[BostonCard]

Weird, the author makes it sound like Taylor is this hidden gem that no one has thought of before, and yet, if one reads this board, Taylor is one of the most frequently named possibilities. 

BC

[BostonCard]

Weird, the author makes it sound like Taylor is this hidden gem that no one has thought of before, and yet, if one reads this board, Taylor is one of the most frequently named possibilities. 

BC

[CTcard]

 I absolutely love North Dakota State's brand of football. They're everything that I'd like Stanford to be, and they do remind me of what Stanford used to be just a few years ago. They also have a great eye for and developing the right QB for their offense...including some kid named Ashton Daniels whom I would have taken over McKee in a second based on what I saw from each of them in HS.

I am guessing that Ashton Daniels = Trey Lance; and that you are hoping that is what Daniels could become. 

McKee and Daniels were both 2018 hs graduates, but McKee was college entrance 2020 so not really in competition for a spot in a given class. 
The college football world appears to have been somewhere between unaware and unimpressed with Daniels out of HS. He had offers from 3 FBS teams (Boise, Western Michigan, Northern Illinois) and a few FCS teams. Obviously a great catch and case of development for NDSU. Interesting note is that Klieman left NDSU ahead of Lance's one starting year at NDSU (2019), but obviously was involved in Lance's recruitment and intial development. 

I like a contrarian philosophy.  However, I did begin to feel as if ground-and-pound wore out its contrarian nature as more and more teams figured out they could put 8 or 9 in the box to defend us.  I am remembering Michigan State in the Rose Bowl, for example, but this board was filled with people complaining that opposing defensive coordinators had "solved" our offense and that Shaw stubbornly clung to ground and pound and needed to punish the 8-in-a-box defenses.  This was long before the worst of our decline began.  Our defense carried us at times, and Shaw eventually became much more balanced on offense.

While there were (and always are) plenty of issues with the offense in the 2014 Rose Bowl, the fundamental problem was the Michigan State's defense was really good and Stanford's offense was only pretty good. Stanford was destined to lose that matchup. The hope was to win on the other side, which didn't happen though overall it was close (and I still claim that the call on the "fake" field goal was botched - and is listed on the play by play as illegal formation though pretty sure at the time it was called as illegal man downfield). 

The Stanford offense never really became particularly balanced if by that you mean near the national median in terms of run/pass mix. Under Tavita as OC, the team went rather quickly from run-heavy to run-rarely. 
Tavita never seemed to really like a downhill run-game. Another impression I had of Tavita was that he was too taken by the idea that you can win football games by simply being clever and tricking the other side. While that helps from time to time, overall I think one wins more football games by simply out-performing the other guys - being faster, stronger, more skilled, more trained.

[CTcard]

 I absolutely love North Dakota State's brand of football. They're everything that I'd like Stanford to be, and they do remind me of what Stanford used to be just a few years ago. They also have a great eye for and developing the right QB for their offense...including some kid named Ashton Daniels whom I would have taken over McKee in a second based on what I saw from each of them in HS.

I am guessing that Ashton Daniels = Trey Lance; and that you are hoping that is what Daniels could become. 

McKee and Daniels were both 2018 hs graduates, but McKee was college entrance 2020 so not really in competition for a spot in a given class. 
The college football world appears to have been somewhere between unaware and unimpressed with Daniels out of HS. He had offers from 3 FBS teams (Boise, Western Michigan, Northern Illinois) and a few FCS teams. Obviously a great catch and case of development for NDSU. Interesting note is that Klieman left NDSU ahead of Lance's one starting year at NDSU (2019), but obviously was involved in Lance's recruitment and intial development. 

I like a contrarian philosophy.  However, I did begin to feel as if ground-and-pound wore out its contrarian nature as more and more teams figured out they could put 8 or 9 in the box to defend us.  I am remembering Michigan State in the Rose Bowl, for example, but this board was filled with people complaining that opposing defensive coordinators had "solved" our offense and that Shaw stubbornly clung to ground and pound and needed to punish the 8-in-a-box defenses.  This was long before the worst of our decline began.  Our defense carried us at times, and Shaw eventually became much more balanced on offense.

While there were (and always are) plenty of issues with the offense in the 2014 Rose Bowl, the fundamental problem was the Michigan State's defense was really good and Stanford's offense was only pretty good. Stanford was destined to lose that matchup. The hope was to win on the other side, which didn't happen though overall it was close (and I still claim that the call on the "fake" field goal was botched - and is listed on the play by play as illegal formation though pretty sure at the time it was called as illegal man downfield). 

The Stanford offense never really became particularly balanced if by that you mean near the national median in terms of run/pass mix. Under Tavita as OC, the team went rather quickly from run-heavy to run-rarely. 
Tavita never seemed to really like a downhill run-game. Another impression I had of Tavita was that he was too taken by the idea that you can win football games by simply being clever and tricking the other side. While that helps from time to time, overall I think one wins more football games by simply out-performing the other guys - being faster, stronger, more skilled, more trained.

[msqueri]

Thanks Matt.  

Boy, there are a lot of moving parts when choosing a new head coach.  There are very few paths to get it right and many obstacles and pit falls that could lead to a bad hire.  

Let's hope the best and brightest minds use clear eyes and full hearts in the selection process.  

Unfortunately, we fans don't get to watch them make the sausage, we just get to eat it when it's done.  Let's hope that it's Jimmy Dean good.

