing streak. Carl’s offense is doing only slightly better than Stanford’s did last night.

I assume Cal will have most of its players back in 2 weeks.

[chrisk]

Arizona is catching a break today since Garbers is among 2 dozen Cal players out today because of COVID protocol. They have a great shot at ending their 20-game losing streak. Carl’s offense is doing only slightly better than Stanford’s did last night.

I assume Cal will have most of its players back in 2 weeks.

[martyup]

Carl’s offense is doing only slightly better than Stanford’s did last night.

[martyup]

Carl’s offense is doing only slightly better than Stanford’s did last night.

[BostonCard]

Most actively traded mutual funds do worse than an index fund.  There is no evidence that any individual investor can identify which mutual funds will do better than average over the long term.  Even past performance, as they say, is no guarantee of future results.

Half of college coaches are below the median. I really don’t see all that much evidence that AD’s are all that good at picking coaches, and, with relatively few exceptions, past performance doesn’t seem to be a great predictor of future results.

BC

[BostonCard]

Most actively traded mutual funds do worse than an index fund.  There is no evidence that any individual investor can identify which mutual funds will do better than average over the long term.  Even past performance, as they say, is no guarantee of future results.

Half of college coaches are below the median. I really don’t see all that much evidence that AD’s are all that good at picking coaches, and, with relatively few exceptions, past performance doesn’t seem to be a great predictor of future results.

BC

[teejers1]

Hey, I even agree with you Gail. Stanford can compete at the Pac 12 level, and if Shaw can't get this turned around let's get him out of there and get someone in who can. Shaw will be given some time to do it (much to the dismay of his detractors) but if he can't hopefully someone will have the stones to give him his walking papers.

Why the eff would you want to give Shaw the chance to turn it around?  HE ALREADY HAS TURNED IT AROUND!.  180 degrees.  Ferrari to broken down Yugo.  There will be no turnaround to respectability until he is gone.  [And don't give me the BS that "he's earned it."  That is horseshit.  Plus, he has been handsomely paid (an epic understatement) for his "services" to Stanford.  No one owes that guy a thing.

[teejers1]

Hey, I even agree with you Gail. Stanford can compete at the Pac 12 level, and if Shaw can't get this turned around let's get him out of there and get someone in who can. Shaw will be given some time to do it (much to the dismay of his detractors) but if he can't hopefully someone will have the stones to give him his walking papers.

Why the eff would you want to give Shaw the chance to turn it around?  HE ALREADY HAS TURNED IT AROUND!.  180 degrees.  Ferrari to broken down Yugo.  There will be no turnaround to respectability until he is gone.  [And don't give me the BS that "he's earned it."  That is horseshit.  Plus, he has been handsomely paid (an epic understatement) for his "services" to Stanford.  No one owes that guy a thing.

[Goose]

There will be no turnaround to respectability until he is gone.  [And don't give me the BS that "he's earned it."  That is horseshit.  Plus, he has been handsomely paid (an epic understatement) for his "services" to Stanford.  No one owes that guy a thing.

The problems with your approach are 1) nobody actually knows if Shaw can turn it around, and 2) nobody has been able to suggest a credible alternative who we know can turn it around. I agree, nobody owes Shaw a chance to turn it around. However, he did preside over a good program at Stanford for a few years. Given that, it isn't impossible to believe he may be able to "fix" the current problems and restore the program to it's former status. It also may be that nobody can, at least for a while.

Unless and until one can answer the "compared to who?" question, Shaw is IMHO the best choice. If you want to be part of the "anybody is better than Shaw" faction, I suggest you look at USC and Texas, blue-blood programs with far fewer constraints than Stanford has. That approach hasn't yielded them much.

[Goose]

There will be no turnaround to respectability until he is gone.  [And don't give me the BS that "he's earned it."  That is horseshit.  Plus, he has been handsomely paid (an epic understatement) for his "services" to Stanford.  No one owes that guy a thing.

The problems with your approach are 1) nobody actually knows if Shaw can turn it around, and 2) nobody has been able to suggest a credible alternative who we know can turn it around. I agree, nobody owes Shaw a chance to turn it around. However, he did preside over a good program at Stanford for a few years. Given that, it isn't impossible to believe he may be able to "fix" the current problems and restore the program to it's former status. It also may be that nobody can, at least for a while.

Unless and until one can answer the "compared to who?" question, Shaw is IMHO the best choice. If you want to be part of the "anybody is better than Shaw" faction, I suggest you look at USC and Texas, blue-blood programs with far fewer constraints than Stanford has. That approach hasn't yielded them much.

