Semi OT: Shaw to Interview w TItans
Former Stanford HC David Shaw set to interview this weekend with the Tennessee Titans.
This likely puts to bed the weird 'fan theory' that Shaw was doing a solid for Harbaugh/Chargers re: Rooney Rule, so they could hire him in the next couple days.
Additionally, the Chargers interviewed Vrabel yesterday as well, and look to have more interviews set up this weekend. So, any speculation that they'll announce JH "by Friday" appears to be presumptive.
Lastly, Vegas (for whatever that's worth) moved JH back to returning as their top odds at +160 per BetMGM. I'm going to probably pass on making any bets.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:09 AM ^
Where are people seeing the odds? Are they not real props and just in articles? I never see them on the apps. I wouldn't touch this but wouldn't mind neurotically checking it from time to time.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:22 AM ^
Draft Kings has them if you search Harbaugh. They however still have the chargers at -250 and "not the head coach of an NFL team" at +175. I don't see those odds and indicative of insider info and they've been relatively stable for days. I see this as a guy interviewing for NFL jobs leading most bettors to believe he is likely to take that job if offered.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:30 AM ^
huh, maybe the availability varies by state because I couldn't find it. Thanks for the reply, though. I think your analysis is correct as well.
January 19th, 2024 at 10:50 AM ^
Perhaps this was discussed in previous Harbaugh coaching search threads, but could one James Joseph Harbaugh place a bet on his future coaching position?
January 19th, 2024 at 12:36 PM ^
Also a reminder that, even if allegedly available, +160 (or any "plus" odds) means Vegas does not favor Harbaugh returning to Michigan (as it was phrased in a thread title yesterday; OP didn't make that mistake here). +160 for example, when vig is removed, put their odds at ~37% chance he returns.
Secondly, in case anyone is tempted to place a bet, keep in mind that some markets (e.g. Draftkings) phrase it as "coaching ___ team week one of NFL season" -- which depending on the rules may mean your stake may be tied up for 8 months before actually cashing out, even if Harbaugh made a decision today. As with any long future bets, it's basically a zero-interest loan to the books.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:12 AM ^
Maybe the Tennessee Titans are interviewing David Shaw to fulfill the Rooney Rule too.
Stanford was 4-8, 4-2, 3-9, and 3-9 in Shaw's last four years there.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:25 AM ^
It seems that Shaw is the designated interviewee.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:28 AM ^
Sucks for him, to be honest, but maybe the upside is that all this interviewing gets his name out there again and some college (or NFL team looking for an assistant) wants to take a chance on him. I would assume if he's accepting interviews, he still wants to coach.
January 19th, 2024 at 10:07 AM ^
That's hardly the case, and this was part of the issue with Brian Flores lawsuit against the NFL. Many of the minority candidates were not given actual interviews, but rather interviews to fulfill Rooney Rule requirements. Shaw...Leslie Frazier...seem to be doing the rounds. Eric Bienemy for a couple years as well. There is a 0% chance he is seriously considered for an NFL HC job.
January 19th, 2024 at 12:55 PM ^
At least he gets some airline miles and lunch/dinner out of it.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:33 AM ^
Shaw is a good coach and a great culture guy. Stanford is a really hard place to win at. I don't think his coaching record is indicative of anything.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:52 AM ^
I won't be surprised if the majority of successful NFL coaches wouldn't be able to much better at Stanford than Shaw. In the NFL he'll be dealing with a more level player talent distribution.
Even if Shaw doesn't get one of those NFL jobs it's probably beneficial for him to get some buzz associated with his name, can help him land a coordinator job or another college coaching gig.
January 19th, 2024 at 10:33 AM ^
Shaw has long been coveted by people in the NFL. His record declined with the onset of the portal. Stanford has institutional disadvantages in the portal. It's easy to portal out and difficult to portal in.
Shaw is the winningest coach in Stanford history. He's a good coach who should do well in a roster parity environment.
