[Maple Leaf]

Eric or anyone else who can read the entire article - did Mandel talk to Muir or anyone else in the AD? Or does he just quote people from within the football program? The people running a $100M Athletic Department that could be hemorrhaging money because of poor attendance and low enthusiasm for football might not "like where we are."

Mandel did not talk with Muir on anyone else in the AD; he did talk with Shaw, Anderson and Pritchard.  Mandel did quote an assistant coach from another pac 12 team.

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

Pac 12 assistant stated the obvious:  No longer blue collar physical types that would beat the snot out of you and you would feel it for weeks after the game, and opposing coaches hated playing against Stanford's physical style.....teams use to fear playing Stanford, not anymore.  Added also the statements of can't run the ball, do not have running backs like in the past years, wide receivers are big and physical, but do not have people who can run past the defense.

[Maple Leaf]

Eric or anyone else who can read the entire article - did Mandel talk to Muir or anyone else in the AD? Or does he just quote people from within the football program? The people running a $100M Athletic Department that could be hemorrhaging money because of poor attendance and low enthusiasm for football might not "like where we are."

Mandel did not talk with Muir on anyone else in the AD; he did talk with Shaw, Anderson and Pritchard.  Mandel did quote an assistant coach from another pac 12 team.

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

Pac 12 assistant stated the obvious:  No longer blue collar physical types that would beat the snot out of you and you would feel it for weeks after the game, and opposing coaches hated playing against Stanford's physical style.....teams use to fear playing Stanford, not anymore.  Added also the statements of can't run the ball, do not have running backs like in the past years, wide receivers are big and physical, but do not have people who can run past the defense.

[82lsju]

My bona-fides as a SIX-decade supporter and follower of Stanford Football are well known to most on this site so I won't go into them here. The same folks know my sentiments about Shaw's stunningly failing stewardship of said program. I will say, in response to the piece in The Athletic and the predictable reactions here, simply that the state of the program has me returning to a personal benign neglect of and detached indifference towards the current Shaw Status Quo: the moribund, drab, eroded program over which he now presides. I plan to attend at least one game next fall, for mainly social reasons, and will probably watch some portions of what may be on national television. My only hope is that at some point the powers-that-be at Stanford someday come to their senses and reinvigorate football. In the meantime I truly and dearly miss it, as I did from 2002 through 2006. #MuirAndShawMustGo.

I've only been a fan since 1979 but in our tailgate group it looks like four of twenty people are dropping their tickets for this coming season.  Some are consolidating (six people to split four tickets) and so far two are dropping their tickets.   I considered dropping one of mine as the smart half of our couple skipped all the games last year (did attend some tailgaters) and having experienced a game free fall for the first time in a long time is likely to skip most or all the games this year.  Last year I had a difficult time finding people to use my extra ticket, given the schedule this year I'm guessing that will be much harder....and yes, most in our group (including me) now go for the social aspects of the tailgater...which if we were organized we could do at someone's house (if they got the Pac-12 network)....

[82lsju]

My bona-fides as a SIX-decade supporter and follower of Stanford Football are well known to most on this site so I won't go into them here. The same folks know my sentiments about Shaw's stunningly failing stewardship of said program. I will say, in response to the piece in The Athletic and the predictable reactions here, simply that the state of the program has me returning to a personal benign neglect of and detached indifference towards the current Shaw Status Quo: the moribund, drab, eroded program over which he now presides. I plan to attend at least one game next fall, for mainly social reasons, and will probably watch some portions of what may be on national television. My only hope is that at some point the powers-that-be at Stanford someday come to their senses and reinvigorate football. In the meantime I truly and dearly miss it, as I did from 2002 through 2006. #MuirAndShawMustGo.

I've only been a fan since 1979 but in our tailgate group it looks like four of twenty people are dropping their tickets for this coming season.  Some are consolidating (six people to split four tickets) and so far two are dropping their tickets.   I considered dropping one of mine as the smart half of our couple skipped all the games last year (did attend some tailgaters) and having experienced a game free fall for the first time in a long time is likely to skip most or all the games this year.  Last year I had a difficult time finding people to use my extra ticket, given the schedule this year I'm guessing that will be much harder....and yes, most in our group (including me) now go for the social aspects of the tailgater...which if we were organized we could do at someone's house (if they got the Pac-12 network)....

[SamuelMcF]

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

I buy that. There are numerous recent past examples of guys who were extremely interested but were dead-set on enrolling early. There are some we didn't even offer at all because of it.

I forget where I saw this stat, but over HALF of our offered targets from a very recent class (2020? The last one before our first early enrollees?) that went elsewhere enrolled early at their destination school. That's incredibly significant.

Shaw has stated recently in interviews that he wants and expects us to have quite a few more than the 3 that enrolled early this time around. They are doing well, by the way - combined for a 3.8+ GPA in their first quarter. Great data points to bring back to admissions.

[SamuelMcF]

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

I buy that. There are numerous recent past examples of guys who were extremely interested but were dead-set on enrolling early. There are some we didn't even offer at all because of it.

I forget where I saw this stat, but over HALF of our offered targets from a very recent class (2020? The last one before our first early enrollees?) that went elsewhere enrolled early at their destination school. That's incredibly significant.

Shaw has stated recently in interviews that he wants and expects us to have quite a few more than the 3 that enrolled early this time around. They are doing well, by the way - combined for a 3.8+ GPA in their first quarter. Great data points to bring back to admissions.

[Goose]

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

I buy that. There are numerous recent past examples of guys who were extremely interested but were dead-set on enrolling early. There are some we didn't even offer at all because of it.

I forget where I saw this stat, but over HALF of our offered targets from a very recent class (2020? The last one before our first early enrollees?) that went elsewhere enrolled early at their destination school. That's incredibly significant.

Shaw has stated recently in interviews that he wants and expects us to have quite a few more than the 3 that enrolled early this time around. They are doing well, by the way - combined for a 3.8+ GPA in their first quarter. Great data points to bring back to admissions.

I have to admit that I never ever ever thought they would get early admissions approved by the "powers that be". I expect some significant political capital went into that one.

[Goose]

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

I buy that. There are numerous recent past examples of guys who were extremely interested but were dead-set on enrolling early. There are some we didn't even offer at all because of it.

I forget where I saw this stat, but over HALF of our offered targets from a very recent class (2020? The last one before our first early enrollees?) that went elsewhere enrolled early at their destination school. That's incredibly significant.

Shaw has stated recently in interviews that he wants and expects us to have quite a few more than the 3 that enrolled early this time around. They are doing well, by the way - combined for a 3.8+ GPA in their first quarter. Great data points to bring back to admissions.

I have to admit that I never ever ever thought they would get early admissions approved by the "powers that be". I expect some significant political capital went into that one.

[Phogge]

For context I saw my first game in 1953 when Bobby Garrett threw for over 300 and the Indians beat the UCLA juggernaut. Taylor pulled his first string in the Big Game leading 21-7 and a fierce Paul Larson comeback tied it up and Stanford was denied the RB. For years our family had comp press tickets and from 1978-1983 we produced long form commercials/recruiting productions in NFL Films style. From 1986-2019 I has season tix. The pandemic had a bit to do with my dropping them but the biggest reason was age and a long drive from the North Coast. 2021 was boring and dispiriting (especially the last four games) on TV.

Last year was so much like Wlat 2006. Pathetic. So as a fan and onetime contract vendor I feel that I can bitch. Wish it were different but I have no faith in the program and the AD.

I saw something even worse happen at my alma mater. Once a small college powerhouse, the program got scant support from the student body and the administration. When the sport was dropped the AD cited reasons that were a bald faced lie. It was a tragic end to what Joe Verducci and Vic Rowan built. It could happen to you guys.

