Shaw on the hot seat? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Shaw on the hot seat? (/thread-23502.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Shaw on the hot seat? (/thread-23502.html)
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - MV72018 - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 09:38 AM)GK3 Wrote:(10-02-2022, 08:18 AM)slide Wrote:(10-01-2022, 11:00 AM)msqueri Wrote: It’s one of the 40 most attractive jobs in college football. At most pessimistic top 65. There are some Power Five coaches who would take it, almost every Group of Five or FCS head coach, and all but the 5-10 hottest coordinators. There’d be plenty of a pool. At Shaw’s salary we could easily get a star.
Bryan Harsin, Lance Leipold, Chris Klieman, Troy Taylor, Brent Brennan - all likely in our ballpark, but certainly a majority of them would be. Just by way of example.
Auburn fans would pay us to take Harsin. his days on the Plains are limited.
Does everyone think that Muir has the power to actually fire Shaw? My feeling has been Shaw has more clout that Muir. I also think we are beating a dead horse as I don't think MTL really cares whether we have a football team. While we might be attractive for a hotshot up and coming coach I think success is a fleeting thing under today's rules. The Portal and NIL have made a slippery slope almost vertical. We are going to attract a few really good players but never enough to consistently be in the top 20. Plus guys who red shirt are seldom going to be around for their fourth season of eligibility. It will happen, but not often. In the past we were a stop for some great young coaches but they never stayed around. We may well return to that status.
One thing Petros said last night stood out to me: that UO is loaded with transfers, reminiscent of USC. This seems to be a key trend. As long as Stanford is not in the transfer game and takes admissions seriously, it will be greatly out-talented and have much slower team speed than USC, UO, and UCLA, perhaps also Utah. Or do people here believe that the right new coach could make us competitive again?
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - Hurlburt88 - 10-02-2022
I do believe with the right coach we can be competitive. LOts of great reasons to attend Stanford which can absolutely include playing football. If Bloomgren can get Rice looking good . . . and think back to the rapid change of direction under Harbaugh. Or Denny Green quickly instilling toughness back in the day.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - msqueri - 10-02-2022
I definitely think the right coach can make Stanford competitive. As evidence for that we have our own history of being laid quite low and then having a new coach inject energy, which has happened for us several times, as well as the history in college football of the kinds of turnarounds that are possible (too many examples, both contemporary and historical, to list).
There's a school of thought that the transfer portal just makes competing impossible. This would be more persuasive if there were evidence that transfers have become a necessary ingredient to compete, but that's not the case. A majority of the top ten teams (Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, Oklahoma State, and Penn State) barely participate in the incoming part of the transfer portal. Among non-elite programs, Iowa and Wake Forest show the way with a non-transfer reliant model. In our own conference, Oregon State's 2022 roster is less reliant on incoming transfer talent than Stanford. Preferable to the portal for us is building a healthy recruiting pipeline and retaining the players you want to retain.
What we need is for football at Stanford to be fun, for the best players to want to stay, for winning habits to be inculcated and passed down from class to class. If Iowa, Wake Forest, and Oregon State can do it, so can we.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - old spanish trail - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 12:42 PM)msqueri Wrote: I definitely think the right coach can make Stanford competitive. As evidence for that we have our own history of being laid quite low and then having a new coach inject energy, which has happened for us several times, as well as the history in college football of the kinds of turnarounds that are possible (too many examples, both contemporary and historical, to list).
There's a school of thought that the transfer portal just makes competing impossible. This would be more persuasive if there were evidence that transfers have become a necessary ingredient to compete, but that's not the case. A majority of the top ten teams (Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, Oklahoma State, and Penn State) barely participate in the incoming part of the transfer portal. Among non-elite programs, Iowa and Wake Forest show the way with a non-transfer reliant model. In our own conference, Oregon State's 2022 roster is less reliant on incoming transfer talent than Stanford. Preferable to the portal for us is building a healthy recruiting pipeline and retaining the players you want to retain.
