[OutsiderFan]

Garvin, you're not seeing the forest through the trees here.  Tedford is an analog to Shaw for a few primary reasons:

1. Both head coaches at institutions that have never demanded winning football championships (and in some cases actively undermined the idea of having a winning football team or a team period)

2. Both brought greater success at the start of their tenure than the school had experienced for a long time

3. Both offensive-minded guys most observers would call control freaks with the "bunker mentality"

4. Both had generationally great QBs to help build their programs

5. Both experiencing declines after being rewarded for past performance

6. Welcoming higher expectations out of one side of their mouth, but bristling at criticism when fans complain about team performance because they feel 7-5 seasons aren't any longer good enough

The most meaningful common denominator is #1.  That's pretty hard to overcome. Unless the institutions decide they do want to put a high priority on winning football championships and hold coaches accountable to that standard, they won't happen very often.  And BTW, that doesn't mean firing coaches every year when they don't win a championship.  But it does mean putting coaches on notice that 7-5 records are not acceptable and won't be tolerated over the long haul.

I know the idea of admitting Stanford is anything like Ca.l is hard to take, but as much as the institutions are different, they also share some key similarities that make them historically lousy football schools.  Right now, Dyke.s brings Ca.l football the sense of urgency and priority to win because he and his OC Tony Franklin are trying to prove themselves as elite coaches.  They want bigger paychecks and/or a bigger job so Ca.l football is on an upswing.  If I was buying stock in the programs, right now, I'd be buying Ca.l because I don't think Stanford has the sense of urgency to make the changes necessary to stay a championship contender.  Football championships aren't important enough at Stanford to make anyone truly uncomfortable when they aren't being won.

[OutsiderFan]

Garvin, you're not seeing the forest through the trees here.  Tedford is an analog to Shaw for a few primary reasons:

1. Both head coaches at institutions that have never demanded winning football championships (and in some cases actively undermined the idea of having a winning football team or a team period)

2. Both brought greater success at the start of their tenure than the school had experienced for a long time

3. Both offensive-minded guys most observers would call control freaks with the "bunker mentality"

4. Both had generationally great QBs to help build their programs

5. Both experiencing declines after being rewarded for past performance

6. Welcoming higher expectations out of one side of their mouth, but bristling at criticism when fans complain about team performance because they feel 7-5 seasons aren't any longer good enough

The most meaningful common denominator is #1.  That's pretty hard to overcome. Unless the institutions decide they do want to put a high priority on winning football championships and hold coaches accountable to that standard, they won't happen very often.  And BTW, that doesn't mean firing coaches every year when they don't win a championship.  But it does mean putting coaches on notice that 7-5 records are not acceptable and won't be tolerated over the long haul.

I know the idea of admitting Stanford is anything like Ca.l is hard to take, but as much as the institutions are different, they also share some key similarities that make them historically lousy football schools.  Right now, Dyke.s brings Ca.l football the sense of urgency and priority to win because he and his OC Tony Franklin are trying to prove themselves as elite coaches.  They want bigger paychecks and/or a bigger job so Ca.l football is on an upswing.  If I was buying stock in the programs, right now, I'd be buying Ca.l because I don't think Stanford has the sense of urgency to make the changes necessary to stay a championship contender.  Football championships aren't important enough at Stanford to make anyone truly uncomfortable when they aren't being won.