[Phogge]

For context I saw my first game in 1953 when Bobby Garrett threw for over 300 and the Indians beat the UCLA juggernaut. Taylor pulled his first string in the Big Game leading 21-7 and a fierce Paul Larson comeback tied it up and Stanford was denied the RB. For years our family had comp press tickets and from 1978-1983 we produced long form commercials/recruiting productions in NFL Films style. From 1986-2019 I has season tix. The pandemic had a bit to do with my dropping them but the biggest reason was age and a long drive from the North Coast. 2021 was boring and dispiriting (especially the last four games) on TV.

Last year was so much like Wlat 2006. Pathetic. So as a fan and onetime contract vendor I feel that I can bitch. Wish it were different but I have no faith in the program and the AD.

I saw something even worse happen at my alma mater. Once a small college powerhouse, the program got scant support from the student body and the administration. When the sport was dropped the AD cited reasons that were a bald faced lie. It was a tragic end to what Joe Verducci and Vic Rowan built. It could happen to you guys.

[TrumpCard]

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

I buy that. There are numerous recent past examples of guys who were extremely interested but were dead-set on enrolling early. There are some we didn't even offer at all because of it.

I forget where I saw this stat, but over HALF of our offered targets from a very recent class (2020? The last one before our first early enrollees?) that went elsewhere enrolled early at their destination school. That's incredibly significant.

Shaw has stated recently in interviews that he wants and expects us to have quite a few more than the 3 that enrolled early this time around. They are doing well, by the way - combined for a 3.8+ GPA in their first quarter. Great data points to bring back to admissions.

Unless there has been a lot of grade inflation since my days on campus, a 3.8+ GPA easily would qualify for phi beta kappa.  That's pretty stunning for students who are committing 40 hours a week to football.  Since only a small fraction of the class enrolled early, I'm assuming the ones who did are the ones with the best high school preparation, but 3.8+ is still mighty impressive.

[TrumpCard]

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

I buy that. There are numerous recent past examples of guys who were extremely interested but were dead-set on enrolling early. There are some we didn't even offer at all because of it.

I forget where I saw this stat, but over HALF of our offered targets from a very recent class (2020? The last one before our first early enrollees?) that went elsewhere enrolled early at their destination school. That's incredibly significant.

Shaw has stated recently in interviews that he wants and expects us to have quite a few more than the 3 that enrolled early this time around. They are doing well, by the way - combined for a 3.8+ GPA in their first quarter. Great data points to bring back to admissions.

Unless there has been a lot of grade inflation since my days on campus, a 3.8+ GPA easily would qualify for phi beta kappa.  That's pretty stunning for students who are committing 40 hours a week to football.  Since only a small fraction of the class enrolled early, I'm assuming the ones who did are the ones with the best high school preparation, but 3.8+ is still mighty impressive.

[Goose]

Unless there has been a lot of grade inflation since my days on campus, a 3.8+ GPA easily would qualify for phi beta kappa.

According to https://ripplematch.com/journal/article/...-4f4b544d/ the AVERAGE GPA for Stanford Undergraduates is 3.68 (in 2018). I also would guess these athletes had a conversation with their advisor about what to take Winter quarter, and it wasn't 20 units. Not to say 3.8 is a bad result, but rather that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

[Goose]

Unless there has been a lot of grade inflation since my days on campus, a 3.8+ GPA easily would qualify for phi beta kappa.

According to https://ripplematch.com/journal/article/...-4f4b544d/ the AVERAGE GPA for Stanford Undergraduates is 3.68 (in 2018). I also would guess these athletes had a conversation with their advisor about what to take Winter quarter, and it wasn't 20 units. Not to say 3.8 is a bad result, but rather that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

[cardcrimson]

Unless there has been a lot of grade inflation since my days on campus, a 3.8+ GPA easily would qualify for phi beta kappa.

According to https://ripplematch.com/journal/article/...-4f4b544d/ the AVERAGE GPA for Stanford Undergraduates is 3.68 (in 2018). I also would guess these athletes had a conversation with their advisor about what to take Winter quarter, and it wasn't 20 units. Not to say 3.8 is a bad result, but rather that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

Average is a 3.68? Explains a lot. Sheesh.

[cardcrimson]

Unless there has been a lot of grade inflation since my days on campus, a 3.8+ GPA easily would qualify for phi beta kappa.