I think I am more optimistic about this. I think a period following catastrophic failure like we've witnessed the last four years is a time of great promise for a college football program, at least one with significant advantages like Stanford has. The bar to clear to improve on recent results is extremely low and the nature of failure is such that just about any change will have healthy/cleansing aspects in at least some (if not many/most) respects. As such, if you came up with a list of 100 plausible candidates and had a monkey throw a dart at the board to pick the candidate we'd have a good shot at having more success in the coming years than we've had in the last four. Based on the history of Stanford coaching hires and other Power Five rebuilding effort coaching hires over the last 30-50 years, I peg about a 50 percent chance that any given hire could get us to occasional top 25/8+ win seasons. So I guess I don't think the paths are so few for us to get a result worth being happy about.

What we need to avoid is Muir selecting among poor candidates. If we hire somebody like Pep Hamilton, Derek Mason, Lance Anderson, Tavita Pritchard, Will Muschamp, Justin Wilcox, Mike Sanford, a position coach making a gargantuan leap, an FCS coach with less success than Troy Taylor, etc. then I think we will face an uphill climb back to relevance. So I guess there are pitfalls. But I'm going to hold on to some optimism that some rigor and sanity will prevail and somebody on my wish list will get it rather than somebody on my pitfall list.

[msqueri]

Thanks Matt.  

Boy, there are a lot of moving parts when choosing a new head coach.  There are very few paths to get it right and many obstacles and pit falls that could lead to a bad hire.  

Let's hope the best and brightest minds use clear eyes and full hearts in the selection process.  

Unfortunately, we fans don't get to watch them make the sausage, we just get to eat it when it's done.  Let's hope that it's Jimmy Dean good.

I think I am more optimistic about this. I think a period following catastrophic failure like we've witnessed the last four years is a time of great promise for a college football program, at least one with significant advantages like Stanford has. The bar to clear to improve on recent results is extremely low and the nature of failure is such that just about any change will have healthy/cleansing aspects in at least some (if not many/most) respects. As such, if you came up with a list of 100 plausible candidates and had a monkey throw a dart at the board to pick the candidate we'd have a good shot at having more success in the coming years than we've had in the last four. Based on the history of Stanford coaching hires and other Power Five rebuilding effort coaching hires over the last 30-50 years, I peg about a 50 percent chance that any given hire could get us to occasional top 25/8+ win seasons. So I guess I don't think the paths are so few for us to get a result worth being happy about.

What we need to avoid is Muir selecting among poor candidates. If we hire somebody like Pep Hamilton, Derek Mason, Lance Anderson, Tavita Pritchard, Will Muschamp, Justin Wilcox, Mike Sanford, a position coach making a gargantuan leap, an FCS coach with less success than Troy Taylor, etc. then I think we will face an uphill climb back to relevance. So I guess there are pitfalls. But I'm going to hold on to some optimism that some rigor and sanity will prevail and somebody on my wish list will get it rather than somebody on my pitfall list.

[gailtate]

Weird, the author makes it sound like Taylor is this hidden gem that no one has thought of before, and yet, if one reads this board, Taylor is one of the most frequently named possibilities.



BC

There are a lot of influential people in and around Stanford who wouldn't know Troy Taylor from Troy Aikman. Come to think of it, they wouldn't know who the hell Aikman was, either. My fear is that some of them will participate in the selection process.

[gailtate]

Weird, the author makes it sound like Taylor is this hidden gem that no one has thought of before, and yet, if one reads this board, Taylor is one of the most frequently named possibilities.



BC

There are a lot of influential people in and around Stanford who wouldn't know Troy Taylor from Troy Aikman. Come to think of it, they wouldn't know who the hell Aikman was, either. My fear is that some of them will participate in the selection process.

[gailtate]

Honorable mention:

* Greg Roman: I get it, he's an offensive genius and shaped some of the best offenses in Stanford history, I just don't get what that has to do with the rest of being a college football head coach

* Mike Bloomgren: I don't want this but if we're being honest he's extremely plausible given the partial truth and narrative (fueled by the Athletic article) that he was a of immense proportions part of the secret sauce of Shaw's success, coupled with his credible performance at Rice in light of the circumstances, and I do think he could succeed....thought hard about putting him on the ranked part but it's my list and I don't want to

* Lance Anderson: Another guy it's only realistic to acknowledge may get a look, though the case for a continuity candidate is awful under the circumstances and would be pretty galling....I don't know if Anderson would bring in a good coordinator or handle it himself but in a CEO role I acknowledge an outside chance of success, just not the juice I think we want/deserve

* Tavita Pritchard: Ditto

* Garret Riley: I'm not a big fan of the hire the 33 year old hotshot coordinator as a head coach model, but Riley sure is interesting and is a scorching hot name not only because of his brother but because of TCU's success this year

* Bronco Mendenhall: Again I'm a sucker for multi-stop success and I also have a soft spot for defensive specialists, but it just feels like an uninspired choice

* Paul Chryst: Ditto, except for the defense part

* Kalani Sitake: I've long found him attractive but am troubled by what he's allowed to happen to BYU's defense despite ostensibly being a defensive specialist

* Jeff Traylor: Probably a bad fit but UTSA is really good

* Bryan Harsin: Intriguing buy-low opportunity for a program as far away from SEC boosters as possible, both geographically and temperamentally

* Jeff Monken: Multi-stop success and navigating admissions at Army are appealing but I'm just not feeling it

* Jay Hill: He seems like a really good coach but FCS is a gigantic leap and he's only got experience in Utah

* Sherrone Moore: He seems great but just really unseasoned to get a Power Five head coach job at this point

---

Every guy I mentioned in the ranked portion is LFG territory for me (and several in honorable mention would be too if I'm honest). I'd be so pumped to get any of these candidates. I'm prepared for the actual hire to come from my honorable mention list or the field and that might be ok, but obviously I hope one of my preferred candidates gets it or else I wouldn't have done this list.

