That seems like the crucial question. What should save Taylor's job?
I think for many people it is a basic sense of whether we are on the right track. Casual observers will look to wins and losses or basic program vibes and each of those will say something important about where we are. As folks know, I see value in trying to objectively measure progress. If you use Sagarin, here is our dark ages trajectory with Taylor years bolded:
2019: #73
2020: #75 (pandemic-shortened year in which I find Sagarin basically useless)
2021: #89
2022: #87
2023: #101
2024: #102
Even the most pitiful, beaten down, low ambition, surrender monkey apologist would have to acknowledge there needs to be improvement. We need to be top 100 in 2025. But I think almost everybody (at least I hope) would demand that by year three we would be able to get to the level Shaw finished at, top 90. Considering Shaw got shown the door for top 90 results and three years in Taylor will have had ample time to establish a culture (not to mention 85 percent of the roster his own), I think people with any self-respect for Stanford football should demand that we get at least to where we were in the 2019-2020 period, top 80. Frankly that is still a bad team and I think those with real ambition could argue even that isn't good enough. One could argue we need to ascend to mediocrity to justify retaining this staff, say top 70.
But that is subjective. I'm interested in other ways to see what level of standard we should apply. One way to think about this is what level of play has been unacceptable for Stanford in modern history. I already mentioned that successive teams in the low 80s ended Shaw's reign. The Harris tenure was aborted after he followed an encouraging #42 with a catastrophic #104. Teevens' trajectory was #74, #69, and #46 - continual improvement but we lost patience with mediocrity (and did not recognize mediocrity as such because our conference was so stellar that mediocrity felt like failure). Those periods don't fell very analogous to where we are now, but I do think they should serve as a reminder that historically we have not tolerated prolonged failure. What seems like the salient fact: it has been over 60 years since we retained a coach after three consecutive losing seasons (Curtice, literally the only coach since we started playing in 1891 to be given a fourth year after three losing seasons). Wiggin and Teevens got three years of consecutive losing before getting walking papers and Elway, Walsh, Harris, and Shaw were gone after only two.
This post could probably stop there. It has always been unacceptable to lose more than you win three years in a row. We can very reasonably make this season a simple litmus test of bowl and you stay, home for the holidays and you're relieved. Period. I have other musings/data I want to look at so will keep plowing ahead, but that really could be the bottom line for those who want to cut to the chase.
The other thing I wanted to look at is the level of third year success for coaches who became successful despite abysmal first two years. There was this exchange in another thread earlier this off-season:
30) Ron Zook/Illinois
44) Mike Stoops/Arizona
46) Chip Kelly/UCLA (technically, but as I said I don't consider the 2020 pandemic year a good data point so there's an asterisk here)
48) Dave Clawson/Wake Forest
55) Tom O'Brien/Boston College
61) Art Briles/Baylor
74) Greg Schiano/Rutgers
81) Mike Leach/Washington State
95) David Cutcliffe/Duke
97) Rich Brooks/Kentucky
This reinforces my take above, I think. We of course absolutely need to see 2025 be Taylor's best team, no question we have to be top 100. If we kept him despite a miserable three or four win season there would be a few historical examples of times when that patience has paid off, but it's a long shot. By far the norm is that if we aren't seeing at least a mediocre team (again, say top 70) we shouldn't have much expectation of the current staff ever succeeding.
Bottom line: if I am Jonathan Levin, Jenny Martinez, or Andrew Luck, I have a simple ultimatum for Taylor (not that it needs to be presented as such, just that it's what I think the unyielding standard should be): get Stanford to a bowl or be the kind of solid hard-luck team that finishes Sagarin top 70 with only five wins. Either of those and I consider the season a success and Taylor on the right track. Fall short and it's time to move on.
I think for many people it is a basic sense of whether we are on the right track. Casual observers will look to wins and losses or basic program vibes and each of those will say something important about where we are. As folks know, I see value in trying to objectively measure progress. If you use Sagarin, here is our dark ages trajectory with Taylor years bolded:
2019: #73
2020: #75 (pandemic-shortened year in which I find Sagarin basically useless)
2021: #89
2022: #87
2023: #101
2024: #102
Even the most pitiful, beaten down, low ambition, surrender monkey apologist would have to acknowledge there needs to be improvement. We need to be top 100 in 2025. But I think almost everybody (at least I hope) would demand that by year three we would be able to get to the level Shaw finished at, top 90. Considering Shaw got shown the door for top 90 results and three years in Taylor will have had ample time to establish a culture (not to mention 85 percent of the roster his own), I think people with any self-respect for Stanford football should demand that we get at least to where we were in the 2019-2020 period, top 80. Frankly that is still a bad team and I think those with real ambition could argue even that isn't good enough. One could argue we need to ascend to mediocrity to justify retaining this staff, say top 70.
But that is subjective. I'm interested in other ways to see what level of standard we should apply. One way to think about this is what level of play has been unacceptable for Stanford in modern history. I already mentioned that successive teams in the low 80s ended Shaw's reign. The Harris tenure was aborted after he followed an encouraging #42 with a catastrophic #104. Teevens' trajectory was #74, #69, and #46 - continual improvement but we lost patience with mediocrity (and did not recognize mediocrity as such because our conference was so stellar that mediocrity felt like failure). Those periods don't fell very analogous to where we are now, but I do think they should serve as a reminder that historically we have not tolerated prolonged failure. What seems like the salient fact: it has been over 60 years since we retained a coach after three consecutive losing seasons (Curtice, literally the only coach since we started playing in 1891 to be given a fourth year after three losing seasons). Wiggin and Teevens got three years of consecutive losing before getting walking papers and Elway, Walsh, Harris, and Shaw were gone after only two.
This post could probably stop there. It has always been unacceptable to lose more than you win three years in a row. We can very reasonably make this season a simple litmus test of bowl and you stay, home for the holidays and you're relieved. Period. I have other musings/data I want to look at so will keep plowing ahead, but that really could be the bottom line for those who want to cut to the chase.
The other thing I wanted to look at is the level of third year success for coaches who became successful despite abysmal first two years. There was this exchange in another thread earlier this off-season:
So let's look at the third years of these guys I am hoping against hope Taylor can match:
30) Ron Zook/Illinois
44) Mike Stoops/Arizona
46) Chip Kelly/UCLA (technically, but as I said I don't consider the 2020 pandemic year a good data point so there's an asterisk here)
48) Dave Clawson/Wake Forest
55) Tom O'Brien/Boston College
61) Art Briles/Baylor
74) Greg Schiano/Rutgers
81) Mike Leach/Washington State
95) David Cutcliffe/Duke
97) Rich Brooks/Kentucky
This reinforces my take above, I think. We of course absolutely need to see 2025 be Taylor's best team, no question we have to be top 100. If we kept him despite a miserable three or four win season there would be a few historical examples of times when that patience has paid off, but it's a long shot. By far the norm is that if we aren't seeing at least a mediocre team (again, say top 70) we shouldn't have much expectation of the current staff ever succeeding.
Bottom line: if I am Jonathan Levin, Jenny Martinez, or Andrew Luck, I have a simple ultimatum for Taylor (not that it needs to be presented as such, just that it's what I think the unyielding standard should be): get Stanford to a bowl or be the kind of solid hard-luck team that finishes Sagarin top 70 with only five wins. Either of those and I consider the season a success and Taylor on the right track. Fall short and it's time to move on.
Last edited:
