1. This morning was like stepping into a new world for me. I took a redeye back from vacation last night and kept my phones off until I got home and could watch the game. I went through my normal routine with every intention of doing my normal Sunday Morning Thoughts: after I watched the game I pulled up Shaw's press conference, and I was going to follow that by dissecting the box score, PFF grades, etc. and going down whatever statistical/analytical rabbit holes struck me. My wife had seen the news as soon as we landed but kept it from me so it would be an earth-shaking surprise. Once I saw the press conference I knew that dissecting yesterday's game in my normal way would miss the point (if there's anything from those posts anybody is missing vis-a-vis BYU let me know, just seems kind of silly to be retrospective/2022 season-focused today), so instead I'll reflect on the end of the Shaw era.
2. We've been debating Shaw and his place in Stanford football history for over a decade and will continue to for decades more. I have no interest in re-litigating any of that here but do want to acknowledge the momentousness of moving on from a coach with such a long and dramatic tenure. He finishes with 96 wins at a program with nobody else in history with more than 71 (Pop Warner). Even with all of the losses of recent years (and as I've documented he's been one of the biggest losers in the nation for nearly half a decade), his career win percentage ends up being the best since 1941, and among coaches with more than two seasons the best since Pop Warner (1924-1932). He joins Warner and Claude Thornhill as the only Stanford coaches to get to three Rose Bowls and joins John Ralston as the only other coach to win two Rose Bowls. A Stanford legend - a maddening, lucky, flawed legend but a legend nonetheless. I don't want to let his stepping down pass without thanking him for the wins, top tier bowls, and other cherished memories.
3. Just as debates will continue on what he accomplished and how much credit he deserves, there will probably continue to be some debate on his classiness and character. For most of his tenure it seemed almost universally accepted that Stanford could not dream of a better representative. Over time, however, the luster wore off a bit on that image as well as the years of stubbornness, pride, lack off accountability, and excuse-making ground on. I've also wondered whether his mentorship/molder of men reputation may be more complicated than often presented, as I've caught wind that his imperiousness and/or aloofness hardly made him a close figure in the lives of many of his players. By and large, though, chalk me up on the side of the argument that thinks Shaw is a class act. He strikes me as a man of strong, honorable, admirable character who enhanced Stanford's reputation and was a model for many. Nobody is perfect and neither is David Shaw. But I still think he's a good man.
4. His departure could not have been announced in a classier way and it's possible that it couldn't have been done in a way that better set Stanford up for a return to relevance. Without taking the focus off his players or creating an in-season circus, he made the announcement without frills or any delay whatsoever once the season was over. The timing lets the administration pivot quickly to a crucial search for a replacement, gives players contemplating their future some time to sort things out, and did not leave his employees hanging while he deliberated on his plans. I also think he struck a very good tone and I really appreciated (nay, loved) that in a difficult and emotional moment for him he was crystal clear that he views Stanford football as much stronger than the record indicates, he still views Stanford as "we" and he would be as supportive of his successor as possible, going as far as to say he hopes his successor wins more than him. This could have gone the other way. He could have been self-pitying and emphasized the transfer portal, NIL, injuries, etc. as excuses and he even could have stoked a defeatist narrative that undermines his successor. Instead, he went out confidently, proud of his accomplishments and optimistic that better days are ahead. This is so much healthier for the program than either defeatism in the face of changes in the landscape or nostalgia that our best days are behind us.
5. Crucially, it appears that he's not just projecting a helpful posture about Stanford football's future but put in work to improve the program's competitive footing. Just as he politicked internally to find a healthy level of collaboration with the admissions department, bring in early enrollees, host spring official visits, and so forth, evidently he worked with the administration to reach decisions on the transfer portal and NIL that all are at least claiming will increase our competitiveness. If we take him at his word that the decision to leave was made just this past week, he was doing that politicking with no small amount of self interest. At earlier points he thought he'd benefit from changes in Stanford's approach. But now that he will no longer be Stanford's coach, I find it heart-warming and encouraging that he is taking on the posture of a relay runner handing off the baton rather than any sort of selfish or petulant alternative. He seems genuinely content with having put in work others can build on.
2. We've been debating Shaw and his place in Stanford football history for over a decade and will continue to for decades more. I have no interest in re-litigating any of that here but do want to acknowledge the momentousness of moving on from a coach with such a long and dramatic tenure. He finishes with 96 wins at a program with nobody else in history with more than 71 (Pop Warner). Even with all of the losses of recent years (and as I've documented he's been one of the biggest losers in the nation for nearly half a decade), his career win percentage ends up being the best since 1941, and among coaches with more than two seasons the best since Pop Warner (1924-1932). He joins Warner and Claude Thornhill as the only Stanford coaches to get to three Rose Bowls and joins John Ralston as the only other coach to win two Rose Bowls. A Stanford legend - a maddening, lucky, flawed legend but a legend nonetheless. I don't want to let his stepping down pass without thanking him for the wins, top tier bowls, and other cherished memories.
3. Just as debates will continue on what he accomplished and how much credit he deserves, there will probably continue to be some debate on his classiness and character. For most of his tenure it seemed almost universally accepted that Stanford could not dream of a better representative. Over time, however, the luster wore off a bit on that image as well as the years of stubbornness, pride, lack off accountability, and excuse-making ground on. I've also wondered whether his mentorship/molder of men reputation may be more complicated than often presented, as I've caught wind that his imperiousness and/or aloofness hardly made him a close figure in the lives of many of his players. By and large, though, chalk me up on the side of the argument that thinks Shaw is a class act. He strikes me as a man of strong, honorable, admirable character who enhanced Stanford's reputation and was a model for many. Nobody is perfect and neither is David Shaw. But I still think he's a good man.
4. His departure could not have been announced in a classier way and it's possible that it couldn't have been done in a way that better set Stanford up for a return to relevance. Without taking the focus off his players or creating an in-season circus, he made the announcement without frills or any delay whatsoever once the season was over. The timing lets the administration pivot quickly to a crucial search for a replacement, gives players contemplating their future some time to sort things out, and did not leave his employees hanging while he deliberated on his plans. I also think he struck a very good tone and I really appreciated (nay, loved) that in a difficult and emotional moment for him he was crystal clear that he views Stanford football as much stronger than the record indicates, he still views Stanford as "we" and he would be as supportive of his successor as possible, going as far as to say he hopes his successor wins more than him. This could have gone the other way. He could have been self-pitying and emphasized the transfer portal, NIL, injuries, etc. as excuses and he even could have stoked a defeatist narrative that undermines his successor. Instead, he went out confidently, proud of his accomplishments and optimistic that better days are ahead. This is so much healthier for the program than either defeatism in the face of changes in the landscape or nostalgia that our best days are behind us.
5. Crucially, it appears that he's not just projecting a helpful posture about Stanford football's future but put in work to improve the program's competitive footing. Just as he politicked internally to find a healthy level of collaboration with the admissions department, bring in early enrollees, host spring official visits, and so forth, evidently he worked with the administration to reach decisions on the transfer portal and NIL that all are at least claiming will increase our competitiveness. If we take him at his word that the decision to leave was made just this past week, he was doing that politicking with no small amount of self interest. At earlier points he thought he'd benefit from changes in Stanford's approach. But now that he will no longer be Stanford's coach, I find it heart-warming and encouraging that he is taking on the posture of a relay runner handing off the baton rather than any sort of selfish or petulant alternative. He seems genuinely content with having put in work others can build on.