I view Swinney, Quinn, Garrett, and O'Brien as big swings with low likelihoods of making contact. I just think we need to take the swing. I really surprised myself having such an NFL flavor at the top of this list as that is definitely not my predisposition, but a) the names I listed have such intriguing competence/fit, b) the research I've done on successful Power Five turnarounds showed an excellent track record of former NFL head coaches turning around struggling Power Five programs (Chip Kelly, Jim Mora, Nick Saban, Butch Davis, Steve Spurrier, Rich Brooks, Pete Carroll, Dennis Erickson), c) the name recognition and cachet would help with recruiting and trying to secure a position at one of the big boy tables in college football, and d) to the extent Shaw has tried to establish a pro-style program, getting one of these true pros would solidify approaches and styles Shaw was only cosplaying.

If we miss on those big swings I think we should be able to get a proven Power Five winner and my preferences would be Clawson, Brohm, Petersen, Klieman, Fleck, and Campbell. Honestly I'd be surprised if the search had to go beyond my top ten in the fanciful world in which Muir adopted my list whole cloth, but I'm glad there are many more than ten candidates I'd be stoked with.

As I make this list something I am cognizant of and troubled by is the lack of racial diversity at the top of my list. I think this is a problem in the sport generally, at both the college and pro levels. I wish my process came up with a different result but when I try to rack and stack based on my sense of merit and fit this is where I come down. But I did list numerous people of color and there are good options out there of all races, levels of major college football, offensive/defensive persuasion, geography, age demographic, and so forth. A national search should get us a hire we can be excited about. Fingers crossed.

Boil this down to ten and I promise to give it serious thought. This isn't a wish list so much as a laundry list. With more than a few "non-starters" so to speak. Jim Mora? TAVITA???  Oy.

What we DO NOT want at this moment is the Andy Geiger "safe choice" hire, Jack Elway.

[gailtate]

Honorable mention:

* Greg Roman: I get it, he's an offensive genius and shaped some of the best offenses in Stanford history, I just don't get what that has to do with the rest of being a college football head coach

* Mike Bloomgren: I don't want this but if we're being honest he's extremely plausible given the partial truth and narrative (fueled by the Athletic article) that he was a of immense proportions part of the secret sauce of Shaw's success, coupled with his credible performance at Rice in light of the circumstances, and I do think he could succeed....thought hard about putting him on the ranked part but it's my list and I don't want to

* Lance Anderson: Another guy it's only realistic to acknowledge may get a look, though the case for a continuity candidate is awful under the circumstances and would be pretty galling....I don't know if Anderson would bring in a good coordinator or handle it himself but in a CEO role I acknowledge an outside chance of success, just not the juice I think we want/deserve

* Tavita Pritchard: Ditto

* Garret Riley: I'm not a big fan of the hire the 33 year old hotshot coordinator as a head coach model, but Riley sure is interesting and is a scorching hot name not only because of his brother but because of TCU's success this year

* Bronco Mendenhall: Again I'm a sucker for multi-stop success and I also have a soft spot for defensive specialists, but it just feels like an uninspired choice

* Paul Chryst: Ditto, except for the defense part

* Kalani Sitake: I've long found him attractive but am troubled by what he's allowed to happen to BYU's defense despite ostensibly being a defensive specialist

* Jeff Traylor: Probably a bad fit but UTSA is really good

* Bryan Harsin: Intriguing buy-low opportunity for a program as far away from SEC boosters as possible, both geographically and temperamentally

* Jeff Monken: Multi-stop success and navigating admissions at Army are appealing but I'm just not feeling it

* Jay Hill: He seems like a really good coach but FCS is a gigantic leap and he's only got experience in Utah

* Sherrone Moore: He seems great but just really unseasoned to get a Power Five head coach job at this point

---

Every guy I mentioned in the ranked portion is LFG territory for me (and several in honorable mention would be too if I'm honest). I'd be so pumped to get any of these candidates. I'm prepared for the actual hire to come from my honorable mention list or the field and that might be ok, but obviously I hope one of my preferred candidates gets it or else I wouldn't have done this list.

I view Swinney, Quinn, Garrett, and O'Brien as big swings with low likelihoods of making contact. I just think we need to take the swing. I really surprised myself having such an NFL flavor at the top of this list as that is definitely not my predisposition, but a) the names I listed have such intriguing competence/fit, b) the research I've done on successful Power Five turnarounds showed an excellent track record of former NFL head coaches turning around struggling Power Five programs (Chip Kelly, Jim Mora, Nick Saban, Butch Davis, Steve Spurrier, Rich Brooks, Pete Carroll, Dennis Erickson), c) the name recognition and cachet would help with recruiting and trying to secure a position at one of the big boy tables in college football, and d) to the extent Shaw has tried to establish a pro-style program, getting one of these true pros would solidify approaches and styles Shaw was only cosplaying.

If we miss on those big swings I think we should be able to get a proven Power Five winner and my preferences would be Clawson, Brohm, Petersen, Klieman, Fleck, and Campbell. Honestly I'd be surprised if the search had to go beyond my top ten in the fanciful world in which Muir adopted my list whole cloth, but I'm glad there are many more than ten candidates I'd be stoked with.

As I make this list something I am cognizant of and troubled by is the lack of racial diversity at the top of my list. I think this is a problem in the sport generally, at both the college and pro levels. I wish my process came up with a different result but when I try to rack and stack based on my sense of merit and fit this is where I come down. But I did list numerous people of color and there are good options out there of all races, levels of major college football, offensive/defensive persuasion, geography, age demographic, and so forth. A national search should get us a hire we can be excited about. Fingers crossed.

Boil this down to ten and I promise to give it serious thought. This isn't a wish list so much as a laundry list. With more than a few "non-starters" so to speak. Jim Mora? TAVITA???  Oy.

What we DO NOT want at this moment is the Andy Geiger "safe choice" hire, Jack Elway.

[Spiny_Norman]

Bernard Muir is in his 11th year as the Stanford AD. His public comments have always been as bland as dry toast. And he is as opaque as London fog. The press conference participants could have asked him any number of questions about the search process and he would have deflected every one.

You can be disappointed in the reporters for questions that they did not ask, but Muir would likely not have answered any of them. In fact, the next time he addresses the media might be to introduce the new coach. I expect no information from him about the process, including who the search committee members are and who has interviewed for the position. I expect that the only information we will get during the search will come from candidates themselves or their agents.

[Spiny_Norman]

Bernard Muir is in his 11th year as the Stanford AD. His public comments have always been as bland as dry toast. And he is as opaque as London fog. The press conference participants could have asked him any number of questions about the search process and he would have deflected every one.

You can be disappointed in the reporters for questions that they did not ask, but Muir would likely not have answered any of them. In fact, the next time he addresses the media might be to introduce the new coach. I expect no information from him about the process, including who the search committee members are and who has interviewed for the position. I expect that the only information we will get during the search will come from candidates themselves or their agents.

[BostonCard]

For instance, I think highly of guys like... Lane Kiffin... Bret Bielema... Sonny Dykes... Steve Sarkisian 

Uh, what?

Lane Kiffin continually failed upwards.  You would have to make the case for why Stanford should be different than his stints at Oakland, Tennessee or USC.  He did well at Florida Atlantic, but Ole Miss is TBD: a nice season in 2021 but an overall 14-11 conference record in 2+ seasons.  The theory for the case is very flawed.

Bret Bielema bailed on Wisconsin for Arkansas?  Really?  He's done a nice job this year at Illinois, but he bailed on Wisconsin and then was a disaster at Arkansas (three last place finishes in five years).

Sonny Dykes was fired from Cal, and most of us were very sorry to see him go.  Very nice job this year at TCU, but I would like evidence that he'd be able to sustain that defense.  Also, you would have to convince me that his tenure at Cal was the fluke, and that TCU is his real level.  Aside from this year, he's only ever led his team (La Tech, Cal, SMU) to higher than a third place finish once, and he has four winning conference seasons in twelve years as a head coach.  Hell no.

Steve Sarkisian was "poached" from UW and Husky fans celebrated, then fired from USC after going to practices drunk. I hope he is healthy now, but I have not seen any evidence that he is an effective head coach.

What you have is a bunch of big names, but all of them have failed in one way or another, many, multiple times, and any theory for the case for them would have to convince me that those failures are the anomaly that won't translate to Stanford, and (for the ones who have had successes) that those successes really demonstrate their capabilities, and, crucially, that we would expect them to be sustainable and translate to Stanford.  I'm dubious.

There are some guys on your list that I would be excited about (eg Fleck), if they were happy to entertain a call from Shaw, but I think the sweet spot is the one you identified earlier: successful G5 and FCS coaches, especially those who have revived or turned programs around.

I'm surprised you put Pritchard in the HM category.  Notwithstanding his failure as OC, I do think he has a future in coaching, likely as a head coach.  I'm more bullish than most people here, because he is a smart and likable guy, who I think has a future as a head coach, and most of his shortcomings arose because he was never given a chance to develop his career outside of Stanford.  I think he could have been a good OC had he gone to a different school, been mentored and learned a different system, and then come back to integrate bits and pieces into his own style.  I feel the same way about him as a potential head coach; he really should go somewhere else, learn from a broader network, and come back when he is ready.

BC

[BostonCard]

For instance, I think highly of guys like... Lane Kiffin... Bret Bielema... Sonny Dykes... Steve Sarkisian 

Uh, what?

Lane Kiffin continually failed upwards.  You would have to make the case for why Stanford should be different than his stints at Oakland, Tennessee or USC.  He did well at Florida Atlantic, but Ole Miss is TBD: a nice season in 2021 but an overall 14-11 conference record in 2+ seasons.  The theory for the case is very flawed.

Bret Bielema bailed on Wisconsin for Arkansas?  Really?  He's done a nice job this year at Illinois, but he bailed on Wisconsin and then was a disaster at Arkansas (three last place finishes in five years).

Sonny Dykes was fired from Cal, and most of us were very sorry to see him go.  Very nice job this year at TCU, but I would like evidence that he'd be able to sustain that defense.  Also, you would have to convince me that his tenure at Cal was the fluke, and that TCU is his real level.  Aside from this year, he's only ever led his team (La Tech, Cal, SMU) to higher than a third place finish once, and he has four winning conference seasons in twelve years as a head coach.  Hell no.

Steve Sarkisian was "poached" from UW and Husky fans celebrated, then fired from USC after going to practices drunk. I hope he is healthy now, but I have not seen any evidence that he is an effective head coach.

What you have is a bunch of big names, but all of them have failed in one way or another, many, multiple times, and any theory for the case for them would have to convince me that those failures are the anomaly that won't translate to Stanford, and (for the ones who have had successes) that those successes really demonstrate their capabilities, and, crucially, that we would expect them to be sustainable and translate to Stanford.  I'm dubious.

There are some guys on your list that I would be excited about (eg Fleck), if they were happy to entertain a call from Shaw, but I think the sweet spot is the one you identified earlier: successful G5 and FCS coaches, especially those who have revived or turned programs around.

I'm surprised you put Pritchard in the HM category.  Notwithstanding his failure as OC, I do think he has a future in coaching, likely as a head coach.  I'm more bullish than most people here, because he is a smart and likable guy, who I think has a future as a head coach, and most of his shortcomings arose because he was never given a chance to develop his career outside of Stanford.  I think he could have been a good OC had he gone to a different school, been mentored and learned a different system, and then come back to integrate bits and pieces into his own style.  I feel the same way about him as a potential head coach; he really should go somewhere else, learn from a broader network, and come back when he is ready.

BC

[Renaissance Man]

FWIW, for the past few years my first choice as a coach to call, should we be in a position of hiring a new coach, has been Fleck.  He checks more boxes, especially some of those boxes unique to Stanford, than any other potentially available coach does.  The biggest drawback that I can see, and there may be more that I am unaware of, is that his brand of enthusiasm could be viewed as a negative by some, but that worked out well the last time, at least from a football standpoint.

[Renaissance Man]

FWIW, for the past few years my first choice as a coach to call, should we be in a position of hiring a new coach, has been Fleck.  He checks more boxes, especially some of those boxes unique to Stanford, than any other potentially available coach does.  The biggest drawback that I can see, and there may be more that I am unaware of, is that his brand of enthusiasm could be viewed as a negative by some, but that worked out well the last time, at least from a football standpoint.

[msqueri]

For instance, I think highly of guys like... Lane Kiffin... Bret Bielema... Sonny Dykes... Steve Sarkisian 

Uh, what?

Lane Kiffin continually failed upwards.  You would have to make the case for why Stanford should be different than his stints at Oakland, Tennessee or USC.  He did well at Florida Atlantic, but Ole Miss is TBD: a nice season in 2021 but an overall 14-11 conference record in 2+ seasons.  The theory for the case is very flawed.

Bret Bielema bailed on Wisconsin for Arkansas?  Really?  He's done a nice job this year at Illinois, but he bailed on Wisconsin and then was a disaster at Arkansas (three last place finishes in five years).

Sonny Dykes was fired from Cal, and most of us were very sorry to see him go.  Very nice job this year at TCU, but I would like evidence that he'd be able to sustain that defense.  Also, you would have to convince me that his tenure at Cal was the fluke, and that TCU is his real level.  Aside from this year, he's only ever led his team (La Tech, Cal, SMU) to higher than a third place finish once, and he has four winning conference seasons in twelve years as a head coach.  Hell no.

Steve Sarkisian was "poached" from UW and Husky fans celebrated, then fired from USC after going to practices drunk. I hope he is healthy now, but I have not seen any evidence that he is an effective head coach.

What you have is a bunch of big names, but all of them have failed in one way or another, many, multiple times, and any theory for the case for them would have to convince me that those failures are the anomaly that won't translate to Stanford, and (for the ones who have had successes) that those successes really demonstrate their capabilities, and, crucially, that we would expect them to be sustainable and translate to Stanford.  I'm dubious.

There are some guys on your list that I would be excited about (eg Fleck), if they were happy to entertain a call from Shaw, but I think the sweet spot is the one you identified earlier: successful G5 and FCS coaches, especially those who have revived or turned programs around.

I'm surprised you put Pritchard in the HM category.  Notwithstanding his failure as OC, I do think he has a future in coaching, likely as a head coach.  I'm more bullish than most people here, because he is a smart and likable guy, who I think has a future as a head coach, and most of his shortcomings arose because he was never given a chance to develop his career outside of Stanford.  I think he could have been a good OC had he gone to a different school, been mentored and learned a different system, and then come back to integrate bits and pieces into his own style.  I feel the same way about him as a potential head coach; he really should go somewhere else, learn from a broader network, and come back when he is ready.

BC

Umm, the four names you took exception to weren't actually on my list. I said I liked them (and I do think I can defend them each individually) and I wouldn't mind Muir taking a look at them but among the Power Five guys I listed in that paragraph those ones weren't the ones who made my list. That was Fleck, Klieman, Brohm, and Campbell (plus Clawson). You'll notice that those guys better fit my desired sweet spot of proven Power Five coaches who have also succeeded at levels below Power Five. All five of those guys meet that criteria, which is why they're on my list. While I like some of the guys you don't like, they weren't on the list so not sure why you focused on them so much.

If you do want to argue about those, I'm happy to just for fun:

* I'm much more impressed with Kiffin's (notably, post-Alabama finishing school) Ole Miss performance, which had a 10 win season last year and and 8 or 9 win season this year with a current Sagarin ranking of #21. More subjectively, I also think he's the offensive coach David Shaw wishes he was and would be a palate/soul cleanser for Stanford fans.

* Illinois' record this year is misleading as Sagarin has them top 25, which I consider impressive for a program that has been a joke for most of the last 30 years. That, coupled with 8+ win seasons at each of his previous two schools, gives me high confidence that if he came to Stanford he probably could get some decent results.

* You and I are on different planets on Dykes. He's an awesome coach. Awesome. He made his teams better three years in a row at Louisiana Tech. Then he did it again before a disappointing fourth year that was his last. Then he got SMU to 25 wins in his last three years there (before he got there they had won 14 games in three years and had won 8+ games, which he did twice, twice since the 1988 death penalty). And now he's got national coach of the year locked up in his first year at TCU. It's crystal clear that Cal is the anomaly. That's because Cal sucks. (That's not rivalry talking, I root for Cal). Even at Cal Dykes was basically par for the course and they won more in the second half of his tenure than the first half. Over the sweep of his career, it's clear he's great. He makes everywhere better. Notably on that score, Wilcox' tenure is a mirror of Dykes such that the first half of Wilcox' time had results like the second half of Dykes' and the second half of Wilcox' time has been more like Dykes' initial struggles. The reason is obvious: Dykes was the good coach, not Wilcox.

* Sarkisian is one I'll admit to personal bias/affection. Just kind of like him and think he's better than often credited. He's got a pretty solid track record of his teams improving over time. Certainly not world-beating and I know I've got a soft spot for him.

Anyway, all that is just for fun. My bottom line is I don't think you were responding to the actual wish list I was proposing. I hear you on Group of Five/FCS up-and-comers but a) my research showed that NFL retreads proven Power Five coaches are more fertile ground for the kind of turnaround we're looking for, b) I did include some Group of Five/FCS guys I find attractive (Taylor, Brennan, Sanders, Chadwell, Cignetti, Huff) as well as several in the honorable mention category, and c) the up-and-comers have limitations such as being FCS (not as promising as Group of Five) or having small samples or never having coached as an assistant at a Power Five school or being old. Ultimately, I think the NFL retreads and proven Power Five guys are our best bet but I'd still be thrilled with these Group of Five/FCS guys I listed.

On Pritchard, I don't disagree with you. I don't think he's a good candidate for Stanford now but am not writing him off. The new Idaho State opening could be an interesting opportunity for either him or Anderson to try out being a head coach.

[msqueri]

For instance, I think highly of guys like... Lane Kiffin... Bret Bielema... Sonny Dykes... Steve Sarkisian 

Uh, what?

Lane Kiffin continually failed upwards.  You would have to make the case for why Stanford should be different than his stints at Oakland, Tennessee or USC.  He did well at Florida Atlantic, but Ole Miss is TBD: a nice season in 2021 but an overall 14-11 conference record in 2+ seasons.  The theory for the case is very flawed.

Bret Bielema bailed on Wisconsin for Arkansas?  Really?  He's done a nice job this year at Illinois, but he bailed on Wisconsin and then was a disaster at Arkansas (three last place finishes in five years).

Sonny Dykes was fired from Cal, and most of us were very sorry to see him go.  Very nice job this year at TCU, but I would like evidence that he'd be able to sustain that defense.  Also, you would have to convince me that his tenure at Cal was the fluke, and that TCU is his real level.  Aside from this year, he's only ever led his team (La Tech, Cal, SMU) to higher than a third place finish once, and he has four winning conference seasons in twelve years as a head coach.  Hell no.

Steve Sarkisian was "poached" from UW and Husky fans celebrated, then fired from USC after going to practices drunk. I hope he is healthy now, but I have not seen any evidence that he is an effective head coach.

What you have is a bunch of big names, but all of them have failed in one way or another, many, multiple times, and any theory for the case for them would have to convince me that those failures are the anomaly that won't translate to Stanford, and (for the ones who have had successes) that those successes really demonstrate their capabilities, and, crucially, that we would expect them to be sustainable and translate to Stanford.  I'm dubious.

There are some guys on your list that I would be excited about (eg Fleck), if they were happy to entertain a call from Shaw, but I think the sweet spot is the one you identified earlier: successful G5 and FCS coaches, especially those who have revived or turned programs around.

I'm surprised you put Pritchard in the HM category.  Notwithstanding his failure as OC, I do think he has a future in coaching, likely as a head coach.  I'm more bullish than most people here, because he is a smart and likable guy, who I think has a future as a head coach, and most of his shortcomings arose because he was never given a chance to develop his career outside of Stanford.  I think he could have been a good OC had he gone to a different school, been mentored and learned a different system, and then come back to integrate bits and pieces into his own style.  I feel the same way about him as a potential head coach; he really should go somewhere else, learn from a broader network, and come back when he is ready.

BC

Umm, the four names you took exception to weren't actually on my list. I said I liked them (and I do think I can defend them each individually) and I wouldn't mind Muir taking a look at them but among the Power Five guys I listed in that paragraph those ones weren't the ones who made my list. That was Fleck, Klieman, Brohm, and Campbell (plus Clawson). You'll notice that those guys better fit my desired sweet spot of proven Power Five coaches who have also succeeded at levels below Power Five. All five of those guys meet that criteria, which is why they're on my list. While I like some of the guys you don't like, they weren't on the list so not sure why you focused on them so much.

If you do want to argue about those, I'm happy to just for fun:

* I'm much more impressed with Kiffin's (notably, post-Alabama finishing school) Ole Miss performance, which had a 10 win season last year and and 8 or 9 win season this year with a current Sagarin ranking of #21. More subjectively, I also think he's the offensive coach David Shaw wishes he was and would be a palate/soul cleanser for Stanford fans.

* Illinois' record this year is misleading as Sagarin has them top 25, which I consider impressive for a program that has been a joke for most of the last 30 years. That, coupled with 8+ win seasons at each of his previous two schools, gives me high confidence that if he came to Stanford he probably could get some decent results.

