10-09-2022, 06:43 PM
I'm wondering if any of the 16 people who said Shaw should stay have changed their minds yet?
Poll: Should Shaw coach Stanford next year? - You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Shaw should coach in 2023
18.68%
17
18.68%
Shaw should be fired before 2023
81.32%
74
81.32%
* You voted for this item.
Show Results
Simple Poll. Should Shaw Stay or Not
Step carefully, Stepford 16!
The borg are trying hard to assimilate us … and their enticements got stronger last night.
The borg are trying hard to assimilate us … and their enticements got stronger last night.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2022, 09:45 PM by Leftcoast.)
Step carefully, Stepford 16!
The borg are trying hard to assimilate us … and their enticements got stronger last night.
The borg are trying hard to assimilate us … and their enticements got stronger last night.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
10-09-2022, 09:14 PM
(10-09-2022, 06:45 PM)Mick Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:43 PM)winflop Wrote: I'm wondering if any of the 16 people who said Shaw should stay have changed their minds yet?
If Stanford goes 1-11, how many of the 16 will change their minds?
It's reminiscent of many supporters of The Great Bloviator. No evidence, however strong, can change their minds. Figures; their beliefs are not rooted in evidence.
(10-09-2022, 06:45 PM)Mick Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:43 PM)winflop Wrote: I'm wondering if any of the 16 people who said Shaw should stay have changed their minds yet?
If Stanford goes 1-11, how many of the 16 will change their minds?
It's reminiscent of many supporters of The Great Bloviator. No evidence, however strong, can change their minds. Figures; their beliefs are not rooted in evidence.
10-09-2022, 10:02 PM
I wonder what the payout would be on a 7 team parlay betting Stanford to lose the remaining games.
If the each game were an “even” bet it would pay 75 to 1. Guess 40 to 1???
If the each game were an “even” bet it would pay 75 to 1. Guess 40 to 1???
I wonder what the payout would be on a 7 team parlay betting Stanford to lose the remaining games.
If the each game were an “even” bet it would pay 75 to 1. Guess 40 to 1???
If the each game were an “even” bet it would pay 75 to 1. Guess 40 to 1???
10-09-2022, 10:15 PM
The poll was posted a week ago, so I based my answer on that. It is kind of a ridiculous question to ask when we're not even midway into the season because Stanford is not firing Shaw in the middle of this season for football performance reasons. Clearly, many have already made up their minds and no amount of information will change that either in favor of termination or against it. (Some have apparently resorted to rooting against Stanford in the hope that more losses will spur Shaw's termination.)
As for me, I had decided, based on the reality of the situation at Stanford, (our AD and University Leaders) to wait until this season is finished to make a decision. Regardless of how upset I am about the loss last night, I don't see any reason to change that. If I think Shaw should go, I will make that clear to the administration and/or reduce donations, etc. I am not likely to waste my time yelling about it on the Cardboard. I am also not likely to yell about it at the games. There is a guy in my section who has been yelling to fire Shaw for a few years. He never stays for the second half even when we are playing well. He has yelled that Shaw isn't worth his donation. If he thinks that is true, he should change or stop his donation. I think it unlikely his donation is big enough to move the dial much on any decisions about Shaw but it can all add up. I also think that his donation is likely not as big as his mouth.
Cheers,
Pete F.
As for me, I had decided, based on the reality of the situation at Stanford, (our AD and University Leaders) to wait until this season is finished to make a decision. Regardless of how upset I am about the loss last night, I don't see any reason to change that. If I think Shaw should go, I will make that clear to the administration and/or reduce donations, etc. I am not likely to waste my time yelling about it on the Cardboard. I am also not likely to yell about it at the games. There is a guy in my section who has been yelling to fire Shaw for a few years. He never stays for the second half even when we are playing well. He has yelled that Shaw isn't worth his donation. If he thinks that is true, he should change or stop his donation. I think it unlikely his donation is big enough to move the dial much on any decisions about Shaw but it can all add up. I also think that his donation is likely not as big as his mouth.
Cheers,
Pete F.
The poll was posted a week ago, so I based my answer on that. It is kind of a ridiculous question to ask when we're not even midway into the season because Stanford is not firing Shaw in the middle of this season for football performance reasons. Clearly, many have already made up their minds and no amount of information will change that either in favor of termination or against it. (Some have apparently resorted to rooting against Stanford in the hope that more losses will spur Shaw's termination.)