[Austroturf]

I frankly do not know who would be a better alternative to Shaw at the head of the program: but, clearly, the current regime is floundering.  

There have been fears of a "lost decade" if the athletic administration decides to let Shaw and his staff go, with the clear danger that we end up with another Teevens/Harris tandem to coach the program into a sinkhole.  However, to be honest, the lost decade has already begun, and there is no sign we have the coaches or the players to reverse this trend.  Teevens was 10-23 in three seasons.  Harris was 6-17 in two seasons.  Over the last three seasons, Shaw is 11-16, with the trend downward.  If we win 1 out of 3 going forward, he will have a 12-18 record since 2019.  Slightly better than Buddy and Wlat, but only slightly.  Is anybody on this board predicting a miraculous turnaround in 2022 to reverse this trend? 

As I have said, I think Shaw could possibly turn the program around, but not by sticking to his current ways.  He would have to wake up one morning, stare at himself in the mirror and ask himself whether the success of the football program has priority over his personal loyalties to a clearly dysfunctional coaching staff (of which he is currently leader and, therefore, an integral part).  If the answer is yes, he would have to don a new mantle that morning and set about hiring a crack staff (including S&C) that would bring heightened competitiveness and a sense of urgency to a moribund program.  Three-star players would once again perform like 4-star players, the team would sense a renewed energy, get back to at least a .500 win percentage, make a lower tier bowl, attract better recruits in the next cycle, and the virtuous circle would continue.  We saw that happen between 2007 and 2010.  And Shaw is smart enough and experienced enough to make that happen, because he was there and knows what it takes.  But will he do this?   

Even if he is pressured to terminate Pritchard, Anderson and some other assistants, there is no guarantee he will have the will or the acumen to surround himself with a staff that can engineer a turnaround.  Shaw appears to be one of those leaders who prefers to be the beloved father figure surrounded by loyal acolytes rather than the uncomfortable task-master insisting on superior performance from his staff and players.  I am sure Shaw is a wonderful guy to work for; but if you want to win in a brutally competitive enterprise (e.g., NCAA division I football), you sometimes need to be a hard-nosed bastard.  I don't think Shaw is that type of person nor would he surround himself with that type of coach.  It would be too uncomfortable for him.  

So if we think Shaw will be around at least through 2025 (i.e., another four seasons or so), does anybody really expect things to turnaround in that timeframe?  It's not impossible.  But, as mentioned, it would require our head coach to undergo a thorough transformation of temperament and make changes he has thus far been unwilling to make.  If he does not change anything and continues down the current path, we will be 7 years into the lost decade before any new leader can take the reins.  Yes, there is no guarantee that a change will bring in a second Harbaugh.  But the current trajectory is already reminiscent of the Teevens/Harris half-decade of misery.

[Austroturf]

I frankly do not know who would be a better alternative to Shaw at the head of the program: but, clearly, the current regime is floundering.  

There have been fears of a "lost decade" if the athletic administration decides to let Shaw and his staff go, with the clear danger that we end up with another Teevens/Harris tandem to coach the program into a sinkhole.  However, to be honest, the lost decade has already begun, and there is no sign we have the coaches or the players to reverse this trend.  Teevens was 10-23 in three seasons.  Harris was 6-17 in two seasons.  Over the last three seasons, Shaw is 11-16, with the trend downward.  If we win 1 out of 3 going forward, he will have a 12-18 record since 2019.  Slightly better than Buddy and Wlat, but only slightly.  Is anybody on this board predicting a miraculous turnaround in 2022 to reverse this trend? 

As I have said, I think Shaw could possibly turn the program around, but not by sticking to his current ways.  He would have to wake up one morning, stare at himself in the mirror and ask himself whether the success of the football program has priority over his personal loyalties to a clearly dysfunctional coaching staff (of which he is currently leader and, therefore, an integral part).  If the answer is yes, he would have to don a new mantle that morning and set about hiring a crack staff (including S&C) that would bring heightened competitiveness and a sense of urgency to a moribund program.  Three-star players would once again perform like 4-star players, the team would sense a renewed energy, get back to at least a .500 win percentage, make a lower tier bowl, attract better recruits in the next cycle, and the virtuous circle would continue.  We saw that happen between 2007 and 2010.  And Shaw is smart enough and experienced enough to make that happen, because he was there and knows what it takes.  But will he do this?   