January 19th, 2024 at 10:34 AM ^
I mean, he did go 82-26 his first 8 seasons, which is an average of about 10-3 which is CRAZY at Stanford. They didn't fall off at all after 4 seasons. Only Pop Warner (yes, that Pop Warner) from the 1920's has more winning seasons at Stanford than does David Shaw.
He's absolutely a good coach.
first 4 seasons: 42-12
next 4 seasons: 40-14
last 4 seasons: 14-28
January 19th, 2024 at 11:57 AM ^
If you break it into 6 and 6 it's much more grim. Also, that's still averaging 3 losses per year in the first 4 (immediately post harbaugh, taking over a 12-1 team) and then nearly 4 losses per year in the middle 4. Stanford is tough but he took over a top program.
I think he is good but not great. And they did fall off quite a bit after 4 seasons. In fact, season 4 was a 5 loss season, then one top 5 finish, then never finished in the top 10 again.
January 19th, 2024 at 12:12 PM ^
First off, he was at Stanford where Bill Walsh couldn't bring them successful seasons. Secondly, you comparing him to Jim Harbaugh. Shaw was successful for Stanford standards.
January 24th, 2024 at 4:48 PM ^
Stanford has had twenty top 20 finishes in program history. Six of those seasons were under David Shaw.
Also STANFORD. That's like criticizing someone for not coaching Northwestern to perennial top 10 finishes.
January 19th, 2024 at 11:42 AM ^
Harbaugh did it. How much of Shaw's success was paved by Harbaugh?
January 19th, 2024 at 11:48 AM ^
Shaw's Head Coaching record is 96-54. He also have NFL experience. Yes, the Rooney Rule is mainly used for HC interviews but also to get other coaching duties. He's only 51 he still have years left to coach.
January 19th, 2024 at 12:04 PM ^
Shaw's Head Coaching record is 96-54. He also have NFL experience. Yes, the Rooney Rule is mainly used for HC interviews but also to get other coaching duties. He's only 51 he still have years left to coach.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:12 AM ^
The Rooney rule just feels embarrassing in 2024, maybe that’s just me. This is not what MLK was dreaming about. There are successful African-American coaches at all levels of sport, because so many of them are well-qualified, intelligent, and equipped for the job. Requiring a minority interview for the sake of checking a box doesn’t seem to do anyone justice.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:19 AM ^
Yes, it's sad we need it in 2024, but I think it's still needed in some form.
It's all about giving minority candidates some exposure to decision makers that they wouldn't otherwise get as part of the old boy network.
College is even worse, when you have guys like Sark and Lane Kiffin who seem to fail up until they find a successful job, all because they have friends in high places.
Yeah, flying David Shaw around the country to interview for jobs he's definitely not getting is counter productive. But maybe he does well and impresses someone who considers him for another job further down the line.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:23 AM ^
Sark and Kiffin are good cosches. Not elite, but good.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:31 AM ^
Not saying they weren't, but they were given multiple chances to prove themselves that other coaches likely would not get.
Sark was mediocre at UW and USC, but his buddy Saban rehabbed his reputation, and he got the UT job, and has been successful there.
Kiffin was pretty bad at Oakland and USC, but got to rehab himself at FAU before getting a major SEC gig again.
Most coaches don't get 3rd and 4th chances to succeed like these guys did.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:28 AM ^
You're using Sark as an example of falling up? Interesting.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:33 AM ^
Did his prior record at UW/USC indicate he should have gotten a whiff of the Texas job?
January 19th, 2024 at 9:44 AM ^
Sark got sober and led one of the best Bama offenses to a title. UT took a shot on him for sure but he had changed from his UW and USC stints.
January 19th, 2024 at 10:06 AM ^
Agreed. He did that on his 3rd chance.
Most coaches barely get a first chance at a major program, let alone a 2nd or 3rd.
When Brady Hoke didn't work out at UM, did he get the ND job next, fail, and get the Wisconsin job? If Hoke would have been buddies with Saban, maybe he would have.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:42 AM ^
The study mentioned in this press release suggests that the Rooney rule doesn't work:
Rather than interviewing someone just because they possess the relevant identity marker (person of color, woman, person with a disability, etc.), the press release concludes that a more effective way to promote employment would be to make efforts to get African Americans and Latinx coaches in the coaching pipeline (i.e. support recruitment in lower level or entry level positions so they have the experience they need to do well at the college and pro levels).
January 19th, 2024 at 9:52 AM ^
Yes, the willingness to try and circumvent by finding two Black coaches who are not going to be seriously considered at all to give a farcical interview to are examples of why the rule is needed. These owners are, in most cases, simply not going to interview a Black coach if there is a white candidate they think they want more.
Coaching staffs are more diverse at all levels of the sport but the number of Black head coaches relative to the number of Black players is still so skewed that everyone involved should be embarrassed
January 19th, 2024 at 10:28 AM ^
This is the magical MLK folks quote-mine when they want to erase race consciousness, as if it was the totality of his entire work on the subject.
"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic." -- Why We Can't Wait.
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro..." quoted by Stephen B.Oates, Let The Trumpet Sound.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:15 AM ^
I just want this to be over, regardless of the decision.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:36 AM ^
For the Chargers being so dead set on Harbaugh (allegedly) they sure are interviewing a lot of dudes.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:42 AM ^
if its Harbaugh why interview Vrabel?
January 19th, 2024 at 9:45 AM ^
It sure can't make Harbaugh feel very loved.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:49 AM ^
Because they are notoriously cheap and hands-on and there is a very serious chance whatever they offer Jim is rejected by his camp.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:41 AM ^
I think its pretty obvious that all the talk of Chargers job being Jim's if he wanted it were bullshit. There are currently 8 NFL teams looking for a HC. With that many coaching opportunities, if a candidate is considered a slam dunk hire and is interested.... they're getting a job offer as soon as possible, because the club is competing with 7 others.
If SD has Jim at the top of their list, they'd be stupid to schedule interviews with long shot candidates, leaving him on the market longer than necessary. Lots of talking heads, including the clowns on the Yahoo Sports podcast, are saying Jim is using Michigan as leverage to get the NFL job, I'm saying Jim is using the NFL to get what he wants from MI.
January 19th, 2024 at 9:48 AM ^
I wish people would stop pushing the Vegas stuff... these sort of prop bets are just marketing for sports books. You literally cannot put money on it. This is not bookies having inside info about players being hurt or whatever, it is just guessing. No different than taking a bet on what might happen on the last episode of a TV series, another thing oddsmakers put out solely to generate clicks
January 19th, 2024 at 11:08 AM ^
Agree.
All posters care about Michigan, some also care about gambling, fewer still actually have the wealth to bet. This serves to get more people to gamble in the long run.
A better way than the bettor way would be to convert these odds to percentages for posts. When you do ... it is pretty clear that the credences of these odds are pretty off the scale of the average MGoCrowd.
January 19th, 2024 at 12:01 PM ^
I'm actually a little on the other side. I don't know who is "pushing" the Vegas stuff other than Vegas themselves. I know I for one threw it in at the end, put a parenthetical saying "for what it's worth" and then said I wouldn't be voting.
That said, your implied probability addition was a nice practical add, and exactly the right amount of context for why I added the line to begin with. Thx!
January 19th, 2024 at 12:09 PM ^
For some reason, I hate that those percentages do not add up to exactly 100%. Awesome information though.
January 19th, 2024 at 1:11 PM ^
I asked the same question. This response is ChatGPT 4... the TL;DR summary ==> Why you should never bet the kid's college fund. House always wins.
The fact that the vig is sooo low here is a sign that there really isn't much activity on these odds, I think.
Here is the AI response...
The sum of the implied probabilities exceeding 100% in sports betting is due to a concept known as the "overround" or "vig" (vigorish), which is the margin that bookmakers add to the odds to ensure they make a profit regardless of the event's outcome.
Here's why this happens:
1. **Bookmaker's Margin**: Bookmakers set odds in a way that gives them an edge. They adjust the odds to attract bets on all possible outcomes in such a manner that they still make a profit, no matter which outcome occurs. This is their business model to ensure sustainability.
2. **Balancing the Book**: The idea is to balance the book so that the total amount of money bet on all outcomes is proportionally distributed according to the odds. If this is achieved perfectly, the bookmaker will pay out less in winnings than they receive in total bets, keeping the difference as profit.
3. **Risk Management**: The overround also helps bookmakers manage risk. By setting odds that add up to more than 100%, they create a buffer against potential losses due to unpredictable events or inaccurate odds setting.
4. **Market Forces**: Odds also reflect the betting patterns of the public. As people place bets, bookmakers may adjust odds to ensure there's not too much liability on one outcome. This can further increase the overround.
In essence, the overround is an integral part of sports betting, representing the price bettors pay for the service bookmakers provide. It's why it's challenging to make a long-term profit in sports betting, as consistently overcoming this built-in margin requires skill, knowledge, and often a bit of luck.
January 19th, 2024 at 10:23 AM ^
If I remember correctly, Shaw and Harbaugh were not very amicable after he left Stanford.
Not really sure if they are really close.
January 19th, 2024 at 11:56 AM ^
Where you hear this from
January 19th, 2024 at 11:56 AM ^
Where you hear this from
January 19th, 2024 at 10:24 AM ^
The Rooney Rule is well intentioned, but not all that effective at actually providing a solution to the problem.
In the 2024 B1G, 14/18 head coaches started out as Grad Assistants/QC coaches. For the 2024 SEC, it’s 13/16 head coaches. In the NFL, it’s over half.
Coach Moore has gone from GA in 2011, to making 250k in 2018, to making over a million per year in 2023.
Grant Newsome went from GA in 2020-2021 to making 275k this past year and quickly moving upwards in his career.
It seems to me that the issue can be better addressed by starting at the bottom, not the top. Allow teams to carry more GAs.
January 19th, 2024 at 10:56 AM ^
The effort to fill GA positions with more representative GAs began 25 years ago. That's an old problem and solution, though one that requires attention each year.
Today's problem is many of those persons were never able to move up. There remain ceilings. Slowly, those ceilings are cracking, but it's really slow.
The analogy to use is multiple: representative GAs are a pipeline. There tons of people on the lower rung of a ladder. As they climb, sometimes a step is missing. They need someone higher to reach down and pull them up. But people on those higher rungs tend to look for people who look like and had similar experiences as them. This causes a lot of people trying to climb up to leave. It requires keeping the pipeline at the bottom full but also ensuring there are no broken rungs, and that people at the top are advocating for and lifting everyone up. That doesn't mean the Rooney Rule is effective at this.
January 19th, 2024 at 11:16 AM ^
Yeah, it’s a slow change, but an FBS team can still only have 4 GAs in any year. The NCAA should allow that to increase.
For the rung analogy, I guess in my opinion it’s kind of a mixed bag. Once you’re on the path, If you’re good at your job you will usually be noticed regardless of race. But you’re also asking a coach to take on responsibilities that they aren’t necessarily interested in taking. Like being interested in the career development of their lower level staff. Coach Harbaugh has been one of the best in the business at this.
January 19th, 2024 at 1:36 PM ^
a solution to the problem.
Solutions are similar to fenceless dog collars ==> it's so hard to get your neighbors to wear them.
The problem is ownership is white white white - with one Pakistani and one partial owner Asian-American making up the color wheel. In all cases (except Green Bay) they are privileged.
It's never going to be different until all phases are statistically insignificant - with ownership being the top knob.
My favorite solution would be to break up the ownership cartel and force municipalities to buy the teams - and move teams if they are not willing to pay - then resell them in shares ala Green Bay - with no share >4% allowed.
How would this make a difference? It wouldn't directly, but the bias here comes from our heads (people in this and the Chargers post think Shaw is being jobbed - we all see the issue.) The only way to fix it is collectively - which starts by changing ownership in this solution and in my head, at least.
January 19th, 2024 at 5:39 PM ^
Respectfully, More minority owners would be great, but I don’t think you need minority owners in order to get minority coaches.
If the problem is white white white, then that implies someone is not hiring minorities due to some kind of bias. If that is true, then those owners should be named and proof of bias should be presented.