What we need is for football at Stanford to be fun, for the best players to want to stay, for winning habits to be inculcated and passed down from class to class. If Iowa, Wake Forest, and Oregon State can do it, so can we.
Yep
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - BostonCard - 10-02-2022
There’s still the issue of getting fifth year players to apply for graduate school in order to stay, when they can just use the transfer portal to get into a masters program of their choice elsewhere.
It used to be that fifth year players stayed for a fifth year without getting a graduate degree, but that was before they could get a Stanford degree and a graduate degree elsewhere for free just by putting their name into the portal.
BC
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - msqueri - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 01:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There’s still the issue of getting fifth year players to apply for graduate school in order to stay, when they can just use the transfer portal to get into a masters program of their choice elsewhere.
It used to be that fifth year players stayed for a fifth year without getting a graduate degree, but that was before they could get a Stanford degree and a graduate degree elsewhere for free just by putting their name into the portal.
BC
As far as I can tell this is an issue of our own creation. We're a victim of our own 40 year decision/optimizing the academic transactional value of your football talents nonsense. In all of Stanford's history and in college football elsewhere, players have been fine majoring in football for their fifth year. Shaw recruits academic/post-football career first people and then drones on and on about the values of degrees, so no surprise we have players who really want some random masters at another school. If we had people who were at Stanford to play football, or if playing football at Stanford was at all pleasant, this would happen less.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat - BostonCard - 10-02-2022
Stanford has also changed. Stanford used to not care at all if students didn’t graduate in four years. Now, students who don’t have to submit an academic plan to show that they are still on track. It doesn’t appear onerous, but the message is that students are expected to graduate in four years.
Moreover, before the transfer portal, there was no option to get a graduate degree elsewhere. There was no transfer portal, and there was a year eligibility penalty, which meant that a student would either have to graduate in three years, snd sit out one, just to get a graduate degree. The path of least resistance was to just stay for a fifth year at Stanford (+/- a coterm); the realistic alternative was to quit football and get a job.
Now, the path of least resistance is for a player to put his name in the transfer portal and get a degree (or not) elsewhere. No IAP to fill out, and certainly no application for graduate school. I think this is less about the kids we are getting and more about the changes in the environment.
BC
RE: Shaw on the hot seat - Austroturf - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 02:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Stanford has also changed. Stanford used to not care at all if students didn’t graduate in four years. Now, students who don’t have to submit an academic plan to show that they are still on track. It doesn’t appear onerous, but the message is that students are expected to graduate in four years.
Moreover, before the transfer portal, there was no option to get a graduate degree elsewhere. There was no transfer portal, and there was a year eligibility penalty, which meant that a student would either have to graduate in three years, snd sit out one, just to get a graduate degree. The path of least resistance was to just stay for a fifth year at Stanford (+/- a coterm); the realistic alternative was to quit football and get a job.
Now, the path of least resistance is for a player to put his name in the transfer portal and get a degree (or not) elsewhere. No IAP to fill out, and certainly no application for graduate school. I think this is less about the kids we are getting and more about the changes in the environment.
BC
Good insight.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - msqueri - 10-02-2022
Yes, these are good insights, though I don't think dispositive. Just look at all the guys playing fifth and sixth years elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think they're all working toward graduate degree progress. Is Renard Bell at Washington State getting a graduate degree (I honestly don't know)? Solomon Tuliaupupu at USC appears to be a fifth year player without a masters program.
You may be right, but I think there's something very David Shaw Stanford Player about making sure you're always working toward a degree. I don't think this is normal. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to me the landscape accounts for all of it. Much of it, sure, but we bring a lot of this on ourselves.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - 81alum - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 10:20 AM)MV72018 Wrote: One thing Petros said last night stood out to me: that UO is loaded with transfers, reminiscent of USC. This seems to be a key trend. As long as Stanford is not in the transfer game and takes admissions seriously, it will be greatly out-talented and have much slower team speed than USC, UO, and UCLA, perhaps also Utah. Or do people here believe that the right new coach could make us competitive again?Yes, Oregon's football team had 21 transfers, USC's had 19. Stanford probably had about 25 transfer into the entire university.
The transfer pool now makes it less necessary that a coach be a great recruiter or developer of talent, unless by "recruiting" you mean convincing a player who has been recruited and developed by someone else to come to your team instead.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - 82lsju - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 03:29 PM)81alum Wrote:(10-02-2022, 10:20 AM)MV72018 Wrote: One thing Petros said last night stood out to me: that UO is loaded with transfers, reminiscent of USC. This seems to be a key trend. As long as Stanford is not in the transfer game and takes admissions seriously, it will be greatly out-talented and have much slower team speed than USC, UO, and UCLA, perhaps also Utah. Or do people here believe that the right new coach could make us competitive again?Yes, Oregon's football team had 21 transfers, USC's had 19. Stanford probably had about 25 transfer into the entire university.
The transfer pool now makes it less necessary that a coach be a great recruiter or developer of talent, unless by "recruiting" you mean convincing a player who has been recruited and developed by someone else to come to your team instead.
Quote:As of Wednesday, 1,738 first-year students and 47 transfer students are matriculating at Stanford.
https://news.stanford.edu/report/2022/09/21/convocation-stanford-class-2026-called-explore-engage/
USC and Oregon both have new coaches this year which probably boosts their transfer in (and out) numbers. Will be interesting to see if programs have 15-20 transfers a year every year.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - lex24 - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 04:12 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-02-2022, 03:29 PM)81alum Wrote:(10-02-2022, 10:20 AM)MV72018 Wrote: One thing Petros said last night stood out to me: that UO is loaded with transfers, reminiscent of USC. This seems to be a key trend. As long as Stanford is not in the transfer game and takes admissions seriously, it will be greatly out-talented and have much slower team speed than USC, UO, and UCLA, perhaps also Utah. Or do people here believe that the right new coach could make us competitive again?Yes, Oregon's football team had 21 transfers, USC's had 19. Stanford probably had about 25 transfer into the entire university.
The transfer pool now makes it less necessary that a coach be a great recruiter or developer of talent, unless by "recruiting" you mean convincing a player who has been recruited and developed by someone else to come to your team instead.
Quote:As of Wednesday, 1,738 first-year students and 47 transfer students are matriculating at Stanford.
https://news.stanford.edu/report/2022/09/21/convocation-stanford-class-2026-called-explore-engage/
USC and Oregon both have new coaches this year which probably boosts their transfer in (and out) numbers. Will be interesting to see if programs have 15-20 transfers a year every year.
NILS worth about $4 Million to Williams and Addison didn’t hurt either.
(10-02-2022, 03:19 PM)msqueri Wrote: Yes, these are good insights, though I don't think dispositive. Just look at all the guys playing fifth and sixth years elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think they're all working toward graduate degree progress. Is Renard Bell at Washington State getting a graduate degree (I honestly don't know)? Solomon Tuliaupupu at USC appears to be a fifth year player without a masters program.
You may be right, but I think there's something very David Shaw Stanford Player about making sure you're always working toward a degree. I don't think this is normal. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to me the landscape accounts for all of it. Much of it, sure, but we bring a lot of this on ourselves.
“but I think there's something very David Shaw Stanford Player about making sure you're always working toward a degree.”
Um, isn’t it very Stanford period to be sure they students are working towards degrees? I don’t get the comment.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - Phogge - 10-02-2022
Shaw didn't even know that Fields was in school. That borders on the incompetent.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - msqueri - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 04:27 PM)lex24 Wrote:(10-02-2022, 04:12 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-02-2022, 03:29 PM)81alum Wrote:(10-02-2022, 10:20 AM)MV72018 Wrote: One thing Petros said last night stood out to me: that UO is loaded with transfers, reminiscent of USC. This seems to be a key trend. As long as Stanford is not in the transfer game and takes admissions seriously, it will be greatly out-talented and have much slower team speed than USC, UO, and UCLA, perhaps also Utah. Or do people here believe that the right new coach could make us competitive again?