According to https://ripplematch.com/journal/article/...-4f4b544d/ the AVERAGE GPA for Stanford Undergraduates is 3.68 (in 2018). I also would guess these athletes had a conversation with their advisor about what to take Winter quarter, and it wasn't 20 units. Not to say 3.8 is a bad result, but rather that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

Average is a 3.68? Explains a lot. Sheesh.

[BostonCard]

Personally, I think early enrollment is a bad thing for most students (not just athletes).  I wish it weren’t generally allowed, or at least that the incentives pushed against it (eg athletes would give up their redshirt, or couldn’t participate in organized team activities).  It might be the right thing for a few students, but I think most should not try to hurry through high school.

As for Shaw’s statement, I will echo cardcrimson that it reeks of everything people accuse him of. One hopes it is an attempt of projecting calm in the midst of tumult, but my first thought when reading the comment was…



BC

[BostonCard]

Personally, I think early enrollment is a bad thing for most students (not just athletes).  I wish it weren’t generally allowed, or at least that the incentives pushed against it (eg athletes would give up their redshirt, or couldn’t participate in organized team activities).  It might be the right thing for a few students, but I think most should not try to hurry through high school.

As for Shaw’s statement, I will echo cardcrimson that it reeks of everything people accuse him of. One hopes it is an attempt of projecting calm in the midst of tumult, but my first thought when reading the comment was…



BC

[dabigv13]

 In the meantime I truly and dearly miss it, as I did from 2002 through 2006. #MuirAndShawMustGo.

Maybe because those were my four years at Stanford, I'm more blase than most about the current situation. At least the basketball team was good back then though.

Muir should go IMHO, for myriad reasons with football not being too high on that list. Wish Harbaugh never left (never a chance of that sadly). But I think Stanford can certainly do much, much, much worse than Shaw. Coaches in general get too short of a leash in this sport, where so much is really just dumb chance, and Shaw has won enough here to have earned the time to try and turn things around. I'm still rooting for him to do it. And frankly with the NIL situation being what it is, I'm not sure Harbaugh or Saban or any other great CFB coach could be taking Stanford to Rose Bowls with the type of game this is turning into, and the type of school Stanford is.

[dabigv13]

 In the meantime I truly and dearly miss it, as I did from 2002 through 2006. #MuirAndShawMustGo.

Maybe because those were my four years at Stanford, I'm more blase than most about the current situation. At least the basketball team was good back then though.

Muir should go IMHO, for myriad reasons with football not being too high on that list. Wish Harbaugh never left (never a chance of that sadly). But I think Stanford can certainly do much, much, much worse than Shaw. Coaches in general get too short of a leash in this sport, where so much is really just dumb chance, and Shaw has won enough here to have earned the time to try and turn things around. I'm still rooting for him to do it. And frankly with the NIL situation being what it is, I'm not sure Harbaugh or Saban or any other great CFB coach could be taking Stanford to Rose Bowls with the type of game this is turning into, and the type of school Stanford is.

[Brickcity]

 In the meantime I truly and dearly miss it, as I did from 2002 through 2006. #MuirAndShawMustGo.

Maybe because those were my four years at Stanford, I'm more blase than most about the current situation. At least the basketball team was good back then though.

Muir should go IMHO, for myriad reasons with football not being too high on that list. Wish Harbaugh never left (never a chance of that sadly). But I think Stanford can certainly do much, much, much worse than Shaw. Coaches in general get too short of a leash in this sport, where so much is really just dumb chance, and Shaw has won enough here to have earned the time to try and turn things around. I'm still rooting for him to do it. And frankly with the NIL situation being what it is, I'm not sure Harbaugh or Saban or any other great CFB coach could be taking Stanford to Rose Bowls with the type of game this is turning into, and the type of school Stanford is.

"Stanford can certainly do much, much, much worse than Shaw. Coaches in general get too short of a leash in this sport, where so much is really just dumb chance."