* You and I are on different planets on Dykes. He's an awesome coach. Awesome. He made his teams better three years in a row at Louisiana Tech. Then he did it again before a disappointing fourth year that was his last. Then he got SMU to 25 wins in his last three years there (before he got there they had won 14 games in three years and had won 8+ games, which he did twice, twice since the 1988 death penalty). And now he's got national coach of the year locked up in his first year at TCU. It's crystal clear that Cal is the anomaly. That's because Cal sucks. (That's not rivalry talking, I root for Cal). Even at Cal Dykes was basically par for the course and they won more in the second half of his tenure than the first half. Over the sweep of his career, it's clear he's great. He makes everywhere better. Notably on that score, Wilcox' tenure is a mirror of Dykes such that the first half of Wilcox' time had results like the second half of Dykes' and the second half of Wilcox' time has been more like Dykes' initial struggles. The reason is obvious: Dykes was the good coach, not Wilcox.

* Sarkisian is one I'll admit to personal bias/affection. Just kind of like him and think he's better than often credited. He's got a pretty solid track record of his teams improving over time. Certainly not world-beating and I know I've got a soft spot for him.

Anyway, all that is just for fun. My bottom line is I don't think you were responding to the actual wish list I was proposing. I hear you on Group of Five/FCS up-and-comers but a) my research showed that NFL retreads proven Power Five coaches are more fertile ground for the kind of turnaround we're looking for, b) I did include some Group of Five/FCS guys I find attractive (Taylor, Brennan, Sanders, Chadwell, Cignetti, Huff) as well as several in the honorable mention category, and c) the up-and-comers have limitations such as being FCS (not as promising as Group of Five) or having small samples or never having coached as an assistant at a Power Five school or being old. Ultimately, I think the NFL retreads and proven Power Five guys are our best bet but I'd still be thrilled with these Group of Five/FCS guys I listed.

On Pritchard, I don't disagree with you. I don't think he's a good candidate for Stanford now but am not writing him off. The new Idaho State opening could be an interesting opportunity for either him or Anderson to try out being a head coach.

[cardcrimson]

Duh BC. What writer would read a fan board at an academic school?



Bobbbbbb and I have been talking about Taylor for years.



And the day that Stanford hires Bill O'Brien I buy Cal clothes. I am forbidden by the NFL to say why.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2912...th-houston

https://www.battleredblog.com/2020/3/20/...ill-obrien

[cardcrimson]

Duh BC. What writer would read a fan board at an academic school?



Bobbbbbb and I have been talking about Taylor for years.



And the day that Stanford hires Bill O'Brien I buy Cal clothes. I am forbidden by the NFL to say why.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2912...th-houston

https://www.battleredblog.com/2020/3/20/...ill-obrien

[Phogge]

O'Brien not a character issue. Impeccable character as far as I know. Just think he wouldn't mesh with Stanford.

[Phogge]

O'Brien not a character issue. Impeccable character as far as I know. Just think he wouldn't mesh with Stanford.

[Phogge]

A guy like Minter is a gamble but so was the guy who is his head coach now.

And I hope that everyone got French Rage's post. A big fat POSTY!

[Phogge]

A guy like Minter is a gamble but so was the guy who is his head coach now.

And I hope that everyone got French Rage's post. A big fat POSTY!

[msqueri]

But seriously though, if my list went to 50 Buddy would probably be on it!

[msqueri]

But seriously though, if my list went to 50 Buddy would probably be on it!

[OCcardinal]

The girl from Ipanema has got to be near 90 unless she has cast her fate to the wind.

She's 77 and if this interview from 6 years ago is any indication, she has aged remarkably well! Interview of woman who inspired Girl from Ipanema song

[OCcardinal]

The girl from Ipanema has got to be near 90 unless she has cast her fate to the wind.

She's 77 and if this interview from 6 years ago is any indication, she has aged remarkably well! Interview of woman who inspired Girl from Ipanema song

[cardcrimson]

O'Brien not a character issue. Impeccable character as far as I know. Just think he wouldn't mesh with Stanford.

I'm puzzled, what does this mean then?
"And the day that Stanford hires Bill O'Brien I buy Cal clothes. I am forbidden by the NFL to say why."

[cardcrimson]

O'Brien not a character issue. Impeccable character as far as I know. Just think he wouldn't mesh with Stanford.

I'm puzzled, what does this mean then?
"And the day that Stanford hires Bill O'Brien I buy Cal clothes. I am forbidden by the NFL to say why."

[82lsju]

according to the most recent Wake Forest 990 (for their FY ending 6/30/2021) in CY2020 Clawson made $3.4m, if he got 5% raises each of the last two years he'd be making ~$3.7m this calendar year.  He's the highest paid employee at Wake Forest.

also in the 990 their OC/QB coach Warren Ruggiero made $701K in CY 2020 and was the 10th highest paid employee.

[82lsju]

according to the most recent Wake Forest 990 (for their FY ending 6/30/2021) in CY2020 Clawson made $3.4m, if he got 5% raises each of the last two years he'd be making ~$3.7m this calendar year.  He's the highest paid employee at Wake Forest.

also in the 990 their OC/QB coach Warren Ruggiero made $701K in CY 2020 and was the 10th highest paid employee.

[MarinCard]

What about Tom Herman?  He didn't light it up at Texas but still had nothing but winning seasons both at Houston and Texas. Texas had a losing season year before he took over. Got fired due to high expectations at Texas. Went to high school and college in CA.