Even if he is pressured to terminate Pritchard, Anderson and some other assistants, there is no guarantee he will have the will or the acumen to surround himself with a staff that can engineer a turnaround.  Shaw appears to be one of those leaders who prefers to be the beloved father figure surrounded by loyal acolytes rather than the uncomfortable task-master insisting on superior performance from his staff and players.  I am sure Shaw is a wonderful guy to work for; but if you want to win in a brutally competitive enterprise (e.g., NCAA division I football), you sometimes need to be a hard-nosed bastard.  I don't think Shaw is that type of person nor would he surround himself with that type of coach.  It would be too uncomfortable for him.  

So if we think Shaw will be around at least through 2025 (i.e., another four seasons or so), does anybody really expect things to turnaround in that timeframe?  It's not impossible.  But, as mentioned, it would require our head coach to undergo a thorough transformation of temperament and make changes he has thus far been unwilling to make.  If he does not change anything and continues down the current path, we will be 7 years into the lost decade before any new leader can take the reins.  Yes, there is no guarantee that a change will bring in a second Harbaugh.  But the current trajectory is already reminiscent of the Teevens/Harris half-decade of misery.

[JohnR34231]

Hey, I even agree with you Gail. Stanford can compete at the Pac 12 level, and if Shaw can't get this turned around let's get him out of there and get someone in who can. Shaw will be given some time to do it (much to the dismay of his detractors) but if he can't hopefully someone will have the stones to give him his walking papers.

Why the eff would you want to give Shaw the chance to turn it around?  HE ALREADY HAS TURNED IT AROUND!.  180 degrees.  Ferrari to broken down Yugo.  There will be no turnaround to respectability until he is gone.  [And don't give me the BS that "he's earned it."  That is horseshit.  Plus, he has been handsomely paid (an epic understatement) for his "services" to Stanford.  No one owes that guy a thing.

The point isn't whether I (or anyone else on this board) would want to give Shaw a chance to turn it around. The point is that (at least IMO) that the powers that be at Stanford are going to do so. So let's at least recognize reality here. Look at the bright side. All those on this board who enjoy complaining so bitterly about him will have another couple more years to do so.

[JohnR34231]

Hey, I even agree with you Gail. Stanford can compete at the Pac 12 level, and if Shaw can't get this turned around let's get him out of there and get someone in who can. Shaw will be given some time to do it (much to the dismay of his detractors) but if he can't hopefully someone will have the stones to give him his walking papers.

Why the eff would you want to give Shaw the chance to turn it around?  HE ALREADY HAS TURNED IT AROUND!.  180 degrees.  Ferrari to broken down Yugo.  There will be no turnaround to respectability until he is gone.  [And don't give me the BS that "he's earned it."  That is horseshit.  Plus, he has been handsomely paid (an epic understatement) for his "services" to Stanford.  No one owes that guy a thing.

The point isn't whether I (or anyone else on this board) would want to give Shaw a chance to turn it around. The point is that (at least IMO) that the powers that be at Stanford are going to do so. So let's at least recognize reality here. Look at the bright side. All those on this board who enjoy complaining so bitterly about him will have another couple more years to do so.

[Phogge]

Or all you guys can refuse to contribute to the program and let the people in power know about it.

[Phogge]

Or all you guys can refuse to contribute to the program and let the people in power know about it.

[JohnR34231]

Or all you guys can refuse to contribute to the program and let the people in power know about it.

I would assume some of the people on this board who have been complaining about Shaw for years now have already done that.

[JohnR34231]

Or all you guys can refuse to contribute to the program and let the people in power know about it.

I would assume some of the people on this board who have been complaining about Shaw for years now have already done that.

[Austroturf]

The point isn't whether I (or anyone else on this board) would want to give Shaw a chance to turn it around. The point is that (at least IMO) that the powers that be at Stanford are going to do so. So let's at least recognize reality here. Look at the bright side. All those on this board who enjoy complaining so bitterly about him will have another couple more years to do so.

I am critical of Shaw (and his staff), but I certainly don't enjoy it.  Unfortunately, there isn't much positive to point to right now.  I much preferred the times when we could talk about which players were phenomenal after a game and which plays/series swung the contest in our favor.

[Austroturf]

The point isn't whether I (or anyone else on this board) would want to give Shaw a chance to turn it around. The point is that (at least IMO) that the powers that be at Stanford are going to do so. So let's at least recognize reality here. Look at the bright side. All those on this board who enjoy complaining so bitterly about him will have another couple more years to do so.

I am critical of Shaw (and his staff), but I certainly don't enjoy it.  Unfortunately, there isn't much positive to point to right now.  I much preferred the times when we could talk about which players were phenomenal after a game and which plays/series swung the contest in our favor.

[farmfanucdgrad]

I think someone made the analogy that we went from being a Ferrari to a broken down Yugo...I think that we are more now like the old (and actually current) Jaguar autos that are horribly expensive to maintain, always break down with zero reliability but are supposedly superior because of their purported elegance and luxury to other brands.  This is not a good business model for Stanford Football.

Come on...I've been a life long fan and I always knew that the Harbaugh years and the early Shaw years were special would not always be the norm (which is why I thoroughly enjoyed/appreciated), but what has been slowly happening/devolving over the course of the past 4-5 years within the Stanford program has led us to where unfortunately most of Stanford fans currently are....Almost utter and complete APATHY.  

It is what it is....what Shaw and his administration have been doing just isn't working anymore, I think we can all 100% agree on that.  The Stanford AD doesn't seem to take the Football Program's Performance seriously so in essence, why should we?  Stanford football stopped actively marketing to the Bay Area masses decades ago so it is predictable that we have an aging and stagnant if not decreasing fan presence. I want to be motivated about Stanford football but it seems that the Stanford Football Program is not motivated about itself nor us the fans either.  

I'm not advocating Doom and Gloom but more of a "Why should any of us care"?  I'm still a fan but I'm not excited to say the least.

[farmfanucdgrad]

I think someone made the analogy that we went from being a Ferrari to a broken down Yugo...I think that we are more now like the old (and actually current) Jaguar autos that are horribly expensive to maintain, always break down with zero reliability but are supposedly superior because of their purported elegance and luxury to other brands.  This is not a good business model for Stanford Football.

Come on...I've been a life long fan and I always knew that the Harbaugh years and the early Shaw years were special would not always be the norm (which is why I thoroughly enjoyed/appreciated), but what has been slowly happening/devolving over the course of the past 4-5 years within the Stanford program has led us to where unfortunately most of Stanford fans currently are....Almost utter and complete APATHY.  

It is what it is....what Shaw and his administration have been doing just isn't working anymore, I think we can all 100% agree on that.  The Stanford AD doesn't seem to take the Football Program's Performance seriously so in essence, why should we?  Stanford football stopped actively marketing to the Bay Area masses decades ago so it is predictable that we have an aging and stagnant if not decreasing fan presence. I want to be motivated about Stanford football but it seems that the Stanford Football Program is not motivated about itself nor us the fans either.  

I'm not advocating Doom and Gloom but more of a "Why should any of us care"?  I'm still a fan but I'm not excited to say the least.

[winflop]

I gave myself 24 hours to "calm down" before articulating more rational thoughts.

Friday night was a disaster. With McKee using a crutch on the sideline, I have no doubt that the players & coaches all knew he wouldn't play long before we did. The offensive coaches did a terrible job of getting the team mentally ready to play without him. Part of me felt like the players may have mailed it in on both sides of the ball.

I have more serious questions about Shaw's and especially Pritchard's judgment about QBs after Friday night than I ever did before. How in the world could you not see a delta between McKee and West? I'm sorry but their performances on the field this year are so night & day that I can't accept that they were competitive in practice. Even if practices were soft, West's deer in the headlights under pressure had to have emerged. This is just another nail in Pritchard's coffin for me.

Let Sanders throw the ball and play Patu if McKee isn't available. I never want to see Jack West under center again. He made a great 40-year decision,. I wish him nothing but success in his future, but he's not a D1 QB.

I have been told by someone in the program that practices this year are softer than they have ever been. The pendulum on player safety may have swung too far toward injury prevention that players are not physically well-prepared enough when gametime rolls around. Combine that with the challenges in S&C/training since Turley left, and I think these two issues and their combined effect lie at the core of our massive physical deficit in the trenches on both sides of the ball.

The coaches who put that snarl & nastiness in the program are long gone, all replaced by softer coaches - Harbaugh->Shaw, Mason->Anderson, Hart->Reynolds, Kotulski->Hansen(->Sanders), Bloomgren->Carberry(->Heffernan).

Shaw's not going anywhere, unless he wants to - at least as long as the spineless store-minder is our AD. I have no expectations that Shaw can bring back the first half of the last decade, but Stanford should be able to have winning records and occasionally 10+ wins. I don't see a way that happens unless there are major changes in the coaching staff and Shaw brings in a new OC and lets him run the offense. Sadly I don't see it happening.