Yes, Oregon's football team had 21 transfers, USC's had 19. Stanford probably had about 25 transfer into the entire university.
The transfer pool now makes it less necessary that a coach be a great recruiter or developer of talent, unless by "recruiting" you mean convincing a player who has been recruited and developed by someone else to come to your team instead.
Quote:As of Wednesday, 1,738 first-year students and 47 transfer students are matriculating at Stanford.
https://news.stanford.edu/report/2022/09/21/convocation-stanford-class-2026-called-explore-engage/
USC and Oregon both have new coaches this year which probably boosts their transfer in (and out) numbers. Will be interesting to see if programs have 15-20 transfers a year every year.
NILS worth about $4 Million to Williams and Addison didn’t hurt either.
(10-02-2022, 03:19 PM)msqueri Wrote: Yes, these are good insights, though I don't think dispositive. Just look at all the guys playing fifth and sixth years elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think they're all working toward graduate degree progress. Is Renard Bell at Washington State getting a graduate degree (I honestly don't know)? Solomon Tuliaupupu at USC appears to be a fifth year player without a masters program.
You may be right, but I think there's something very David Shaw Stanford Player about making sure you're always working toward a degree. I don't think this is normal. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to me the landscape accounts for all of it. Much of it, sure, but we bring a lot of this on ourselves.
“but I think there's something very David Shaw Stanford Player about making sure you're always working toward a degree.”
Um, isn’t it very Stanford period to be sure they students are working towards degrees? I don’t get the comment.
Here's where the comment is coming from: I believe that fifth years for Troy Walters, Steve Stenstrom, Tommy Vardell, Ron George, Glyn Milburn, Chase Beeler, Coby Fleener, Trent Murphy, Richard Sherman, Sione Fua, Derek Hall, Andrew Phillips, Matthew Masifilo, Jeremy Stewart, Chase Thomas, Sam Schwartzstein, Shayne Skov, Ben Gardner, Khalil Wilkes, Kevin Danser, Ryan Hewitt, Henry Anderson, David Parry, AJ Tarpley, Kevin Hogan, Devon Cajuste, Ronnie Harris, and Kevin Anderson were really important for Stanford football. Really important. To think that those guys could only play at Stanford in their fifth years if they happened to be admitted to a Stanford graduate program is baffling to me and would have been the death knell for most of the fond memories most of us have for Stanford football over the last three decades.
It used to be the case players culminated their career in a fifth year. For that now to be much less assured is the case for a variety of reasons. One of them appears to be Stanford football players are always working toward degrees. That has not been the case in Stanford nor college football history. To unilaterally disarm fifth year players is devastating. How many of the above didn't get Stanford masters coterminous with their football careers. A LOT.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - BostonCard - 10-02-2022
I think there are a few secular trends that are working against that. I think some of them will reverse a bit once the COVID year works itself out of the system, but the NIL, the portal, the ever increasing number of games, etc, the ludicrous salaries, have all pushed players away from thinking about the team and towards thinking about playing football in a transactional sense (can I get a shot at the NFL, an NIL, if not can I leverage football to give me a step up in my career). Winning more will help, and having a team first culture will help, but we aren’t going back to the days where fifth years are the norm. Pretty much all the guys you cite were before the portal came around in 2018; lots pre-dated the NCAA grad transfer exemption (put in place in 2011).
I think and hope we can do better with fifth years; however, I don’t think this problem is unique to the culture that Shaw has put in place.
