[BostonCard]

And again, even under the best of circumstances, where Stanford does have a sugar daddy underwriting its athletics department, let’s not forget that nearly 400 employees were laid off less than 6 months ago.  The optics of putting down a crap ton of money for a big name coach, even if the money came from a different place, would have been absolutely horrible, and would have led to a revolt from the faculty senate, which would have impaired the ability of Martinez and Levin to continue to bail out the AD.

I like Levin a lot (not just because he tends to be pro-athletics), but he cannot stand to lose the faculty.  I think/hope that they grudgingly accept that changes in the political/economic environment mean that Stanford needed to make some tough decisions.  But I guarantee you that questions have been raised about the continued University assistance for the AD.  I’m sure many people have looked at the tens of millions that the University transfers to the AD each year (it was $10M in FY2022, $12.3M in FY2023, and that was before the increased expenses of traveling cross country and reduced revenue from the reduced ACC media rights), and are asking why the University had to cut $160 million a year while at the same time subsidizing the athletics department by $10s of millions.

And to be honest, if I had a gazillion dollars and had to decide where to donate my own money to Stanford, I would probably prioritize supporting its continuing academic mission through these tough times over trying to get a few more wins out of the football team.  But not my money, so those who do donate can decide for themselves.

BC

[BostonCard]

And again, even under the best of circumstances, where Stanford does have a sugar daddy underwriting its athletics department, let’s not forget that nearly 400 employees were laid off less than 6 months ago.  The optics of putting down a crap ton of money for a big name coach, even if the money came from a different place, would have been absolutely horrible, and would have led to a revolt from the faculty senate, which would have impaired the ability of Martinez and Levin to continue to bail out the AD.

I like Levin a lot (not just because he tends to be pro-athletics), but he cannot stand to lose the faculty.  I think/hope that they grudgingly accept that changes in the political/economic environment mean that Stanford needed to make some tough decisions.  But I guarantee you that questions have been raised about the continued University assistance for the AD.  I’m sure many people have looked at the tens of millions that the University transfers to the AD each year (it was $10M in FY2022, $12.3M in FY2023, and that was before the increased expenses of traveling cross country and reduced revenue from the reduced ACC media rights), and are asking why the University had to cut $160 million a year while at the same time subsidizing the athletics department by $10s of millions.

And to be honest, if I had a gazillion dollars and had to decide where to donate my own money to Stanford, I would probably prioritize supporting its continuing academic mission through these tough times over trying to get a few more wins out of the football team.  But not my money, so those who do donate can decide for themselves.

BC

[chrisk]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

I must say, I really think this post is totally misaligned and maybe explains why your athletic department / football leadership has screwed up the last half-decade. The whole "true Stanford men" is like what we at Cal joke about "OKGs" (our kinda guys). It's a pejorative term to snarkily suggest that our lower-ranked recruits who aren't great at football will somehow thrive because they "fit" our ethos better. Nonsense. 

And to put it plainly, you don't HAVE time. There is no room for a half-decade long rebuild (and it doesn't work nowadays with the portal anyways). Realignment is a few years away and you (& Cal) are either in or out.

Overall, I'm just mystified at the level of justification the subpar results merit on this board. I kinda understand it for Cal where we haven't had a winning conference record in ages and haven't been relevant since Tedford. But for you guys? Has post-covid really been so bad that everyone stopped caring?

I don't think you can predict what will happen in 5 years. Who predicted the current situation 5 years ago? If there is a super power alliance formed, will Indiana be in or out with a likely CFP championship this year? Is Northwestern (with a new $800M stadium in or out)? They are the 2 losingest football programs in history. Wake Forest is the only Power 4 team with a lower all-time winning percentage.

[chrisk]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

I must say, I really think this post is totally misaligned and maybe explains why your athletic department / football leadership has screwed up the last half-decade. The whole "true Stanford men" is like what we at Cal joke about "OKGs" (our kinda guys). It's a pejorative term to snarkily suggest that our lower-ranked recruits who aren't great at football will somehow thrive because they "fit" our ethos better. Nonsense. 

And to put it plainly, you don't HAVE time. There is no room for a half-decade long rebuild (and it doesn't work nowadays with the portal anyways). Realignment is a few years away and you (& Cal) are either in or out.

Overall, I'm just mystified at the level of justification the subpar results merit on this board. I kinda understand it for Cal where we haven't had a winning conference record in ages and haven't been relevant since Tedford. But for you guys? Has post-covid really been so bad that everyone stopped caring?

I don't think you can predict what will happen in 5 years. Who predicted the current situation 5 years ago? If there is a super power alliance formed, will Indiana be in or out with a likely CFP championship this year? Is Northwestern (with a new $800M stadium in or out)? They are the 2 losingest football programs in history. Wake Forest is the only Power 4 team with a lower all-time winning percentage.

[cardcrimson]

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

I think the question of what defines "a true Stanford man" is relevant. For some reason it appears that many people define a "Stanford Man" as someone who is somewhat smart, socially adept, and who "goes along to get along". While I do think that the increasing selectivity of Stanford admissions has led to more of of this phenotype, IMO the "Stanford Man" has always been more diverse than that. Granted, it has been 54 years since I was there, but in general Stanford men were competitive to a fault. Many of them did have a serious edge about them. Others were the "quiet assassin" type. Virtually all of them had serious talent in some area, and many of them were actually pretty good at lots of things. Some were in-your-face about it, most were not. Even back then some of the football players didn't fit the mold of a stay-in-your lane traditional so-called "Stanford Man", but there were equally many "regular" students that also did not. OTOH there were plenty of guys that were football players that didn't "stick out" socially in any obvious way. These people were all "Stanford Men". They were definitely not all alike.
 

Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Guys like Stepfan Taylor might want to discuss that statement with you, as probably would Remound Wright and CMC. There are a host of other "Stanford Men" on both sides of the ball who played for Shaw that also probably would like a word. Later in Shaw's tenure he was no longer able to attract the total package that could play the run-heavy offense that previously had been his bread and butter, not that he didn't try. He had to adapt. CMC was certainly a different kind of back, and Bryce Love even more so. However, they too were "Stanford Men".

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

[cardcrimson]

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

I think the question of what defines "a true Stanford man" is relevant. For some reason it appears that many people define a "Stanford Man" as someone who is somewhat smart, socially adept, and who "goes along to get along". While I do think that the increasing selectivity of Stanford admissions has led to more of of this phenotype, IMO the "Stanford Man" has always been more diverse than that. Granted, it has been 54 years since I was there, but in general Stanford men were competitive to a fault. Many of them did have a serious edge about them. Others were the "quiet assassin" type. Virtually all of them had serious talent in some area, and many of them were actually pretty good at lots of things. Some were in-your-face about it, most were not. Even back then some of the football players didn't fit the mold of a stay-in-your lane traditional so-called "Stanford Man", but there were equally many "regular" students that also did not. OTOH there were plenty of guys that were football players that didn't "stick out" socially in any obvious way. These people were all "Stanford Men". They were definitely not all alike.
 

Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Guys like Stepfan Taylor might want to discuss that statement with you, as probably would Remound Wright and CMC. There are a host of other "Stanford Men" on both sides of the ball who played for Shaw that also probably would like a word. Later in Shaw's tenure he was no longer able to attract the total package that could play the run-heavy offense that previously had been his bread and butter, not that he didn't try. He had to adapt. CMC was certainly a different kind of back, and Bryce Love even more so. However, they too were "Stanford Men".

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

[norcard10]

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

I think the question of what defines "a true Stanford man" is relevant. For some reason it appears that many people define a "Stanford Man" as someone who is somewhat smart, socially adept, and who "goes along to get along". While I do think that the increasing selectivity of Stanford admissions has led to more of of this phenotype, IMO the "Stanford Man" has always been more diverse than that. Granted, it has been 54 years since I was there, but in general Stanford men were competitive to a fault. Many of them did have a serious edge about them. Others were the "quiet assassin" type. Virtually all of them had serious talent in some area, and many of them were actually pretty good at lots of things. Some were in-your-face about it, most were not. Even back then some of the football players didn't fit the mold of a stay-in-your lane traditional so-called "Stanford Man", but there were equally many "regular" students that also did not. OTOH there were plenty of guys that were football players that didn't "stick out" socially in any obvious way. These people were all "Stanford Men". They were definitely not all alike.
 

Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Guys like Stepfan Taylor might want to discuss that statement with you, as probably would Remound Wright and CMC. There are a host of other "Stanford Men" on both sides of the ball who played for Shaw that also probably would like a word. Later in Shaw's tenure he was no longer able to attract the total package that could play the run-heavy offense that previously had been his bread and butter, not that he didn't try. He had to adapt. CMC was certainly a different kind of back, and Bryce Love even more so. However, they too were "Stanford Men".

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

do you have a link? the irony. i specifically do not like the tavita hire because he was a stanford man from one of the worst periods of stanford football. people were openly opining why he was being retained.  outside talent with new perspectives is a good thing over stubborn ways that did not work

[norcard10]

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

I think the question of what defines "a true Stanford man" is relevant. For some reason it appears that many people define a "Stanford Man" as someone who is somewhat smart, socially adept, and who "goes along to get along". While I do think that the increasing selectivity of Stanford admissions has led to more of of this phenotype, IMO the "Stanford Man" has always been more diverse than that. Granted, it has been 54 years since I was there, but in general Stanford men were competitive to a fault. Many of them did have a serious edge about them. Others were the "quiet assassin" type. Virtually all of them had serious talent in some area, and many of them were actually pretty good at lots of things. Some were in-your-face about it, most were not. Even back then some of the football players didn't fit the mold of a stay-in-your lane traditional so-called "Stanford Man", but there were equally many "regular" students that also did not. OTOH there were plenty of guys that were football players that didn't "stick out" socially in any obvious way. These people were all "Stanford Men". They were definitely not all alike.
 

Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Guys like Stepfan Taylor might want to discuss that statement with you, as probably would Remound Wright and CMC. There are a host of other "Stanford Men" on both sides of the ball who played for Shaw that also probably would like a word. Later in Shaw's tenure he was no longer able to attract the total package that could play the run-heavy offense that previously had been his bread and butter, not that he didn't try. He had to adapt. CMC was certainly a different kind of back, and Bryce Love even more so. However, they too were "Stanford Men".

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

do you have a link? the irony. i specifically do not like the tavita hire because he was a stanford man from one of the worst periods of stanford football. people were openly opining why he was being retained.  outside talent with new perspectives is a good thing over stubborn ways that did not work

[BostonCard]

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

Well, if the defense sucks because he chose poorly, that will ultimately be reflected on his career.

BC

[BostonCard]

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

Well, if the defense sucks because he chose poorly, that will ultimately be reflected on his career.

BC

[dabigv13]

Worst periods of Stanford football??? He was a "Stanford Man" when he beat USC 24-23 in 2007, ushering in the peak era of all Stanford football history imho.

[dabigv13]

Worst periods of Stanford football??? He was a "Stanford Man" when he beat USC 24-23 in 2007, ushering in the peak era of all Stanford football history imho.