Win Big Game is all I have left in the hope department. Notre Dame is going to eat our lunch, even if McKee is back. If McKee isn't back next Saturday, Oregon State will do the same.

[winflop]

I gave myself 24 hours to "calm down" before articulating more rational thoughts.

Friday night was a disaster. With McKee using a crutch on the sideline, I have no doubt that the players & coaches all knew he wouldn't play long before we did. The offensive coaches did a terrible job of getting the team mentally ready to play without him. Part of me felt like the players may have mailed it in on both sides of the ball.

I have more serious questions about Shaw's and especially Pritchard's judgment about QBs after Friday night than I ever did before. How in the world could you not see a delta between McKee and West? I'm sorry but their performances on the field this year are so night & day that I can't accept that they were competitive in practice. Even if practices were soft, West's deer in the headlights under pressure had to have emerged. This is just another nail in Pritchard's coffin for me.

Let Sanders throw the ball and play Patu if McKee isn't available. I never want to see Jack West under center again. He made a great 40-year decision,. I wish him nothing but success in his future, but he's not a D1 QB.

I have been told by someone in the program that practices this year are softer than they have ever been. The pendulum on player safety may have swung too far toward injury prevention that players are not physically well-prepared enough when gametime rolls around. Combine that with the challenges in S&C/training since Turley left, and I think these two issues and their combined effect lie at the core of our massive physical deficit in the trenches on both sides of the ball.

The coaches who put that snarl & nastiness in the program are long gone, all replaced by softer coaches - Harbaugh->Shaw, Mason->Anderson, Hart->Reynolds, Kotulski->Hansen(->Sanders), Bloomgren->Carberry(->Heffernan).

Shaw's not going anywhere, unless he wants to - at least as long as the spineless store-minder is our AD. I have no expectations that Shaw can bring back the first half of the last decade, but Stanford should be able to have winning records and occasionally 10+ wins. I don't see a way that happens unless there are major changes in the coaching staff and Shaw brings in a new OC and lets him run the offense. Sadly I don't see it happening.

Win Big Game is all I have left in the hope department. Notre Dame is going to eat our lunch, even if McKee is back. If McKee isn't back next Saturday, Oregon State will do the same.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't really care if Shaw stays or goes at this point, but the fact you guys all act like he is his own boss, free to remain coach as long as he wants, like he calls the shots, suggests the David Shaw tail wags the Stanford dog. This idea is absurd, and if true, it's completely unhinged.

It's akin to allowing Mark Zuckerberg to run his evil company with nobody having the ability to take him out. Think maybe if he was accountable to others, maybe his company would be less awful?

[OutsiderFan]

I don't really care if Shaw stays or goes at this point, but the fact you guys all act like he is his own boss, free to remain coach as long as he wants, like he calls the shots, suggests the David Shaw tail wags the Stanford dog. This idea is absurd, and if true, it's completely unhinged.

It's akin to allowing Mark Zuckerberg to run his evil company with nobody having the ability to take him out. Think maybe if he was accountable to others, maybe his company would be less awful?

[lex24]

I don't really care if Shaw stays or goes at this point, but the fact you guys all act like he is his own boss, free to remain coach as long as he wants, like he calls the shots, suggests the David Shaw tail wags the Stanford dog. This idea is absurd, and if true, it's completely unhinged.

It's akin to allowing Mark Zuckerberg to run his evil company with nobody having the ability to take him out. Think maybe if he was accountable to others, maybe his company would be less awful?

Not sure what Zuckerberg or his “evil”  company has to do with anything.  I also don’t know of anyone saying that Shaw gets to call his own shots etc.  

I do hear people (including me) saying he’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Which I suspect to be true. OTOH, Shanahan may be available soon…… :)

[lex24]

I don't really care if Shaw stays or goes at this point, but the fact you guys all act like he is his own boss, free to remain coach as long as he wants, like he calls the shots, suggests the David Shaw tail wags the Stanford dog. This idea is absurd, and if true, it's completely unhinged.

It's akin to allowing Mark Zuckerberg to run his evil company with nobody having the ability to take him out. Think maybe if he was accountable to others, maybe his company would be less awful?

Not sure what Zuckerberg or his “evil”  company has to do with anything.  I also don’t know of anyone saying that Shaw gets to call his own shots etc.  

I do hear people (including me) saying he’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Which I suspect to be true. OTOH, Shanahan may be available soon…… :)