BC
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - msqueri - 10-02-2022
I wouldn't dispute there are secular trends or say it's unique to the culture Shaw has put in place, but it's exacerbated by Shaw and his culture.
What's been so corrosive has been that these secular trends have coincided with a coach who promotes a professional ethos and leans into the transactional nature of the football player-university relationship. We pride ourselves in being pro-style in numerous senses, we eschew contact in practices, we deliberately and ostentatiously treat our players as whole humans rather than football players, we emphasize the academic/degree/network building/etc. value players get in exchange for their football labor, we take pride in advising players based on their personal interests to declare for the NFL/pursue graduate degrees elsewhere/otherwise take steps that benefit the individual but not the team, and so forth. All of these are understandable and some of them are very honorable. But in the aggregate it's a Stanford football culture that is individual rather than team-oriented, non-football vs. football-oriented, and transactional rather than emotionally-oriented. My argument is this has interacted with the secular trends in a really corrosive way for Stanford football from a competitive standpoint. Maybe that's ok because we're doing it out of interest for the whole human. But we make ourselves extra susceptible to the secular trends in college football by leaning into them.
Conversely, there are teams that still emphasize team. There are places where it's fun to play football, the coaches don't design a whole program around football labor being an investment to get a prudent post-football professional network out of the transaction, individuals feel a sense of loyalty or even obligation, and failures on the football field really sting because that's what unifies the players and there is no consolation prize for failure, and so forth.
I am not saying there aren't shifts in the landscape that make the old ways of operating more difficult. But when you create an individually-oriented, academically-oriented, and openly transactional culture it makes sense players will seek personally greener pastures elsewhere. This is not the case, at least to this degree, in all programs. My view is that post-Shaw it would be great to have a coach who fosters the team, football, and emotional parts of the equation. Coaches who talk a lot about the 40 year decision, Stanford Men, and professionalism will be red flags for me. Maybe instead of being #7 in the country in fewest penalty yards we can be #7 in something actually useful like rushing or passing yards. Maybe we can have a team ethos that gets more than the sum of the parts. And, yes, maybe we can even get players who want to fulfill their eligibility even if they don't have graduate degree prospects (and maybe we'll let them do that).
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - StanfordMatt - 10-03-2022
A lot of attention is given to Shaw's compensation but I haven't seen much focus on his contract length. The reported $8.9 million that he received in 2019 is said to have included $2 million in "retroactive salary and a signing bonus" unique to that year. While not much is known in general about Stanford's coaching contracts, it seems likely that Shaw agreed to a contract extension with a signing bonus and pay raise following the 2018 Sun Bowl win. If $2 million was signing bonus, that would put his base comp at $6.9 million but let's say $6 million to be conservative.
Regarding contract length, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that somewhere along the way Shaw agreed to a 10-year term. That's in line with the top coaches and especially someone who was revered to the extent that Shaw was on campus circa 2015. If he agreed to an extension in 2018, that would likely reset the contract to its original length. As far as the guaranteed portion of Shaw's compensation, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's fully guaranteed - most top tier college coaches have fully guaranteed contracts. Assuming he has six years left on a $6 million/year contract, that would leave Stanford on the hook for $36 million to fire Shaw plus at least another $5-7 million to buyout the assistants (no new head coach is taking the job on the condition that they have to keep Shaw's staff). That's $40+ million.
Who knows, maybe my numbers are way off. Maybe Shaw's deal is only partially guaranteed or maybe it wasn't for 10 years. Divide that number in half and you're still left with $20 million. Colorado just raised a lot of eyebrows ponying up $8.9 million to dump Dorrell. Wisconsin and Nebraska are paying buyouts north of $10 million but they have Big Ten money. Not to mention that Stanford simply isn't the type of place that would pay a coach a large sum of money to walk away.
Long story short, I simply don't see any way that the numbers add up in a scenario that includes Shaw's departure in the forseeable future.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - lex24 - 10-03-2022
And
(10-02-2022, 08:00 PM)msqueri Wrote: I wouldn't dispute there are secular trends or say it's unique to the culture Shaw has put in place, but it's exacerbated by Shaw and his culture.
What's been so corrosive has been that these secular trends have coincided with a coach who promotes a professional ethos and leans into the transactional nature of the football player-university relationship. We pride ourselves in being pro-style in numerous senses, we eschew contact in practices, we deliberately and ostentatiously treat our players as whole humans rather than football players, we emphasize the academic/degree/network building/etc. value players get in exchange for their football labor, we take pride in advising players based on their personal interests to declare for the NFL/pursue graduate degrees elsewhere/otherwise take steps that benefit the individual but not the team, and so forth. All of these are understandable and some of them are very honorable. But in the aggregate it's a Stanford football culture that is individual rather than team-oriented, non-football vs. football-oriented, and transactional rather than emotionally-oriented. My argument is this has interacted with the secular trends in a really corrosive way for Stanford football from a competitive standpoint. Maybe that's ok because we're doing it out of interest for the whole human. But we make ourselves extra susceptible to the secular trends in college football by leaning into them.
Conversely, there are teams that still emphasize team. There are places where it's fun to play football, the coaches don't design a whole program around football labor being an investment to get a prudent post-football professional network out of the transaction, individuals feel a sense of loyalty or even obligation, and failures on the football field really sting because that's what unifies the players and there is no consolation prize for failure, and so forth.
I am not saying there aren't shifts in the landscape that make the old ways of operating more difficult. But when you create an individually-oriented, academically-oriented, and openly transactional culture it makes sense players will seek personally greener pastures elsewhere. This is not the case, at least to this degree, in all programs. My view is that post-Shaw it would be great to have a coach who fosters the team, football, and emotional parts of the equation. Coaches who talk a lot about the 40 year decision, Stanford Men, and professionalism will be red flags for me. Maybe instead of being #7 in the country in fewest penalty yards we can be #7 in something actually useful like rushing or passing yards. Maybe we can have a team ethos that gets more than the sum of the parts. And, yes, maybe we can even get players who want to fulfill their eligibility even if they don't have graduate degree prospects (and maybe we'll let them do that).
You are right, of course, regarding importance of 5th years to Stanford’s previous success. But no matter the explanation, the fact is the “5th year” is a thing of the past. There is no reason to redshirt anyone that has ability. Cause that 5th year, if played, is just as likely to be played elsewhere. It’s a major landscape change. And again, it hurts Stanford disproportionately.
Having said that, I agree completely with your disdain for the Shaw Stanford Man BS. I harken back to Denny Green who from day one made it clear he wasn’t going to put up with what I then called The Stanford Renaissance Man as football player. And he wasn’t going to use recruiting limitations as an excuse. Green, like Harbaugh, had that Big 10 power football mentality. Their teams reflected that. Whoever is the next coach hopefully has that mentality.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - CowboyIndian - 10-03-2022
(10-03-2022, 10:03 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: Not to mention that Stanford simply isn't the type of place that would pay a coach a large sum of money to walk away.
We have done exactly that TWICE in the past 20 years.
RE: Shaw on the hot seat? - StanfordMatt - 10-03-2022
(10-03-2022, 10:28 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(10-03-2022, 10:03 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: Not to mention that Stanford simply isn't the type of place that would pay a coach a large sum of money to walk away.
We have done exactly that TWICE in the past 20 years.
Genuinely curious - who? Assuming we're talking about the three revenue sports in which large sums of money are at stake, I see:
FB
Willingham - left voluntarily for ND (no buyout owed)
Buddy/Walt - never won enough to earn a large contract extension
Harbaugh - left voluntarily for 49ers
MBB
Monty - left voluntarily for Dubs
Trent - left voluntarily for LSU
Dawkins - we didn't pay him and he sued us (only $2.3 million in dispute)
WBB
N/A