[cardcrimson]

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

I think the question of what defines "a true Stanford man" is relevant. For some reason it appears that many people define a "Stanford Man" as someone who is somewhat smart, socially adept, and who "goes along to get along". While I do think that the increasing selectivity of Stanford admissions has led to more of of this phenotype, IMO the "Stanford Man" has always been more diverse than that. Granted, it has been 54 years since I was there, but in general Stanford men were competitive to a fault. Many of them did have a serious edge about them. Others were the "quiet assassin" type. Virtually all of them had serious talent in some area, and many of them were actually pretty good at lots of things. Some were in-your-face about it, most were not. Even back then some of the football players didn't fit the mold of a stay-in-your lane traditional so-called "Stanford Man", but there were equally many "regular" students that also did not. OTOH there were plenty of guys that were football players that didn't "stick out" socially in any obvious way. These people were all "Stanford Men". They were definitely not all alike.
 

Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Guys like Stepfan Taylor might want to discuss that statement with you, as probably would Remound Wright and CMC. There are a host of other "Stanford Men" on both sides of the ball who played for Shaw that also probably would like a word. Later in Shaw's tenure he was no longer able to attract the total package that could play the run-heavy offense that previously had been his bread and butter, not that he didn't try. He had to adapt. CMC was certainly a different kind of back, and Bryce Love even more so. However, they too were "Stanford Men".

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

do you have a link? the irony. i specifically do not like the tavita hire because he was a stanford man from one of the worst periods of stanford football. people were openly opining why he was being retained.  outside talent with new perspectives is a good thing over stubborn ways that did not work

It's a paid site. . . .

[cardcrimson]

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

I think the question of what defines "a true Stanford man" is relevant. For some reason it appears that many people define a "Stanford Man" as someone who is somewhat smart, socially adept, and who "goes along to get along". While I do think that the increasing selectivity of Stanford admissions has led to more of of this phenotype, IMO the "Stanford Man" has always been more diverse than that. Granted, it has been 54 years since I was there, but in general Stanford men were competitive to a fault. Many of them did have a serious edge about them. Others were the "quiet assassin" type. Virtually all of them had serious talent in some area, and many of them were actually pretty good at lots of things. Some were in-your-face about it, most were not. Even back then some of the football players didn't fit the mold of a stay-in-your lane traditional so-called "Stanford Man", but there were equally many "regular" students that also did not. OTOH there were plenty of guys that were football players that didn't "stick out" socially in any obvious way. These people were all "Stanford Men". They were definitely not all alike.
 

Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Guys like Stepfan Taylor might want to discuss that statement with you, as probably would Remound Wright and CMC. There are a host of other "Stanford Men" on both sides of the ball who played for Shaw that also probably would like a word. Later in Shaw's tenure he was no longer able to attract the total package that could play the run-heavy offense that previously had been his bread and butter, not that he didn't try. He had to adapt. CMC was certainly a different kind of back, and Bryce Love even more so. However, they too were "Stanford Men".

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

do you have a link? the irony. i specifically do not like the tavita hire because he was a stanford man from one of the worst periods of stanford football. people were openly opining why he was being retained.  outside talent with new perspectives is a good thing over stubborn ways that did not work

It's a paid site. . . .

[Spiny_Norman]

Worst periods of Stanford football??? He was a "Stanford Man" when he beat USC 24-23 in 2007, ushering in the peak era of all Stanford football history imho.

I think the reference was to his time on the coaching staff, particularly the period 2018-22 when Pritchard was the Andrew Luck Director of Offense and Kevin M. Hogan Quarterbacks Coach. We had 2 future NFL QBs (Mills and McKee), a future NFL starting center (Dalman) and future NFL receivers/TEs Wilson and Parkinson and still were not very good. As I recall, this was mainly because we could not run the ball or protect the passer.

[Spiny_Norman]

Worst periods of Stanford football??? He was a "Stanford Man" when he beat USC 24-23 in 2007, ushering in the peak era of all Stanford football history imho.

I think the reference was to his time on the coaching staff, particularly the period 2018-22 when Pritchard was the Andrew Luck Director of Offense and Kevin M. Hogan Quarterbacks Coach. We had 2 future NFL QBs (Mills and McKee), a future NFL starting center (Dalman) and future NFL receivers/TEs Wilson and Parkinson and still were not very good. As I recall, this was mainly because we could not run the ball or protect the passer.

[Goose]

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

Assuming the On3 sources are accurate, there are many ways to interpret "cultural fit", most of which do not involve the candidate being a "Stanford Man". One obvious one is that the candidate doesn't appear to have the skill set to communicate effectively with "Stanford Men". See Walt Harris as an example. He fit in other places just fine, but obviously didn't fit at Stanford. It could also be that the candidate expected to operate in a football culture that doesn't exist at Stanford. Obviously the football cultures at Boise, Washington, and Texas are very different than that of Stanford. Without that, the candidate may not be as attractive.
 
It could be that the rest of the staff simply didn't like the candidate and felt he wasn't a good fit. It could be that Pritchard himself didn't like the candidate, for either "good" or "selfish" reasons. Lastly, I would not discount the possibility that the lack of "cultural fit" was perceived by the candidate, not Stanford. He turned Stanford down, not vice-versa. Given his previous history, Stanford would definitely not be considered a "step up". Quite the opposite. IMO it would take a stellar sell job (as well as lots of cash) to attract such a candidate. Maybe we weren't up to it.

[Goose]

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

Assuming the On3 sources are accurate, there are many ways to interpret "cultural fit", most of which do not involve the candidate being a "Stanford Man". One obvious one is that the candidate doesn't appear to have the skill set to communicate effectively with "Stanford Men". See Walt Harris as an example. He fit in other places just fine, but obviously didn't fit at Stanford. It could also be that the candidate expected to operate in a football culture that doesn't exist at Stanford. Obviously the football cultures at Boise, Washington, and Texas are very different than that of Stanford. Without that, the candidate may not be as attractive.
 
