[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

It's not a straw man. You, yourself said

I think there is a difference between being a "Shawtagonist" and just not being sold on him yet.

What does this man have to do to sell himself to you?

And for what little it's worth, I wasn't even thinking of you when I was referring to some of the biggest Shawtagonists. But if the shoe does end up fitting...

He has to show that 8-5 and Fight Hunger bowls are not considered the new norm, but disappointments.  That is for me personally.  I have conversed with many other Stanford fans who would be positively elated if 8-win seasons were the norm, because they remember a time when a .500 season was considered a lofty goal.  And that is absolutely fine.  Those who feel that way are certainly not incorrect.  However, what we have seen since 2010 is that national prominence in football is absolutely achievable and sustainable at Stanford.  And that, to me, should be the goal -- 10+ wins, consistently.  Now that it has become cool for young kids to be stellar football players and scholars, I don't think that's an impossible goal.

TPOTC, I agree with your high regard for the transformational impact of Jim Harbaugh.  I think most people here do.  But it does not have to be either/or.  I think the intensity of your enthusiasm for Harbaugh places blinders on you about Shaw.

It is similar to how 49er fans idolized Joe Montana and ultimately lamented his departure.  Many of them could not become Steve Young fans because, somewhere deep inside, I think they felt it would dilute their love of Joe Cool.  Young's normal miscues then became fodder for many to deride him as not as talented as Montana.  I felt bad for those people, because they missed the incredible gifts that Steve Young provided for the fans.  9er fans had perhaps the most remarkable consecutive QB's ever in the history of the NFL (although I'm confident that BC or WIM will correct me)

Shaw is the right coach for Stanford football.  He has confused me and frustrated me at times, but I love his demeanor, his character, his values and I hope he breaks Paterno's record for longevity (even if there is another coach other than Paterno with greater longevity somewhere in the annals of NAIA-football history  ;D).

I'm actually not as passionate about Harbaugh as I seem.  I tend to perch myself atop a soap box when I feel my point is not being clearly conveyed, is all.  As a 49er fan I have my own issues with certain aspects of Harbaugh's coaching and certainly don't think him infallible.

Having said that, I like Shaw a lot.  I don't disagree with your last point about him being the right fit for the program.  My only question, as (hopefully) elucidated above, is whether he can maintain the kind of on-field success he achieved when he first took over.  That is what I want out of him.  Others may not care as much, as Shaw has many remarkable qualities that transcend football that make him a fantastic ambassador for the university.

[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131359#msg131359 date=1443416900]
The issue is whether his tenure would have been as impressive had he not succeeded Harbaugh.  What would Shaw have done if, in a hypothetical universe, he had succeeded Harris in 2007?  Would he have won two conference titles and a Rose Bowl in his first three seasons?  I have a very hard time believing so.  What would you say?

That's not the issue at all. Shaw isn't tasked with building a program from scratch. His job is to sustain and build success of the existing program.

The same question could be asked about the Oregon program. Could Chip Kelly have succeeded without the foundation Mike Belotti built? We don't know, but that wasn't his job. His job was to use the reputation Belotti built, along with the facilities available through Phil Knight to sustain and improve on that success. Most programs with sustained success have that continued success because they've built an infrastructure of donors, facilities, reputation, recruiting, and even a certain ethos. Coaches in programs with sustained success aren't expected to build the program from the ground up.
[/quote]

That's absolutely a fair point.  And as I've hopefully made clear by now, I'm just waiting to see if Shaw can maintain that same success.  The very fact I question it seems to rub some here the wrong way, and I'm not quite sure why.  Actually, "question" is a strong word, as it implies doubt.  I don't doubt that he can do it, I simply don't know.  And that's the entirety of my point.

The reason I bring up Shaw succeeding Harris is because I've seen some people here -- I'm sure I've seen you do it, but if I'm wrong then I do apologize -- say things like "Well Shaw won a Rose Bowl and Harbaugh didn't."  That's correct, but very much an oversimplification of the situation.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

It's not a straw man. You, yourself said

I think there is a difference between being a "Shawtagonist" and just not being sold on him yet.