As relayed in this or another thread, he's supposedly an a-hole, but who knows if that is true or just projection.

BC

A-hole of immense proportions. But perhaps his time after Texas has humbled him a bit. Honestly IMO, anyone who worked for Urban Meyer that long is suspect as far as the culture they'd bring.

[MarinCard]

What about Tom Herman?  He didn't light it up at Texas but still had nothing but winning seasons both at Houston and Texas. Texas had a losing season year before he took over. Got fired due to high expectations at Texas. Went to high school and college in CA.

As relayed in this or another thread, he's supposedly an a-hole, but who knows if that is true or just projection.

BC

A-hole of immense proportions. But perhaps his time after Texas has humbled him a bit. Honestly IMO, anyone who worked for Urban Meyer that long is suspect as far as the culture they'd bring.

[msqueri]

Luke Fickell and Kyle Whittingham don't seem to have a problem building and sustaining good cultures. The fact is Urban Meyer, while disgusting, is one of the best college coaches of all time and those who worked for him for multiple years learned a lot.

[msqueri]

Luke Fickell and Kyle Whittingham don't seem to have a problem building and sustaining good cultures. The fact is Urban Meyer, while disgusting, is one of the best college coaches of all time and those who worked for him for multiple years learned a lot.

[Mick]

The question will be whether that energy will be focused (like Harbaugh) or more like Teevens, who was once described to me as having the energy and disposition of a cocker spaniel.

The cocker spaniel has gone either 9-1 or 8-2 in six of the last seven years...but to be fair, he's 21-68 at the D-1 level (Tulane and Stanford) and 127-103-2 at the D-1-AA level (Dartmouth and Maine).

---

I think that maybe one of the few clues we got over the years that Shaw is a man of faith is that he formed a friendship with Dabo Swinney.  And that, well, I wouldn't expect any coach that can't speak the language of faith to do well on the recruiting trail.  

I might be wrong about this, but I think over the years I noticed more of the team taking part in a pregame prayer in one of the end zones.  Perhaps that was also a reflection of the man at the top.  

As for journalists calling him David instead of Coach, it doesn't strike me as inappropriate or unprofessional if he invited that kind of familiar tone. I really only expect his players to always call him Coach.

---

I actually think a more meaningful change that can be done is instead of taking in transfers is to find a pathway to make it easier for our own students to move onto a graduate program for their fifth year.

This is a great, great point. Preparing Stanford players to be competitive in applying to the school's own graduate programs would be amazing.

I thought we already did this. I remember when Kurt Colehower got his MA in science, I think Economics...

[Mick]

The question will be whether that energy will be focused (like Harbaugh) or more like Teevens, who was once described to me as having the energy and disposition of a cocker spaniel.

The cocker spaniel has gone either 9-1 or 8-2 in six of the last seven years...but to be fair, he's 21-68 at the D-1 level (Tulane and Stanford) and 127-103-2 at the D-1-AA level (Dartmouth and Maine).

---

I think that maybe one of the few clues we got over the years that Shaw is a man of faith is that he formed a friendship with Dabo Swinney.  And that, well, I wouldn't expect any coach that can't speak the language of faith to do well on the recruiting trail.  

I might be wrong about this, but I think over the years I noticed more of the team taking part in a pregame prayer in one of the end zones.  Perhaps that was also a reflection of the man at the top.  

As for journalists calling him David instead of Coach, it doesn't strike me as inappropriate or unprofessional if he invited that kind of familiar tone. I really only expect his players to always call him Coach.

---

I actually think a more meaningful change that can be done is instead of taking in transfers is to find a pathway to make it easier for our own students to move onto a graduate program for their fifth year.

This is a great, great point. Preparing Stanford players to be competitive in applying to the school's own graduate programs would be amazing.

I thought we already did this. I remember when Kurt Colehower got his MA in science, I think Economics...

[fullmetal]

What do we need out of a head coach?

* Booster/donor fundraising chops.  Personable.
* Someone who Muir/AD is okay working with.  No character issues in any past programs.  Protect the brand.
* Record of achievement with less.  Can pick a good staff.  Works with admissions office.
* Recruiting chops.  Can sell Stanford to families.  A winning record will help.
* Doesn't say or do dumb stuff.  Again, protect the brand.

Shaw fits four of the five criteria above.

* Coaches to win.  Scheme, playcalling, clock management, talent identification/retention/improvement, trainer/rehab, S&C, nutrition, study halls, etc

Shaw didn't seem to hit this last criterion very well.

Much as I hate to say it, I think Shaw "rested and vested" in his last few years with Stanford.  Maybe don't pick a head coach who intends on Stanford being the last job they ever interview for.  It will be difficult to replace him.

[fullmetal]

What do we need out of a head coach?

* Booster/donor fundraising chops.  Personable.
* Someone who Muir/AD is okay working with.  No character issues in any past programs.  Protect the brand.
* Record of achievement with less.  Can pick a good staff.  Works with admissions office.
* Recruiting chops.  Can sell Stanford to families.  A winning record will help.
* Doesn't say or do dumb stuff.  Again, protect the brand.

Shaw fits four of the five criteria above.

* Coaches to win.  Scheme, playcalling, clock management, talent identification/retention/improvement, trainer/rehab, S&C, nutrition, study halls, etc

Shaw didn't seem to hit this last criterion very well.

Much as I hate to say it, I think Shaw "rested and vested" in his last few years with Stanford.  Maybe don't pick a head coach who intends on Stanford being the last job they ever interview for.  It will be difficult to replace him.