As for me, I had decided, based on the reality of the situation at Stanford, (our AD and University Leaders) to wait until this season is finished to make a decision. Regardless of how upset I am about the loss last night, I don't see any reason to change that. If I think Shaw should go, I will make that clear to the administration and/or reduce donations, etc. I am not likely to waste my time yelling about it on the Cardboard. I am also not likely to yell about it at the games. There is a guy in my section who has been yelling to fire Shaw for a few years. He never stays for the second half even when we are playing well. He has yelled that Shaw isn't worth his donation. If he thinks that is true, he should change or stop his donation. I think it unlikely his donation is big enough to move the dial much on any decisions about Shaw but it can all add up. I also think that his donation is likely not as big as his mouth.
Cheers,
Pete F.
As for me, I had decided, based on the reality of the situation at Stanford, (our AD and University Leaders) to wait until this season is finished to make a decision. Regardless of how upset I am about the loss last night, I don't see any reason to change that. If I think Shaw should go, I will make that clear to the administration and/or reduce donations, etc. I am not likely to waste my time yelling about it on the Cardboard. I am also not likely to yell about it at the games. There is a guy in my section who has been yelling to fire Shaw for a few years. He never stays for the second half even when we are playing well. He has yelled that Shaw isn't worth his donation. If he thinks that is true, he should change or stop his donation. I think it unlikely his donation is big enough to move the dial much on any decisions about Shaw but it can all add up. I also think that his donation is likely not as big as his mouth.
Cheers,
Pete F.
10-10-2022, 06:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2022, 06:35 AM by OutsiderFan.)
(10-09-2022, 10:02 PM)PAsportsfan Wrote: I wonder what the payout would be on a 7 team parlay betting Stanford to lose the remaining games.
If the each game were an “even” bet it would pay 75 to 1. Guess 40 to 1???
I don't see how Stanford wins a game against the remaining schedule of teams, unless those teams suffer some bad injuries and Stanford is close to full strength.
If I were betting, I'd take Stanford to lose the remaining games. Someone told me it's really hard to lose them all. There is always one game you win by just chance. I told him that game was against Oregon State, and they blew it, so...
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2022, 06:35 AM by OutsiderFan.)
(10-09-2022, 10:02 PM)PAsportsfan Wrote: I wonder what the payout would be on a 7 team parlay betting Stanford to lose the remaining games.
If the each game were an “even” bet it would pay 75 to 1. Guess 40 to 1???
I don't see how Stanford wins a game against the remaining schedule of teams, unless those teams suffer some bad injuries and Stanford is close to full strength.
If I were betting, I'd take Stanford to lose the remaining games. Someone told me it's really hard to lose them all. There is always one game you win by just chance. I told him that game was against Oregon State, and they blew it, so...
10-10-2022, 07:22 AM
For what it's worth, on paper, Sagarin scopes out our schedule like this:
Colgate - WIN
USC - LOSS
at Washington - LOSS
at Oregon - LOSS
Oregon State - LOSS
at Notre Dame - 17 percent
Arizona State - 51 percent
at UCLA - 22 percent
Washington State - 42 percent
at Utah - 11 percent
at Cal - 39 percent
BYU - 47 percent
Expected win total: 3.29
Still in the 3-4 win range according to the computers. The big questions for me are intangible, specifically whether the cratering of the program is something algorithms can't keep up with and whether mounting losses crush morale in a way that makes the team play much worse in the second half of the season than the apparent first half quality of the team. Right now Sagarin has us as the #59 team in the nation, which should be able to win a couple of the four remaining on-paper near tossups. But will the team remain the level of team that played Oregon State (i.e., win 3-4 games total this year), live up to the team's talk and become a better team (getting to a bowl), or collapse under the weight of all this losing (the 1-2 total wins that feel like where we are to the fan base)? 2-10 seems right to me.
Colgate - WIN
USC - LOSS
at Washington - LOSS
at Oregon - LOSS
Oregon State - LOSS
at Notre Dame - 17 percent
Arizona State - 51 percent
at UCLA - 22 percent
Washington State - 42 percent
at Utah - 11 percent
at Cal - 39 percent
BYU - 47 percent
Expected win total: 3.29
Still in the 3-4 win range according to the computers. The big questions for me are intangible, specifically whether the cratering of the program is something algorithms can't keep up with and whether mounting losses crush morale in a way that makes the team play much worse in the second half of the season than the apparent first half quality of the team. Right now Sagarin has us as the #59 team in the nation, which should be able to win a couple of the four remaining on-paper near tossups. But will the team remain the level of team that played Oregon State (i.e., win 3-4 games total this year), live up to the team's talk and become a better team (getting to a bowl), or collapse under the weight of all this losing (the 1-2 total wins that feel like where we are to the fan base)? 2-10 seems right to me.