It could be that the rest of the staff simply didn't like the candidate and felt he wasn't a good fit. It could be that Pritchard himself didn't like the candidate, for either "good" or "selfish" reasons. Lastly, I would not discount the possibility that the lack of "cultural fit" was perceived by the candidate, not Stanford. He turned Stanford down, not vice-versa. Given his previous history, Stanford would definitely not be considered a "step up". Quite the opposite. IMO it would take a stellar sell job (as well as lots of cash) to attract such a candidate. Maybe we weren't up to it.

[cardcrimson]

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

Assuming the On3 sources are accurate, there are many ways to interpret "cultural fit", most of which do not involve the candidate being a "Stanford Man". One obvious one is that the candidate doesn't appear to have the skill set to communicate effectively with "Stanford Men". See Walt Harris as an example. He fit in other places just fine, but obviously didn't fit at Stanford. It could also be that the candidate expected to operate in a football culture that doesn't exist at Stanford. Obviously the football cultures at Boise, Washington, and Texas are very different than that of Stanford. Without that, the candidate may not be as attractive.
 
It could be that the rest of the staff simply didn't like the candidate and felt he wasn't a good fit. It could be that Pritchard himself didn't like the candidate, for either "good" or "selfish" reasons. Lastly, I would not discount the possibility that the lack of "cultural fit" was perceived by the candidate, not Stanford. He turned Stanford down, not vice-versa. Given his previous history, Stanford would definitely not be considered a "step up". Quite the opposite. IMO it would take a stellar sell job (as well as lots of cash) to attract such a candidate. Maybe we weren't up to it.

Allegedly, money was not an issue. The AD and the Director of Football Operations approved of the hire. Tavita said no on cultural lines, at least according to accounts posted on On3. PK was willing to sign. Stanford, well Tavita, said no. We were up to it and the selling job was successful in getting him interested. Until Tavita stepped in. Depressing.

[cardcrimson]

According to sources on the On3 site, Tavita passed on PK for DC, because of a cultural fit. In other words, he isn't a "Stanford Man". That was my point. PK was a fit at Boise and Washington, then Texas. Why not here? Sheesh.

Assuming the On3 sources are accurate, there are many ways to interpret "cultural fit", most of which do not involve the candidate being a "Stanford Man". One obvious one is that the candidate doesn't appear to have the skill set to communicate effectively with "Stanford Men". See Walt Harris as an example. He fit in other places just fine, but obviously didn't fit at Stanford. It could also be that the candidate expected to operate in a football culture that doesn't exist at Stanford. Obviously the football cultures at Boise, Washington, and Texas are very different than that of Stanford. Without that, the candidate may not be as attractive.
 
It could be that the rest of the staff simply didn't like the candidate and felt he wasn't a good fit. It could be that Pritchard himself didn't like the candidate, for either "good" or "selfish" reasons. Lastly, I would not discount the possibility that the lack of "cultural fit" was perceived by the candidate, not Stanford. He turned Stanford down, not vice-versa. Given his previous history, Stanford would definitely not be considered a "step up". Quite the opposite. IMO it would take a stellar sell job (as well as lots of cash) to attract such a candidate. Maybe we weren't up to it.

Allegedly, money was not an issue. The AD and the Director of Football Operations approved of the hire. Tavita said no on cultural lines, at least according to accounts posted on On3. PK was willing to sign. Stanford, well Tavita, said no. We were up to it and the selling job was successful in getting him interested. Until Tavita stepped in. Depressing.

[Row80Critic]

[rant font]I must be in an ornery mood, but all this talk of the so-called "Stanford Man" makes me cringe.  Did we turn the clocks back to 1950 when I wasn't looking? I think the enlightened world has come to realize we're better off not trying to squeeze people into labels like that.  There's no one way to be a high achiever, nor should there be. I'm clearly in a 'you kids get off my lawn' state of mind, so my apologies in advance, but I'm just jaded enough to worry openly that all this talk about knowing the Stanford way is just a lofty way to spin this reality: those in charge don't want the football program to rock the boat to win. The last time someone had the temerity to do that, alumni ended up sitting in the shade.  What's next, 4-star transfer players who don't come from the Ivy League?  Oh, the horror... 

And another thing.... ;) [/rant font]

[Row80Critic]

[rant font]I must be in an ornery mood, but all this talk of the so-called "Stanford Man" makes me cringe.  Did we turn the clocks back to 1950 when I wasn't looking? I think the enlightened world has come to realize we're better off not trying to squeeze people into labels like that.  There's no one way to be a high achiever, nor should there be. I'm clearly in a 'you kids get off my lawn' state of mind, so my apologies in advance, but I'm just jaded enough to worry openly that all this talk about knowing the Stanford way is just a lofty way to spin this reality: those in charge don't want the football program to rock the boat to win. The last time someone had the temerity to do that, alumni ended up sitting in the shade.  What's next, 4-star transfer players who don't come from the Ivy League?  Oh, the horror... 

And another thing.... ;) [/rant font]

[Goose]

Allegedly, money was not an issue. The AD and the Director of Football Operations approved of the hire. Tavita said no on cultural lines, at least according to accounts posted on On3. PK was willing to sign. Stanford, well Tavita, said no. We were up to it and the selling job was successful in getting him interested. Until Tavita stepped in. Depressing.

Maybe we will at some point actually know what happened. The scenario above could have happened. OTOH, it is hard for me to credit the idea that the AD and the Director of Football Operations would sign off on the hire of a DC and only then ask the Head Coach to opine. If they did that then they are incompetent. I also find it almost impossible to believe PK would have been "willing to sign" without first talking to the Head Coach (who would be his boss and who he probably would interact with very frequently). If Pritchard flip-flopped the scenario presented would be possible, but I see no other way it could be.