What does this man have to do to sell himself to you?

And for what little it's worth, I wasn't even thinking of you when I was referring to some of the biggest Shawtagonists. But if the shoe does end up fitting...

He has to show that 8-5 and Fight Hunger bowls are not considered the new norm, but disappointments.  That is for me personally.  I have conversed with many other Stanford fans who would be positively elated if 8-win seasons were the norm, because they remember a time when a .500 season was considered a lofty goal.  And that is absolutely fine.  Those who feel that way are certainly not incorrect.  However, what we have seen since 2010 is that national prominence in football is absolutely achievable and sustainable at Stanford.  And that, to me, should be the goal -- 10+ wins, consistently.  Now that it has become cool for young kids to be stellar football players and scholars, I don't think that's an impossible goal.

TPOTC, I agree with your high regard for the transformational impact of Jim Harbaugh.  I think most people here do.  But it does not have to be either/or.  I think the intensity of your enthusiasm for Harbaugh places blinders on you about Shaw.

It is similar to how 49er fans idolized Joe Montana and ultimately lamented his departure.  Many of them could not become Steve Young fans because, somewhere deep inside, I think they felt it would dilute their love of Joe Cool.  Young's normal miscues then became fodder for many to deride him as not as talented as Montana.  I felt bad for those people, because they missed the incredible gifts that Steve Young provided for the fans.  9er fans had perhaps the most remarkable consecutive QB's ever in the history of the NFL (although I'm confident that BC or WIM will correct me)

Shaw is the right coach for Stanford football.  He has confused me and frustrated me at times, but I love his demeanor, his character, his values and I hope he breaks Paterno's record for longevity (even if there is another coach other than Paterno with greater longevity somewhere in the annals of NAIA-football history  ;D).

I'm actually not as passionate about Harbaugh as I seem.  I tend to perch myself atop a soap box when I feel my point is not being clearly conveyed, is all.  As a 49er fan I have my own issues with certain aspects of Harbaugh's coaching and certainly don't think him infallible.

Having said that, I like Shaw a lot.  I don't disagree with your last point about him being the right fit for the program.  My only question, as (hopefully) elucidated above, is whether he can maintain the kind of on-field success he achieved when he first took over.  That is what I want out of him.  Others may not care as much, as Shaw has many remarkable qualities that transcend football that make him a fantastic ambassador for the university.

[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131359#msg131359 date=1443416900]
The issue is whether his tenure would have been as impressive had he not succeeded Harbaugh.  What would Shaw have done if, in a hypothetical universe, he had succeeded Harris in 2007?  Would he have won two conference titles and a Rose Bowl in his first three seasons?  I have a very hard time believing so.  What would you say?

That's not the issue at all. Shaw isn't tasked with building a program from scratch. His job is to sustain and build success of the existing program.

The same question could be asked about the Oregon program. Could Chip Kelly have succeeded without the foundation Mike Belotti built? We don't know, but that wasn't his job. His job was to use the reputation Belotti built, along with the facilities available through Phil Knight to sustain and improve on that success. Most programs with sustained success have that continued success because they've built an infrastructure of donors, facilities, reputation, recruiting, and even a certain ethos. Coaches in programs with sustained success aren't expected to build the program from the ground up.
[/quote]

That's absolutely a fair point.  And as I've hopefully made clear by now, I'm just waiting to see if Shaw can maintain that same success.  The very fact I question it seems to rub some here the wrong way, and I'm not quite sure why.  Actually, "question" is a strong word, as it implies doubt.  I don't doubt that he can do it, I simply don't know.  And that's the entirety of my point.

The reason I bring up Shaw succeeding Harris is because I've seen some people here -- I'm sure I've seen you do it, but if I'm wrong then I do apologize -- say things like "Well Shaw won a Rose Bowl and Harbaugh didn't."  That's correct, but very much an oversimplification of the situation.