Really? I think your expectations for the program - as in, rock-bottom low -  must have been formed and permanently cemented by watching those teams under Teevens and Walt. But, I have news for you: the results that Harbaugh got - Hell, the results under guys like Dennis Green and Tyrone Willingham - were not a function of "dumb chance." The only "dumb chance" involving Stanford football coaches of recent decades was the sheer luck that Shaw experienced by being named the head coach after Harbaugh left.

For many of us who have followed Stanford football closely, the signs of Shaw's ineptitude appeared in his first season as head coach (can you say, the "Fiasco Bowl"?) and have repeated themselves annually ever since.

[Brickcity]

 In the meantime I truly and dearly miss it, as I did from 2002 through 2006. #MuirAndShawMustGo.

Maybe because those were my four years at Stanford, I'm more blase than most about the current situation. At least the basketball team was good back then though.

Muir should go IMHO, for myriad reasons with football not being too high on that list. Wish Harbaugh never left (never a chance of that sadly). But I think Stanford can certainly do much, much, much worse than Shaw. Coaches in general get too short of a leash in this sport, where so much is really just dumb chance, and Shaw has won enough here to have earned the time to try and turn things around. I'm still rooting for him to do it. And frankly with the NIL situation being what it is, I'm not sure Harbaugh or Saban or any other great CFB coach could be taking Stanford to Rose Bowls with the type of game this is turning into, and the type of school Stanford is.

"Stanford can certainly do much, much, much worse than Shaw. Coaches in general get too short of a leash in this sport, where so much is really just dumb chance."

Really? I think your expectations for the program - as in, rock-bottom low -  must have been formed and permanently cemented by watching those teams under Teevens and Walt. But, I have news for you: the results that Harbaugh got - Hell, the results under guys like Dennis Green and Tyrone Willingham - were not a function of "dumb chance." The only "dumb chance" involving Stanford football coaches of recent decades was the sheer luck that Shaw experienced by being named the head coach after Harbaugh left.

For many of us who have followed Stanford football closely, the signs of Shaw's ineptitude appeared in his first season as head coach (can you say, the "Fiasco Bowl"?) and have repeated themselves annually ever since.

[dabigv13]

I got to see McCaffery and Hogan crush Iowa in Pasadena. Shaw's 5th year. Not Harbaugh's doing. A definite high point in my Stanford fandom (only the Nick Robinson buzzer beater court storming matches it). Shaw coached for most of the other great Stanford wins I've seen in person too.

Like I said, I was introduced to Stanford football in the Wlat and Buddy era (I found this website because of an ad in the Daily that I think Redrum or Garvin had thought up to try and get some student participation). So yeah my standards may be low. But Willingham and Green don't come close to Shaw's record, and they didn't have any wins like that Rose Bowl win. Ty Willingham in 7 years had 9 wins once. Shaw in 10 (ignoring the shortened covid year) has had 9 or (usually) more wins 7 times. .674 winning percentage easily tops for all Stanford coaches going back to Clark Shaughnessy in 40-41, only two years though, and before that Pop Warner from 24-32. If Shaw loses his next 17 games, he'd be about tied with Ralston for win percentage.

I haven't liked what I've seen the past few years either but just browse this list, look at the numbers. If we hire someone new are they going to be a Wlat, a Buddy, a Wiggin, Curtice, Elway, Green?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_St...ll_coaches

Shaw could have 10 more losing seasons in a row at Stanford and if I ever saw him in public I'd tell him how much joy he brought me as a Stanford fan. Wlat or Buddy, I would have much different things to say.

[dabigv13]

I got to see McCaffery and Hogan crush Iowa in Pasadena. Shaw's 5th year. Not Harbaugh's doing. A definite high point in my Stanford fandom (only the Nick Robinson buzzer beater court storming matches it). Shaw coached for most of the other great Stanford wins I've seen in person too.

Like I said, I was introduced to Stanford football in the Wlat and Buddy era (I found this website because of an ad in the Daily that I think Redrum or Garvin had thought up to try and get some student participation). So yeah my standards may be low. But Willingham and Green don't come close to Shaw's record, and they didn't have any wins like that Rose Bowl win. Ty Willingham in 7 years had 9 wins once. Shaw in 10 (ignoring the shortened covid year) has had 9 or (usually) more wins 7 times. .674 winning percentage easily tops for all Stanford coaches going back to Clark Shaughnessy in 40-41, only two years though, and before that Pop Warner from 24-32. If Shaw loses his next 17 games, he'd be about tied with Ralston for win percentage.

I haven't liked what I've seen the past few years either but just browse this list, look at the numbers. If we hire someone new are they going to be a Wlat, a Buddy, a Wiggin, Curtice, Elway, Green?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_St...ll_coaches

Shaw could have 10 more losing seasons in a row at Stanford and if I ever saw him in public I'd tell him how much joy he brought me as a Stanford fan. Wlat or Buddy, I would have much different things to say.

[BostonCard]

Really? I think your expectations for the program - as in, rock-bottom low -  must have been formed and permanently cemented by watching those teams under Teevens and Walt. But, I have news for you: the results that Harbaugh got - Hell, the results under guys like Dennis Green and Tyrone Willingham - were not a function of "dumb chance." The only "dumb chance" involving Stanford football coaches of recent decades was the sheer luck that Shaw experienced by being named the head coach after Harbaugh left. 

Willingham, who I liked, had three losing seasons in 7 years. He only ever finished with a ranked team twice.  His 7 year record at Stanford was 44-36-1, 32-24. When he was our coach, he was accused of being arrogant, lazy, and stubborn, which is oddly familiar, and his early success was often ascribed to the guys Bill Walsh recruited.

Shaw’s last 7 years (his worst) have featured two losing seasons, three end of season ranked teams, and a 7 year record of 51-33, which is still better than Willingham. He has been accused of being arrogant, lazy, and stubborn, and all of his success, even a pac-12 north championship 7 years after Harbaugh left was ascribed to the guys Harbaugh recruited, so there’s that.  Yes, I’m having a little fun with you, but I suspect that after Shaw is gone, the next time a coach struggles, he will be looked upon more fondly than he is now.

Denny Green’s 3-year record at Stanford was 16-18, but at least his one winning season was his last one, but like Willingham, he left for greener pastures and stuck Stanford with a sexual harassment lawsuit. https://apnews.com/article/11c19c21043d4...3d641203e0

BC

[BostonCard]

Really? I think your expectations for the program - as in, rock-bottom low -  must have been formed and permanently cemented by watching those teams under Teevens and Walt. But, I have news for you: the results that Harbaugh got - Hell, the results under guys like Dennis Green and Tyrone Willingham - were not a function of "dumb chance." The only "dumb chance" involving Stanford football coaches of recent decades was the sheer luck that Shaw experienced by being named the head coach after Harbaugh left. 

Willingham, who I liked, had three losing seasons in 7 years. He only ever finished with a ranked team twice.  His 7 year record at Stanford was 44-36-1, 32-24. When he was our coach, he was accused of being arrogant, lazy, and stubborn, which is oddly familiar, and his early success was often ascribed to the guys Bill Walsh recruited.

Shaw’s last 7 years (his worst) have featured two losing seasons, three end of season ranked teams, and a 7 year record of 51-33, which is still better than Willingham. He has been accused of being arrogant, lazy, and stubborn, and all of his success, even a pac-12 north championship 7 years after Harbaugh left was ascribed to the guys Harbaugh recruited, so there’s that.  Yes, I’m having a little fun with you, but I suspect that after Shaw is gone, the next time a coach struggles, he will be looked upon more fondly than he is now.

Denny Green’s 3-year record at Stanford was 16-18, but at least his one winning season was his last one, but like Willingham, he left for greener pastures and stuck Stanford with a sexual harassment lawsuit. https://apnews.com/article/11c19c21043d4...3d641203e0

BC

[Brickcity]

Really? I think your expectations for the program - as in, rock-bottom low -  must have been formed and permanently cemented by watching those teams under Teevens and Walt. But, I have news for you: the results that Harbaugh got - Hell, the results under guys like Dennis Green and Tyrone Willingham - were not a function of "dumb chance." The only "dumb chance" involving Stanford football coaches of recent decades was the sheer luck that Shaw experienced by being named the head coach after Harbaugh left. 

Willingham, who I liked, had three losing seasons in 7 years. He only ever finished with a ranked team twice.  His 7 year record at Stanford was 44-36-1, 32-24. When he was our coach, he was accused of being arrogant, lazy, and stubborn, which is oddly familiar, and his early success was often ascribed to the guys Bill Walsh recruited.

Shaw’s last 7 years (his worst) have featured two losing seasons, three end of season ranked teams, and a 7 year record of 51-33, which is still better than Willingham. He has been accused of being arrogant, lazy, and stubborn, and all of his success, even a pac-12 north championship 7 years after Harbaugh left was ascribed to the guys Harbaugh recruited, so there’s that.  Yes, I’m having a little fun with you, but I suspect that after Shaw is gone, the next time a coach struggles, he will be looked upon more fondly than he is now.

Denny Green’s 3-year record at Stanford was 16-18, but at least his one winning season was his last one, but like Willingham, he left for greener pastures and stuck Stanford with a sexual harassment lawsuit. https://apnews.com/article/11c19c21043d4...3d641203e0

BC

Shaw inherited a Ferrari and has turned it into a Yugo. The program has been deteriorating - albeit gradually - for years. But, you guys know that.

[Brickcity]

Really? I think your expectations for the program - as in, rock-bottom low -  must have been formed and permanently cemented by watching those teams under Teevens and Walt. But, I have news for you: the results that Harbaugh got - Hell, the results under guys like Dennis Green and Tyrone Willingham - were not a function of "dumb chance." The only "dumb chance" involving Stanford football coaches of recent decades was the sheer luck that Shaw experienced by being named the head coach after Harbaugh left. 

Willingham, who I liked, had three losing seasons in 7 years. He only ever finished with a ranked team twice.  His 7 year record at Stanford was 44-36-1, 32-24. When he was our coach, he was accused of being arrogant, lazy, and stubborn, which is oddly familiar, and his early success was often ascribed to the guys Bill Walsh recruited.

Shaw’s last 7 years (his worst) have featured two losing seasons, three end of season ranked teams, and a 7 year record of 51-33, which is still better than Willingham. He has been accused of being arrogant, lazy, and stubborn, and all of his success, even a pac-12 north championship 7 years after Harbaugh left was ascribed to the guys Harbaugh recruited, so there’s that.  Yes, I’m having a little fun with you, but I suspect that after Shaw is gone, the next time a coach struggles, he will be looked upon more fondly than he is now.

Denny Green’s 3-year record at Stanford was 16-18, but at least his one winning season was his last one, but like Willingham, he left for greener pastures and stuck Stanford with a sexual harassment lawsuit. https://apnews.com/article/11c19c21043d4...3d641203e0

BC

Shaw inherited a Ferrari and has turned it into a Yugo. The program has been deteriorating - albeit gradually - for years. But, you guys know that.

[BostonCard]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

[BostonCard]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

[JustAnotherFan]

JR, a little change might have helped lower the pessimism. But none came thus the feeling that the coach has his head buried in the sand.

what, we're going from a 3-4 to a 4-3........

We are going from 3-9 to 2-10.

[JustAnotherFan]

JR, a little change might have helped lower the pessimism. But none came thus the feeling that the coach has his head buried in the sand.

what, we're going from a 3-4 to a 4-3........

We are going from 3-9 to 2-10.

[OutsiderFan]

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

I buy that. There are numerous recent past examples of guys who were extremely interested but were dead-set on enrolling early. There are some we didn't even offer at all because of it.

I forget where I saw this stat, but over HALF of our offered targets from a very recent class (2020? The last one before our first early enrollees?) that went elsewhere enrolled early at their destination school. That's incredibly significant.

Shaw has stated recently in interviews that he wants and expects us to have quite a few more than the 3 that enrolled early this time around. They are doing well, by the way - combined for a 3.8+ GPA in their first quarter. Great data points to bring back to admissions.

Some people on this board knew two things had to be addressed with much more urgency than Shaw had:

1. Accepting early enrollees
2. Allowing Official visits before January

Failing to address these issues when they should have been addressed caused exceptional damage to the program. If I've said it once, I've said it a couple dozen times, the common denominator to all my beefs with David Shaw is his lack of urgency to adapt to changing conditions, and wholesale inability to be proactive and innovative, on and off the field.

Now we have the NIL dynamic to consider. Does anyone think Shaw is going to navigate it quickly and appropriately given his failures to address the above items in a timely manner?

When you apply his lack of urgency and proactivity to all other areas of the program, it is kind of scary.  The fact is David Shaw is far more concerned about his own comfort than he is winning. The one thing I don't know, but would be the worst, is if he hasn't changed assistants because he doesn't want people who will challenge him with better ideas on the staff.

Great managers always want more talented, smarter, ambitious people working for them. I see no evidence Shaw has any such person working for him.

[OutsiderFan]

Most interesting was the statement from from Shaw on how the early enrollment restrictions in the past reduce the number of potential recruits by 33%.

I buy that. There are numerous recent past examples of guys who were extremely interested but were dead-set on enrolling early. There are some we didn't even offer at all because of it.

I forget where I saw this stat, but over HALF of our offered targets from a very recent class (2020? The last one before our first early enrollees?) that went elsewhere enrolled early at their destination school. That's incredibly significant.

Shaw has stated recently in interviews that he wants and expects us to have quite a few more than the 3 that enrolled early this time around. They are doing well, by the way - combined for a 3.8+ GPA in their first quarter. Great data points to bring back to admissions.

Some people on this board knew two things had to be addressed with much more urgency than Shaw had:

1. Accepting early enrollees
2. Allowing Official visits before January

Failing to address these issues when they should have been addressed caused exceptional damage to the program. If I've said it once, I've said it a couple dozen times, the common denominator to all my beefs with David Shaw is his lack of urgency to adapt to changing conditions, and wholesale inability to be proactive and innovative, on and off the field.

Now we have the NIL dynamic to consider. Does anyone think Shaw is going to navigate it quickly and appropriately given his failures to address the above items in a timely manner?

When you apply his lack of urgency and proactivity to all other areas of the program, it is kind of scary.  The fact is David Shaw is far more concerned about his own comfort than he is winning. The one thing I don't know, but would be the worst, is if he hasn't changed assistants because he doesn't want people who will challenge him with better ideas on the staff.

Great managers always want more talented, smarter, ambitious people working for them. I see no evidence Shaw has any such person working for him.

[JohnR34231]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

The statute of limitations on Harbaugh is whatever the poster decides it should be to help him make his point that Shaw basically sucks.

[JohnR34231]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

The statute of limitations on Harbaugh is whatever the poster decides it should be to help him make his point that Shaw basically sucks.

[OutsiderFan]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

The statute of limitations on Harbaugh is whatever the poster decides it should be to help him make his point that Shaw basically sucks.

There is no statute of limitations necessary to demonstrate Shaw is no longer capable of winning the North division of the Pac-12.

[OutsiderFan]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

The statute of limitations on Harbaugh is whatever the poster decides it should be to help him make his point that Shaw basically sucks.

There is no statute of limitations necessary to demonstrate Shaw is no longer capable of winning the North division of the Pac-12.

[JohnR34231]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

The statute of limitations on Harbaugh is whatever the poster decides it should be to help him make his point that Shaw basically sucks.

There is no statute of limitations necessary to demonstrate Shaw is no longer capable of winning the North division of the Pac-12.

Oh, OK. Now that we have that settled.......

[JohnR34231]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

The statute of limitations on Harbaugh is whatever the poster decides it should be to help him make his point that Shaw basically sucks.

There is no statute of limitations necessary to demonstrate Shaw is no longer capable of winning the North division of the Pac-12.

Oh, OK. Now that we have that settled.......