[Goose]

Allegedly, money was not an issue. The AD and the Director of Football Operations approved of the hire. Tavita said no on cultural lines, at least according to accounts posted on On3. PK was willing to sign. Stanford, well Tavita, said no. We were up to it and the selling job was successful in getting him interested. Until Tavita stepped in. Depressing.

Maybe we will at some point actually know what happened. The scenario above could have happened. OTOH, it is hard for me to credit the idea that the AD and the Director of Football Operations would sign off on the hire of a DC and only then ask the Head Coach to opine. If they did that then they are incompetent. I also find it almost impossible to believe PK would have been "willing to sign" without first talking to the Head Coach (who would be his boss and who he probably would interact with very frequently). If Pritchard flip-flopped the scenario presented would be possible, but I see no other way it could be.

[BostonCard]

While pretty much all of this is speculation, it is entirely possible that he was brought in for an interview, where he would have interviewed with Pritchard, Luck, and the AD all interviewed him and in their positions became clear in the post-interview debrief.

It's Pritchard's team; his job is the one most affected by a good or bad coaching hire, so his voice should be the most important.  Maybe he saw a red flag, or maybe he's a horrible judge of talent and as a result the team is going to suck going forward (it might even if he made all the "right" decisions).  But it's unlikely that this was "until Tavita stepped in", he's the hiring manager!

To me the bigger issue is that this is the sort of thing that shouldn't be leaked to a reporter.  These things are almost always of the "those who know won't say and those who say don't know", so unless someone was making stuff up, it's a bad sign that anyone on a professional staff either felt that they could leak or felt that they should.

BC

[BostonCard]

While pretty much all of this is speculation, it is entirely possible that he was brought in for an interview, where he would have interviewed with Pritchard, Luck, and the AD all interviewed him and in their positions became clear in the post-interview debrief.

It's Pritchard's team; his job is the one most affected by a good or bad coaching hire, so his voice should be the most important.  Maybe he saw a red flag, or maybe he's a horrible judge of talent and as a result the team is going to suck going forward (it might even if he made all the "right" decisions).  But it's unlikely that this was "until Tavita stepped in", he's the hiring manager!

To me the bigger issue is that this is the sort of thing that shouldn't be leaked to a reporter.  These things are almost always of the "those who know won't say and those who say don't know", so unless someone was making stuff up, it's a bad sign that anyone on a professional staff either felt that they could leak or felt that they should.

BC

[Row80Critic]

There are a few stories online that say Stanford is hiring Kris Richard as DC.  

USC Saturday Buzz: At Least One School Is Hiring A Defensive Coordinator – InsideUSC with Scott Wolf

Given his NFL success, I'd be adequately whelmed by that hire, if true...

[Row80Critic]

There are a few stories online that say Stanford is hiring Kris Richard as DC.  

USC Saturday Buzz: At Least One School Is Hiring A Defensive Coordinator – InsideUSC with Scott Wolf

Given his NFL success, I'd be adequately whelmed by that hire, if true...

[needle]

This hire went horribly off the rails in terms of what info got leaked. To add to the uninformed speculation, I'd say it's certainly possible Kwiatkowski's agent leaked the info about Stanford and then went back to the university to ask for more money for his/her client.

I am *not* impressed that the (probable) final hire is a guy who didn't work in two of the last three years and whose career had clearly taken on a downward trajectory.

Moreover, a hire of Kwiatkowski would have brought with it the possibility that some UT players might transfer to Stanford.

I don't think Richard is doomed to fail, and I'd say the likely reason he didn't work two out of the last three years is that he wanted a defensive coordinator position in the NFL, of which there are certainly a limited number of openings in any given year.

There's a decent chance he might be an improvement over the level of coaching Stanford has seen in recent years, but Richard will have to adjust to working with guys who don't have all the athleticism he's used to seeing in the NFL, and, of course, communicating/relating to much younger players.

It's a pretty risky hire, imo.

[needle]

This hire went horribly off the rails in terms of what info got leaked. To add to the uninformed speculation, I'd say it's certainly possible Kwiatkowski's agent leaked the info about Stanford and then went back to the university to ask for more money for his/her client.

I am *not* impressed that the (probable) final hire is a guy who didn't work in two of the last three years and whose career had clearly taken on a downward trajectory.

Moreover, a hire of Kwiatkowski would have brought with it the possibility that some UT players might transfer to Stanford.

I don't think Richard is doomed to fail, and I'd say the likely reason he didn't work two out of the last three years is that he wanted a defensive coordinator position in the NFL, of which there are certainly a limited number of openings in any given year.

There's a decent chance he might be an improvement over the level of coaching Stanford has seen in recent years, but Richard will have to adjust to working with guys who don't have all the athleticism he's used to seeing in the NFL, and, of course, communicating/relating to much younger players.

It's a pretty risky hire, imo.

[norcard10]

This hire went horribly off the rails in terms of what info got leaked. To add to the uninformed speculation, I'd say it's certainly possible Kwiatkowski's agent leaked the info about Stanford and then went back to the university to ask for more money for his/her client.

I am *not* impressed that the (probable) final hire is a guy who didn't work in two of the last three years and whose career had clearly taken on a downward trajectory.

Moreover, a hire of Kwiatkowski would have brought with it the possibility that some UT players might transfer to Stanford.

I don't think Richard is doomed to fail, and I'd say the likely reason he didn't work two out of the last three years is that he wanted a defensive coordinator position in the NFL, of which there are certainly a limited number of openings in any given year.

There's a decent chance he might be an improvement over the level of coaching Stanford has seen in recent years, but Richard will have to adjust to working with guys who don't have all the athleticism he's used to seeing in the NFL, and, of course, communicating/relating to much younger players.

It's a pretty risky hire, imo.

the sure stupidity of all this is astounding.  They could have just kept the previous defensive coordinator who was doing a stand up job.

---

Incase you all haven't, I would encourage you to read this: https://archive.is/KS3vu

It's why I'm all for fresh thinking and a departure from what didn't work in the past.

[norcard10]

This hire went horribly off the rails in terms of what info got leaked. To add to the uninformed speculation, I'd say it's certainly possible Kwiatkowski's agent leaked the info about Stanford and then went back to the university to ask for more money for his/her client.

I am *not* impressed that the (probable) final hire is a guy who didn't work in two of the last three years and whose career had clearly taken on a downward trajectory.

Moreover, a hire of Kwiatkowski would have brought with it the possibility that some UT players might transfer to Stanford.

I don't think Richard is doomed to fail, and I'd say the likely reason he didn't work two out of the last three years is that he wanted a defensive coordinator position in the NFL, of which there are certainly a limited number of openings in any given year.

There's a decent chance he might be an improvement over the level of coaching Stanford has seen in recent years, but Richard will have to adjust to working with guys who don't have all the athleticism he's used to seeing in the NFL, and, of course, communicating/relating to much younger players.

It's a pretty risky hire, imo.

the sure stupidity of all this is astounding.  They could have just kept the previous defensive coordinator who was doing a stand up job.

---

Incase you all haven't, I would encourage you to read this: https://archive.is/KS3vu

It's why I'm all for fresh thinking and a departure from what didn't work in the past.

[Mick]

This hire went horribly off the rails in terms of what info got leaked. To add to the uninformed speculation, I'd say it's certainly possible Kwiatkowski's agent leaked the info about Stanford and then went back to the university to ask for more money for his/her client.

I am *not* impressed that the (probable) final hire is a guy who didn't work in two of the last three years and whose career had clearly taken on a downward trajectory.

Moreover, a hire of Kwiatkowski would have brought with it the possibility that some UT players might transfer to Stanford.

I don't think Richard is doomed to fail, and I'd say the likely reason he didn't work two out of the last three years is that he wanted a defensive coordinator position in the NFL, of which there are certainly a limited number of openings in any given year.

There's a decent chance he might be an improvement over the level of coaching Stanford has seen in recent years, but Richard will have to adjust to working with guys who don't have all the athleticism he's used to seeing in the NFL, and, of course, communicating/relating to much younger players.

It's a pretty risky hire, imo.

the sure stupidity of all this is astounding.  They could have just kept the previous defensive coordinator who was doing a stand up job.

---

Incase you all haven't, I would encourage you to read this: https://archive.is/KS3vu

It's why I'm all for fresh thinking and a departure from what didn't work in the past.

Excellent article on the decline of Stanford's program by Stewart Mandel (4 year old article). The section on Turley's departure alone is worth reading. It is worth pointing out that Stanford's injuries dramatically declined when Turley was in charge and dramatically increased when he left. In his last two years, 2017 and 2018, just two opening day starters missed more than two games. One year later, after Turley's departure and Stanford's first losing season in 11 years, 27 players were unavailable for the Notre Dame game.

[Mick]

This hire went horribly off the rails in terms of what info got leaked. To add to the uninformed speculation, I'd say it's certainly possible Kwiatkowski's agent leaked the info about Stanford and then went back to the university to ask for more money for his/her client.

I am *not* impressed that the (probable) final hire is a guy who didn't work in two of the last three years and whose career had clearly taken on a downward trajectory.

Moreover, a hire of Kwiatkowski would have brought with it the possibility that some UT players might transfer to Stanford.

I don't think Richard is doomed to fail, and I'd say the likely reason he didn't work two out of the last three years is that he wanted a defensive coordinator position in the NFL, of which there are certainly a limited number of openings in any given year.

There's a decent chance he might be an improvement over the level of coaching Stanford has seen in recent years, but Richard will have to adjust to working with guys who don't have all the athleticism he's used to seeing in the NFL, and, of course, communicating/relating to much younger players.

It's a pretty risky hire, imo.

the sure stupidity of all this is astounding.  They could have just kept the previous defensive coordinator who was doing a stand up job.

---

Incase you all haven't, I would encourage you to read this: https://archive.is/KS3vu

It's why I'm all for fresh thinking and a departure from what didn't work in the past.

Excellent article on the decline of Stanford's program by Stewart Mandel (4 year old article). The section on Turley's departure alone is worth reading. It is worth pointing out that Stanford's injuries dramatically declined when Turley was in charge and dramatically increased when he left. In his last two years, 2017 and 2018, just two opening day starters missed more than two games. One year later, after Turley's departure and Stanford's first losing season in 11 years, 27 players were unavailable for the Notre Dame game.

[SamuelMcF]

This hire went horribly off the rails in terms of what info got leaked. To add to the uninformed speculation, I'd say it's certainly possible Kwiatkowski's agent leaked the info about Stanford and then went back to the university to ask for more money for his/her client.

I am *not* impressed that the (probable) final hire is a guy who didn't work in two of the last three years and whose career had clearly taken on a downward trajectory.

Moreover, a hire of Kwiatkowski would have brought with it the possibility that some UT players might transfer to Stanford.

I don't think Richard is doomed to fail, and I'd say the likely reason he didn't work two out of the last three years is that he wanted a defensive coordinator position in the NFL, of which there are certainly a limited number of openings in any given year.

There's a decent chance he might be an improvement over the level of coaching Stanford has seen in recent years, but Richard will have to adjust to working with guys who don't have all the athleticism he's used to seeing in the NFL, and, of course, communicating/relating to much younger players.

It's a pretty risky hire, imo.

the sure stupidity of all this is astounding.  They could have just kept the previous defensive coordinator who was doing a stand up job.

---

Incase you all haven't, I would encourage you to read this: https://archive.is/KS3vu

It's why I'm all for fresh thinking and a departure from what didn't work in the past.

Excellent article on the decline of Stanford's program by Stewart Mandel (4 year old article). The section on Turley's departure alone is worth reading. It is worth pointing out that Stanford's injuries dramatically declined when Turley was in charge and dramatically increased when he left. In his last two years, 2017 and 2018, just two opening day starters missed more than two games. One year later, after Turley's departure and Stanford's first losing season in 11 years, 27 players were unavailable for the Notre Dame game.

Then why was Colorado the most-injured team in the Pac-12 with Turley as their head of S&C for 2 years, and then not retained or hired anywhere else after that?

[SamuelMcF]

This hire went horribly off the rails in terms of what info got leaked. To add to the uninformed speculation, I'd say it's certainly possible Kwiatkowski's agent leaked the info about Stanford and then went back to the university to ask for more money for his/her client.

I am *not* impressed that the (probable) final hire is a guy who didn't work in two of the last three years and whose career had clearly taken on a downward trajectory.

Moreover, a hire of Kwiatkowski would have brought with it the possibility that some UT players might transfer to Stanford.

I don't think Richard is doomed to fail, and I'd say the likely reason he didn't work two out of the last three years is that he wanted a defensive coordinator position in the NFL, of which there are certainly a limited number of openings in any given year.

There's a decent chance he might be an improvement over the level of coaching Stanford has seen in recent years, but Richard will have to adjust to working with guys who don't have all the athleticism he's used to seeing in the NFL, and, of course, communicating/relating to much younger players.

It's a pretty risky hire, imo.

the sure stupidity of all this is astounding.  They could have just kept the previous defensive coordinator who was doing a stand up job.

---

Incase you all haven't, I would encourage you to read this: https://archive.is/KS3vu

It's why I'm all for fresh thinking and a departure from what didn't work in the past.

Excellent article on the decline of Stanford's program by Stewart Mandel (4 year old article). The section on Turley's departure alone is worth reading. It is worth pointing out that Stanford's injuries dramatically declined when Turley was in charge and dramatically increased when he left. In his last two years, 2017 and 2018, just two opening day starters missed more than two games. One year later, after Turley's departure and Stanford's first losing season in 11 years, 27 players were unavailable for the Notre Dame game.

Then why was Colorado the most-injured team in the Pac-12 with Turley as their head of S&C for 2 years, and then not retained or hired anywhere else after that?

[Goose]

In case you all haven't, I would encourage you to read this: https://archive.is/KS3vu

It's why I'm all for fresh thinking and a departure from what didn't work in the past.

Excellent article on the decline of Stanford's program by Stewart Mandel (4 year old article). The section on Turley's departure alone is worth reading. It is worth pointing out that Stanford's injuries dramatically declined when Turley was in charge and dramatically increased when he left. In his last two years, 2017 and 2018, just two opening day starters missed more than two games. One year later, after Turley's departure and Stanford's first losing season in 11 years, 27 players were unavailable for the Notre Dame game.

Then why was Colorado the most-injured team in the Pac-12 with Turley as their head of S&C for 2 years, and then not retained or hired anywhere else after that?

This recurring post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy simply refuses to die. Quite frustrating. The fact Turley couldn't replicate his Stanford success elsewhere clearly demonstrates that he didn't have a magic formula that works under all conditions. Stanford was simply a victim of the inevitable regression to the mean. We have been through several strength and conditioning regimes after Turley was let go. They have had mixed results, but certainly no panacea has been found. The same can be said for football teams everywhere. The "best practices" spread rapidly throughout the strength and conditioning community. There are no "trade secrets" that last more than a season or two.
 
IMO the article hasn't aged well at all. One obvious shortcoming of the article is that it doesn't say exactly what Shaw did wrong that "caused" Stanford's decline. That was true from the day it was written. The article argues" the further Stanford got from Harbaugh, the more the program strayed from its physical identity." This is hardly a call for "new ideas" or "fresh thinking", but rather an endorsement of preserving the status quo. Yet the article starts with an example of a traditional team bonding and hardening activity that was no longer possible due to changing conditions. The world was changing. Football rules were changing. The article criticizes Shaw for being "complacent", yet it endorses the idea of remaining true to the Harbaugh legacy. These two concepts are contradictory. If Shaw responded to changing conditions, he would of necessity depart from the Harbaugh legacy in some cases.
 
Shaw in fact did respond to changing conditions. Mandel erroneously asserts that the teams led by CMC and Bryce Love were faithful to/examples of the Harbaugh legacy. Anybody who follows Stanford football know that simply wasn't the case, particularly during the BL years. Those teams did run the ball, but not in the same fashion as the previous Harbaugh/Shaw teams did. It wasn't "intellectual brutality" anymore. Despite Shaw's repeated protestations that CMC could run the ball between the tackles (which he could to a limited extent), the reality was CMC would read the blocking and adjust to what he saw. He is a "patient" runner. He would run where the hole was, not where it was supposed to be. With BL it was "just give him a crease and he is gone". Most of the time there was no crease and he got two yards, but when there was, he was indeed gone. Neither CMC or BL were "similar" to their predecessors in the Harbaugh/Shaw era.
 
Mandel cites the departures of Mason and Bloomgren as problems. Presumably these were not some of the people Shaw should have fired :-). No recommendations of exactly who should have been fired are present in the article. Bloomgren left a somewhat bare cupboard when he departed. Stanford's OL had started to have issues after 2015, and from 2017 it was a real problem. IMO that was the point where it was no longer even remotely possible to meaningfully continue the Harbaugh legacy.
 
Was that Shaw's "fault"? Arguably yes, if one believes there was a strategy that would have allowed the "Harbaugh approach" to continue. It is reasonable to argue that the replacements for Mason and  Bloomgren were not "successful".  Stanford went through several OL coaches trying to fix the problem, but never succeeded. Shaw tried an approach that involved smaller, faster backs and more passing, partly because that is what he could get and partly because the OLs seemed to be better at pass blocking than run blocking. That didn't work out too well, and the rest was history. IMO the "take-away" from that history should be that if you don't have a "good" OL, your offensive philosophy and your ideas, whether new and innovative or attempts to continue Harbaugh's legacy, don't make much difference.

[Goose]

In case you all haven't, I would encourage you to read this: https://archive.is/KS3vu

It's why I'm all for fresh thinking and a departure from what didn't work in the past.

Excellent article on the decline of Stanford's program by Stewart Mandel (4 year old article). The section on Turley's departure alone is worth reading. It is worth pointing out that Stanford's injuries dramatically declined when Turley was in charge and dramatically increased when he left. In his last two years, 2017 and 2018, just two opening day starters missed more than two games. One year later, after Turley's departure and Stanford's first losing season in 11 years, 27 players were unavailable for the Notre Dame game.

Then why was Colorado the most-injured team in the Pac-12 with Turley as their head of S&C for 2 years, and then not retained or hired anywhere else after that?

This recurring post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy simply refuses to die. Quite frustrating. The fact Turley couldn't replicate his Stanford success elsewhere clearly demonstrates that he didn't have a magic formula that works under all conditions. Stanford was simply a victim of the inevitable regression to the mean. We have been through several strength and conditioning regimes after Turley was let go. They have had mixed results, but certainly no panacea has been found. The same can be said for football teams everywhere. The "best practices" spread rapidly throughout the strength and conditioning community. There are no "trade secrets" that last more than a season or two.
 
IMO the article hasn't aged well at all. One obvious shortcoming of the article is that it doesn't say exactly what Shaw did wrong that "caused" Stanford's decline. That was true from the day it was written. The article argues" the further Stanford got from Harbaugh, the more the program strayed from its physical identity." This is hardly a call for "new ideas" or "fresh thinking", but rather an endorsement of preserving the status quo. Yet the article starts with an example of a traditional team bonding and hardening activity that was no longer possible due to changing conditions. The world was changing. Football rules were changing. The article criticizes Shaw for being "complacent", yet it endorses the idea of remaining true to the Harbaugh legacy. These two concepts are contradictory. If Shaw responded to changing conditions, he would of necessity depart from the Harbaugh legacy in some cases.
 
Shaw in fact did respond to changing conditions. Mandel erroneously asserts that the teams led by CMC and Bryce Love were faithful to/examples of the Harbaugh legacy. Anybody who follows Stanford football know that simply wasn't the case, particularly during the BL years. Those teams did run the ball, but not in the same fashion as the previous Harbaugh/Shaw teams did. It wasn't "intellectual brutality" anymore. Despite Shaw's repeated protestations that CMC could run the ball between the tackles (which he could to a limited extent), the reality was CMC would read the blocking and adjust to what he saw. He is a "patient" runner. He would run where the hole was, not where it was supposed to be. With BL it was "just give him a crease and he is gone". Most of the time there was no crease and he got two yards, but when there was, he was indeed gone. Neither CMC or BL were "similar" to their predecessors in the Harbaugh/Shaw era.
 
Mandel cites the departures of Mason and Bloomgren as problems. Presumably these were not some of the people Shaw should have fired :-). No recommendations of exactly who should have been fired are present in the article. Bloomgren left a somewhat bare cupboard when he departed. Stanford's OL had started to have issues after 2015, and from 2017 it was a real problem. IMO that was the point where it was no longer even remotely possible to meaningfully continue the Harbaugh legacy.
 
Was that Shaw's "fault"? Arguably yes, if one believes there was a strategy that would have allowed the "Harbaugh approach" to continue. It is reasonable to argue that the replacements for Mason and  Bloomgren were not "successful".  Stanford went through several OL coaches trying to fix the problem, but never succeeded. Shaw tried an approach that involved smaller, faster backs and more passing, partly because that is what he could get and partly because the OLs seemed to be better at pass blocking than run blocking. That didn't work out too well, and the rest was history. IMO the "take-away" from that history should be that if you don't have a "good" OL, your offensive philosophy and your ideas, whether new and innovative or attempts to continue Harbaugh's legacy, don't make much difference.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, the hagiography around Turley in these parts is excessive.  I know we were very successful when he was here, and his departure coincided with Stanford’s decline, but his utter lack of success elsewhere makes you wonder if it was truly Turley’s doing.  One also needs to note that an unfortunate number of Stanford alums from that time who were hit with PED suspensions in the NFL.  I’ve never seen any allegations around Turley or anyone else specifically, but you do kind of wonder if the culture around that time might have encouraged it, along with a willful ignorance amongst the people who should have known if someone’s S&C gains were chemically enhanced.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, the hagiography around Turley in these parts is excessive.  I know we were very successful when he was here, and his departure coincided with Stanford’s decline, but his utter lack of success elsewhere makes you wonder if it was truly Turley’s doing.  One also needs to note that an unfortunate number of Stanford alums from that time who were hit with PED suspensions in the NFL.  I’ve never seen any allegations around Turley or anyone else specifically, but you do kind of wonder if the culture around that time might have encouraged it, along with a willful ignorance amongst the people who should have known if someone’s S&C gains were chemically enhanced.

BC