For what it's worth, on paper, Sagarin scopes out our schedule like this:
Colgate - WIN
USC - LOSS
at Washington - LOSS
at Oregon - LOSS
Oregon State - LOSS
at Notre Dame - 17 percent
Arizona State - 51 percent
at UCLA - 22 percent
Washington State - 42 percent
at Utah - 11 percent
at Cal - 39 percent
BYU - 47 percent
Expected win total: 3.29
Still in the 3-4 win range according to the computers. The big questions for me are intangible, specifically whether the cratering of the program is something algorithms can't keep up with and whether mounting losses crush morale in a way that makes the team play much worse in the second half of the season than the apparent first half quality of the team. Right now Sagarin has us as the #59 team in the nation, which should be able to win a couple of the four remaining on-paper near tossups. But will the team remain the level of team that played Oregon State (i.e., win 3-4 games total this year), live up to the team's talk and become a better team (getting to a bowl), or collapse under the weight of all this losing (the 1-2 total wins that feel like where we are to the fan base)? 2-10 seems right to me.
Colgate - WIN
USC - LOSS
at Washington - LOSS
at Oregon - LOSS
Oregon State - LOSS
at Notre Dame - 17 percent
Arizona State - 51 percent
at UCLA - 22 percent
Washington State - 42 percent
at Utah - 11 percent
at Cal - 39 percent
BYU - 47 percent
Expected win total: 3.29
Still in the 3-4 win range according to the computers. The big questions for me are intangible, specifically whether the cratering of the program is something algorithms can't keep up with and whether mounting losses crush morale in a way that makes the team play much worse in the second half of the season than the apparent first half quality of the team. Right now Sagarin has us as the #59 team in the nation, which should be able to win a couple of the four remaining on-paper near tossups. But will the team remain the level of team that played Oregon State (i.e., win 3-4 games total this year), live up to the team's talk and become a better team (getting to a bowl), or collapse under the weight of all this losing (the 1-2 total wins that feel like where we are to the fan base)? 2-10 seems right to me.
(10-10-2022, 06:34 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(10-09-2022, 10:02 PM)PAsportsfan Wrote: I wonder what the payout would be on a 7 team parlay betting Stanford to lose the remaining games.
If the each game were an “even” bet it would pay 75 to 1. Guess 40 to 1???
I don't see how Stanford wins a game against the remaining schedule of teams, unless those teams suffer some bad injuries and Stanford is close to full strength.
If I were betting, I'd take Stanford to lose the remaining games. Someone told me it's really hard to lose them all. There is always one game you win by just chance. I told him that game was against Oregon State, and they blew it, so...
Not only is 1-11 on the table it is highly likely. How the university responds at season's end is the only interesting thing about football right now. What a disgrace.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(10-10-2022, 06:34 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(10-09-2022, 10:02 PM)PAsportsfan Wrote: I wonder what the payout would be on a 7 team parlay betting Stanford to lose the remaining games.
If the each game were an “even” bet it would pay 75 to 1. Guess 40 to 1???
I don't see how Stanford wins a game against the remaining schedule of teams, unless those teams suffer some bad injuries and Stanford is close to full strength.
If I were betting, I'd take Stanford to lose the remaining games. Someone told me it's really hard to lose them all. There is always one game you win by just chance. I told him that game was against Oregon State, and they blew it, so...
Not only is 1-11 on the table it is highly likely. How the university responds at season's end is the only interesting thing about football right now. What a disgrace.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
10-10-2022, 08:40 AM
a head football coach has just been fired after a 1-4 start.
unfortunately, it's not David Shaw.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3476...-1-4-start
unfortunately, it's not David Shaw.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3476...-1-4-start
Cal delenda est
a head football coach has just been fired after a 1-4 start.
unfortunately, it's not David Shaw.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3476...-1-4-start
unfortunately, it's not David Shaw.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3476...-1-4-start
Cal delenda est
10-10-2022, 08:54 AM
In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(10-10-2022, 08:54 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.
I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?
(10-10-2022, 08:54 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.
I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?
10-10-2022, 10:14 AM
I think Crimson should take the 16 Shawpoligists to The Philosophers Club in West Portal, feed them a couple of boilermakers and take a re-vote. But none of them can sit on Billy McDonagh's stool.
10-10-2022, 12:22 PM
(10-10-2022, 09:09 AM)msqueri Wrote:(10-10-2022, 08:54 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.
I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?
This. We're essentially back to where Stanford football was during my undergrad days - an also ran, bottom-feeder that no one but a few ardent fans follow, and that required once-in-a-generation "EUTM" to resuscitate from its zombie-state. It's too bad, because I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model.
But Shaw's approach is so evidently not working, and he has refused to do some of the things that have long seemed necessary (replacing assistant coaches, hiring a dedicated OC, etc.) to right the ship. At this point, as reluctant as I am to admit it, I think it's time to look for a new coach, because it's hard to get worse than 0-11 against FBS schools...
(10-10-2022, 09:09 AM)msqueri Wrote:(10-10-2022, 08:54 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.
I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?
This. We're essentially back to where Stanford football was during my undergrad days - an also ran, bottom-feeder that no one but a few ardent fans follow, and that required once-in-a-generation "EUTM" to resuscitate from its zombie-state. It's too bad, because I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model.
But Shaw's approach is so evidently not working, and he has refused to do some of the things that have long seemed necessary (replacing assistant coaches, hiring a dedicated OC, etc.) to right the ship. At this point, as reluctant as I am to admit it, I think it's time to look for a new coach, because it's hard to get worse than 0-11 against FBS schools...
(10-10-2022, 12:22 PM)2006alum Wrote:(10-10-2022, 09:09 AM)msqueri Wrote:(10-10-2022, 08:54 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.
I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?
This. We're essentially back to where Stanford football was during my undergrad days - an also ran, bottom-feeder that no one but a few ardent fans follow, and that required once-in-a-generation "EUTM" to resuscitate from its zombie-state. It's too bad, because I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model.
But Shaw's approach is so evidently not working, and he has refused to do some of the things that have long seemed necessary (replacing assistant coaches, hiring a dedicated OC, etc.) to right the ship. At this point, as reluctant as I am to admit it, I think it's time to look for a new coach, because it's hard to get worse than 0-11 against FBS schools...
"I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model."
Hear, hear. Up to a point. Shaw was an apparent rising star until he was not, then exposed as something less. My point is that he really had no "brand" of his own as such; what he was doing was applying what amounted to the EUTM blueprint but in a rote, unimaginative mechanical way. Left to his own devices over the years, he ultimately failed. A shame, of course, because the planets and stars were aligned in 2010-12 for something truly dynastic. They were set up for an inheritor who was not to be.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(10-10-2022, 12:22 PM)2006alum Wrote:(10-10-2022, 09:09 AM)msqueri Wrote:(10-10-2022, 08:54 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.
I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?
This. We're essentially back to where Stanford football was during my undergrad days - an also ran, bottom-feeder that no one but a few ardent fans follow, and that required once-in-a-generation "EUTM" to resuscitate from its zombie-state. It's too bad, because I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model.
But Shaw's approach is so evidently not working, and he has refused to do some of the things that have long seemed necessary (replacing assistant coaches, hiring a dedicated OC, etc.) to right the ship. At this point, as reluctant as I am to admit it, I think it's time to look for a new coach, because it's hard to get worse than 0-11 against FBS schools...
"I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model."
Hear, hear. Up to a point. Shaw was an apparent rising star until he was not, then exposed as something less. My point is that he really had no "brand" of his own as such; what he was doing was applying what amounted to the EUTM blueprint but in a rote, unimaginative mechanical way. Left to his own devices over the years, he ultimately failed. A shame, of course, because the planets and stars were aligned in 2010-12 for something truly dynastic. They were set up for an inheritor who was not to be.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
10-10-2022, 05:29 PM
(10-10-2022, 07:22 AM)msqueri Wrote: For what it's worth, on paper, Sagarin scopes out our schedule like this:
Colgate - WIN
USC - LOSS
at Washington - LOSS
at Oregon - LOSS
Oregon State - LOSS
at Notre Dame - 17 percent
Arizona State - 51 percent
at UCLA - 22 percent
Washington State - 42 percent
at Utah - 11 percent
at Cal - 39 percent
BYU - 47 percent
Expected win total: 3.29
Still in the 3-4 win range according to the computers. The big questions for me are intangible, specifically whether the cratering of the program is something algorithms can't keep up with and whether mounting losses crush morale in a way that makes the team play much worse in the second half of the season than the apparent first half quality of the team. Right now Sagarin has us as the #59 team in the nation, which should be able to win a couple of the four remaining on-paper near tossups. But will the team remain the level of team that played Oregon State (i.e., win 3-4 games total this year), live up to the team's talk and become a better team (getting to a bowl), or collapse under the weight of all this losing (the 1-2 total wins that feel like where we are to the fan base)? 2-10 seems right to me.
Keep in mind that the probabilities are not wholly independent for the reasons you mention (the assessment of Stanford by Sagarin could be directionally off, there is a cascading effect of losses, or, the team improves over time). I guess we will see, but it is easier to see the case for the “under” than the “over”.
BC
(10-10-2022, 07:22 AM)msqueri Wrote: For what it's worth, on paper, Sagarin scopes out our schedule like this:
Colgate - WIN
USC - LOSS
at Washington - LOSS
at Oregon - LOSS
Oregon State - LOSS
at Notre Dame - 17 percent
Arizona State - 51 percent
at UCLA - 22 percent
Washington State - 42 percent
at Utah - 11 percent
at Cal - 39 percent
BYU - 47 percent
Expected win total: 3.29
Still in the 3-4 win range according to the computers. The big questions for me are intangible, specifically whether the cratering of the program is something algorithms can't keep up with and whether mounting losses crush morale in a way that makes the team play much worse in the second half of the season than the apparent first half quality of the team. Right now Sagarin has us as the #59 team in the nation, which should be able to win a couple of the four remaining on-paper near tossups. But will the team remain the level of team that played Oregon State (i.e., win 3-4 games total this year), live up to the team's talk and become a better team (getting to a bowl), or collapse under the weight of all this losing (the 1-2 total wins that feel like where we are to the fan base)? 2-10 seems right to me.
Keep in mind that the probabilities are not wholly independent for the reasons you mention (the assessment of Stanford by Sagarin could be directionally off, there is a cascading effect of losses, or, the team improves over time). I guess we will see, but it is easier to see the case for the “under” than the “over”.
BC
10-11-2022, 01:39 AM
(10-10-2022, 02:08 PM)gailtate Wrote:(10-10-2022, 12:22 PM)2006alum Wrote:(10-10-2022, 09:09 AM)msqueri Wrote:(10-10-2022, 08:54 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.
I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?
This. We're essentially back to where Stanford football was during my undergrad days - an also ran, bottom-feeder that no one but a few ardent fans follow, and that required once-in-a-generation "EUTM" to resuscitate from its zombie-state. It's too bad, because I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model.
But Shaw's approach is so evidently not working, and he has refused to do some of the things that have long seemed necessary (replacing assistant coaches, hiring a dedicated OC, etc.) to right the ship. At this point, as reluctant as I am to admit it, I think it's time to look for a new coach, because it's hard to get worse than 0-11 against FBS schools...
"I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model."
Hear, hear. Up to a point. Shaw was an apparent rising star until he was not, then exposed as something less. My point is that he really had no "brand" of his own as such; what he was doing was applying what amounted to the EUTM blueprint but in a rote, unimaginative mechanical way. Left to his own devices over the years, he ultimately failed. A shame, of course, because the planets and stars were aligned in 2010-12 for something truly dynastic. They were set up for an inheritor who was not to be.
Yes, Shaw somehow assumed that the winning Harshaw model, which he carried on with great success for half a decade, had been "institutionalized" and incorporated into the DNA of Stanford Football. The run-first, high-TOP, strong-defense, low-scoring strategy became something Shaw saw as a Stanford birthright. He conveniently forgot that it's the people running the football program that engineer the success and keep the model working. All of Harbaugh's hires (except Shaw himself) eventually left; and Shaw backfilled them with progressively less capable coaches.
And regarding EUTM, Shaw is the polar opposite -- even-keel, sanguine to a fault, never emotional. The energy and intensity that made some of Harbaugh's 3-star athletes play like 4-star athletes eventually drained out of the program; and ultimately, the total lack of that energy and intensity (plus inadequate player development and S&C) has had the opposite effect: talented recruits come to Stanford and never realize their full potential.
In the end, the best managers hire the best people, hold them accountable and are happy to lose them because of their exceptional abilities, then try to replace them with even better people. In coaching, that success is reflected in the coaching tree, the legacy of a leader. Shaw's coaching tree after 12 years at the helm is threadbare, and he has no one on his staff who could potentially replace him. That is a sad witness to his leadership.
