[stupac2]

All I'd like to see is a new OC who brings new ideas into the program, that can be given the room to succeed or fail on his own merits.  Is this some kind of outlier position of significance among the Stanford fan base, or in any way unreasonable?

I think it's just that our experience hasn't actually proved it's necessary, at least not yet. The pushback you're receiving is basically combinations of:

1) It's not actually clear that the offense braintrust is broken. We need to give it at least the rest of the season, but since we completely dominated what was the #2 defense in the conference after getting dominated by a terrible one, I think Bloomgren and co have earned a reprieve.

2) It's not actually clear that, if the braintrust were broken, bringing in new blood would be the answer. As WiM posted those changes fail as often as they succeed, and they seem to fail pretty miserably. Making a change could end up being significantly worse than staying the course.

So your calls for change just seem premature and overly risky given the state of the program.

[stupac2]

All I'd like to see is a new OC who brings new ideas into the program, that can be given the room to succeed or fail on his own merits.  Is this some kind of outlier position of significance among the Stanford fan base, or in any way unreasonable?

I think it's just that our experience hasn't actually proved it's necessary, at least not yet. The pushback you're receiving is basically combinations of:

1) It's not actually clear that the offense braintrust is broken. We need to give it at least the rest of the season, but since we completely dominated what was the #2 defense in the conference after getting dominated by a terrible one, I think Bloomgren and co have earned a reprieve.

2) It's not actually clear that, if the braintrust were broken, bringing in new blood would be the answer. As WiM posted those changes fail as often as they succeed, and they seem to fail pretty miserably. Making a change could end up being significantly worse than staying the course.

So your calls for change just seem premature and overly risky given the state of the program.