(10-10-2022, 02:08 PM)gailtate Wrote:(10-10-2022, 12:22 PM)2006alum Wrote:(10-10-2022, 09:09 AM)msqueri Wrote:(10-10-2022, 08:54 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: In the extremely unlikely possibility that Shaw gets fired, who gets the interim gig? Scary thought. . . .
Honestly, I don't care. The season is lost and what's important for the program is finding the right next permanent coach and, secondarily (but almost irrelevant compared to priority number one of getting the right permanent hire), stabilizing recruiting to the extent possible. Pritchard or Anderson would be fine as an interim in my view. Gould has been a head coach before if one cares about that. Heck, have Willingham end the season for all I care.
I don't know why any of this should scare us compared to the status quo. What's scarier than losing more than anybody over a four stretch and twice going a calendar year without an FBS win? We lose to Utah by 30 instead of 20?
This. We're essentially back to where Stanford football was during my undergrad days - an also ran, bottom-feeder that no one but a few ardent fans follow, and that required once-in-a-generation "EUTM" to resuscitate from its zombie-state. It's too bad, because I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model.
But Shaw's approach is so evidently not working, and he has refused to do some of the things that have long seemed necessary (replacing assistant coaches, hiring a dedicated OC, etc.) to right the ship. At this point, as reluctant as I am to admit it, I think it's time to look for a new coach, because it's hard to get worse than 0-11 against FBS schools...
"I really like David Shaw the man, and his brand of coaching, when it worked, was in the best tradition of the Stanford student-athlete model."
Hear, hear. Up to a point. Shaw was an apparent rising star until he was not, then exposed as something less. My point is that he really had no "brand" of his own as such; what he was doing was applying what amounted to the EUTM blueprint but in a rote, unimaginative mechanical way. Left to his own devices over the years, he ultimately failed. A shame, of course, because the planets and stars were aligned in 2010-12 for something truly dynastic. They were set up for an inheritor who was not to be.
Yes, Shaw somehow assumed that the winning Harshaw model, which he carried on with great success for half a decade, had been "institutionalized" and incorporated into the DNA of Stanford Football. The run-first, high-TOP, strong-defense, low-scoring strategy became something Shaw saw as a Stanford birthright. He conveniently forgot that it's the people running the football program that engineer the success and keep the model working. All of Harbaugh's hires (except Shaw himself) eventually left; and Shaw backfilled them with progressively less capable coaches.
And regarding EUTM, Shaw is the polar opposite -- even-keel, sanguine to a fault, never emotional. The energy and intensity that made some of Harbaugh's 3-star athletes play like 4-star athletes eventually drained out of the program; and ultimately, the total lack of that energy and intensity (plus inadequate player development and S&C) has had the opposite effect: talented recruits come to Stanford and never realize their full potential.
In the end, the best managers hire the best people, hold them accountable and are happy to lose them because of their exceptional abilities, then try to replace them with even better people. In coaching, that success is reflected in the coaching tree, the legacy of a leader. Shaw's coaching tree after 12 years at the helm is threadbare, and he has no one on his staff who could potentially replace him. That is a sad witness to his leadership.
Minor correction: not true that all of Harbaugh’s hires except Shaw eventually left as Lance Anderson is still around. Anderson was not only hired by Harbaugh but was one of two coaches (Drevno the other) to be on all six of Harbaugh’s first staffs. Even Shaw himself didn’t join until the second year at San Diego. Of course, the issue isn’t Anderson being on staff but the defensive coordinator role Shaw elevated Anderson to without any accountability for results.
Minor correction: not true that all of Harbaugh’s hires except Shaw eventually left as Lance Anderson is still around. Anderson was not only hired by Harbaugh but was one of two coaches (Drevno the other) to be on all six of Harbaugh’s first staffs. Even Shaw himself didn’t join until the second year at San Diego. Of course, the issue isn’t Anderson being on staff but the defensive coordinator role Shaw elevated Anderson to without any accountability for results.
10-11-2022, 07:16 AM
At some point, "intellectual brutality" evaporated and we have entered the "participation trophies for everyone!" phase in the football program.
Pax et Bonum
At some point, "intellectual brutality" evaporated and we have entered the "participation trophies for everyone!" phase in the football program.
Pax et Bonum
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »