Signing Day at Gostanford.com - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Signing Day at Gostanford.com (/thread-22731.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Signing Day at Gostanford.com (/thread-22731.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - Austroturf - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 08:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My point was Little really only meaningfully contributed to Stanford for that one season. His Soph season he was injured in the first game and missed the season. Then he opted out of Covid year to prepare for draft. He could have been great for Stanford but he didn't even play one full season.
Anyway, nobody commented on David Shaw's signing day press event, so I will.
Shaw did a fantastic job. The reporters did not cover themselves in glory, however.
In his opening remarks Shaw said all the typical stuff about the players in the class, notably claiming he believes Stanford signed the best TE class in the country, regardless of rankings. Also thinks David Bailey should be ranked higher. Speaking of Bailey, he's the only guy for whom there was no individual introduction video. Kind of odd considering he is the headliner of the class.
Shaw also said this season was not them and it won't happen again. He didn't make any excuses. Just said "that is all behind us and we won't see that again." I'm guessing he probably has said the same thing to his bosses.
The most interesting things discussed IMO, were a product of Troy Clardy's questions. Specifically, he asked about transfer portal and early entries. Shaw then took that question and added early visits on to his answer. It was the most insightful part of the event, IMO.
Basically Shaw said early entries had to be addressed, not just for football, but other sports. So all the campus constituencies got together, studied how it could be done, and agreed on a framework for allowing them. Part of the rationale is if you've over achieved in High School, why shouldn't you be welcomed to Stanford early? So while at football factories, your ability to play the game drives your ability to enroll early, at Stanford, its that, plus your scholastic achievement, as it is for regular admittance as an athlete.
Then, as it comes to earlier official visits - which I believe is the most critical factor in Stanford being able to compete in recruiting - the school also decided that they would allow early official visits only to recruits who had "made enough academic progress that they would have a realistic shot to be admitted" were they to apply. Reading between the lines, I think this might mean also having to have requested an application and maybe even started it to some degree. So now the recruit is told about the Stanford process, knowing that they can come for a free official visit before they commit, but they must have checked off a few academic prerequisites to show serious Stanford interest before they do. I think this is smart, fair, and will lead to more recruiting success, including better alignment between Stanford recruits. I have always thought there were a few players each year who would have signed with Stanford had they been able to visit before committing/signing. This new visit approach won't miss them.
On the transfer portal, Shaw sees disaster this coming year as a result of the extra year of eligibility for Covid year. He believes there are a lot of guys in the portal who won't be playing football due to the squeeze of early enrollees, or won't be playing at the level they prefer.
Where the reporters failed was nobody asked Shaw a single solitary question about what went wrong this year or anything about how he intends to change anything to turn things around. I mean he made some pretty bold statements about this not happening again, and not a single question about how it won't. It was almost like they were afraid to ask. And no reporter from Chronicle or Merc, from what I could tell. Not even Wilner, who probably would have been the only one to ask the tough questions.
One observation after looking at all the videos. LB Matt Rose is my favorite recruit in the class. He has the fire to be that "Skov type" y'all have been clamoring to see. He is a 4-year starter type that you can build your program on, IMO.
Great post, OF. Very much appreciate the summary.
And, yes, I like the fiery determination of Coach Shaw insisting that 2021 will not happen again. But a few details might have been nice. Of course, if he has any staff changes planned, he would not be divulging them at such an event. Nonetheless, just saying 3-9 is in the past and will not occur again is only words. And of course the journalists did not challenge him. He appears to have cowed them long ago so that nobody dares ask a nasty question.
Nice to hear about your expectations regarding Rose. My fear is that Skov-types are a thing of the past at Stanford (and elsewhere for that matter). A really good linebacker will probably check out after 3 seasons and head for the NFL; and if he spends one of those as a redshirt, he plays 2 seasons. Let's see. Skov started immediately in 2009 and started all 13 games, was injured early in 2011 vs. Arizona and used his medical redshirt to play out his entire eligibility (through 2013). Who does that anymore?
lex24 - lex24 - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 08:53 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(12-16-2021, 08:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My point was Little really only meaningfully contributed to Stanford for that one season. His Soph season he was injured in the first game and missed the season. Then he opted out of Covid year to prepare for draft. He could have been great for Stanford but he didn't even play one full season.
Anyway, nobody commented on David Shaw's signing day press event, so I will.
Shaw did a fantastic job. The reporters did not cover themselves in glory, however.
In his opening remarks Shaw said all the typical stuff about the players in the class, notably claiming he believes Stanford signed the best TE class in the country, regardless of rankings. Also thinks David Bailey should be ranked higher. Speaking of Bailey, he's the only guy for whom there was no individual introduction video. Kind of odd considering he is the headliner of the class.
Shaw also said this season was not them and it won't happen again. He didn't make any excuses. Just said "that is all behind us and we won't see that again." I'm guessing he probably has said the same thing to his bosses.
The most interesting things discussed IMO, were a product of Troy Clardy's questions. Specifically, he asked about transfer portal and early entries. Shaw then took that question and added early visits on to his answer. It was the most insightful part of the event, IMO.
Basically Shaw said early entries had to be addressed, not just for football, but other sports. So all the campus constituencies got together, studied how it could be done, and agreed on a framework for allowing them. Part of the rationale is if you've over achieved in High School, why shouldn't you be welcomed to Stanford early? So while at football factories, your ability to play the game drives your ability to enroll early, at Stanford, its that, plus your scholastic achievement, as it is for regular admittance as an athlete.
Then, as it comes to earlier official visits - which I believe is the most critical factor in Stanford being able to compete in recruiting - the school also decided that they would allow early official visits only to recruits who had "made enough academic progress that they would have a realistic shot to be admitted" were they to apply. Reading between the lines, I think this might mean also having to have requested an application and maybe even started it to some degree. So now the recruit is told about the Stanford process, knowing that they can come for a free official visit before they commit, but they must have checked off a few academic prerequisites to show serious Stanford interest before they do. I think this is smart, fair, and will lead to more recruiting success, including better alignment between Stanford recruits. I have always thought there were a few players each year who would have signed with Stanford had they been able to visit before committing/signing. This new visit approach won't miss them.
On the transfer portal, Shaw sees disaster this coming year as a result of the extra year of eligibility for Covid year. He believes there are a lot of guys in the portal who won't be playing football due to the squeeze of early enrollees, or won't be playing at the level they prefer.
Where the reporters failed was nobody asked Shaw a single solitary question about what went wrong this year or anything about how he intends to change anything to turn things around. I mean he made some pretty bold statements about this not happening again, and not a single question about how it won't. It was almost like they were afraid to ask. And no reporter from Chronicle or Merc, from what I could tell. Not even Wilner, who probably would have been the only one to ask the tough questions.
One observation after looking at all the videos. LB Matt Rose is my favorite recruit in the class. He has the fire to be that "Skov type" y'all have been clamoring to see. He is a 4-year starter type that you can build your program on, IMO.
Great post, OF. Very much appreciate the summary.
And, yes, I like the fiery determination of Coach Shaw insisting that 2021 will not happen again. But a few details might have been nice. Of course, if he has any staff changes planned, he would not be divulging them at such an event. Nonetheless, just saying 3-9 is in the past and will not occur again is only words. And of course the journalists did not challenge him. He appears to have cowed them long ago so that nobody dares ask a nasty question.
Nice to hear about your expectations regarding Rose. My fear is that Skov-types are a thing of the past at Stanford (and elsewhere for that matter). A really good linebacker will probably check out after 3 seasons and head for the NFL; and if he spends one of those as a redshirt, he plays 2 seasons. Let's see. Skov started immediately in 2009 and started all 13 games, was injured early in 2011 vs. Arizona and used his medical redshirt to play out his entire eligibility (through 2013). Who does that anymore?
Gotta get as many of their best athletes on the field as possible. From day one. That means playing freshman and accepting there will be some mistakes. Also should mean cutting the playbook down. Considerably. The days of breaking guys in slowly are done. Cause they might be gone quickly.
RE: lex24 - Austroturf - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 08:59 AM)lex24 Wrote:(12-16-2021, 08:53 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(12-16-2021, 08:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My point was Little really only meaningfully contributed to Stanford for that one season. His Soph season he was injured in the first game and missed the season. Then he opted out of Covid year to prepare for draft. He could have been great for Stanford but he didn't even play one full season.
Anyway, nobody commented on David Shaw's signing day press event, so I will.
Shaw did a fantastic job. The reporters did not cover themselves in glory, however.
In his opening remarks Shaw said all the typical stuff about the players in the class, notably claiming he believes Stanford signed the best TE class in the country, regardless of rankings. Also thinks David Bailey should be ranked higher. Speaking of Bailey, he's the only guy for whom there was no individual introduction video. Kind of odd considering he is the headliner of the class.
Shaw also said this season was not them and it won't happen again. He didn't make any excuses. Just said "that is all behind us and we won't see that again." I'm guessing he probably has said the same thing to his bosses.
The most interesting things discussed IMO, were a product of Troy Clardy's questions. Specifically, he asked about transfer portal and early entries. Shaw then took that question and added early visits on to his answer. It was the most insightful part of the event, IMO.
Basically Shaw said early entries had to be addressed, not just for football, but other sports. So all the campus constituencies got together, studied how it could be done, and agreed on a framework for allowing them. Part of the rationale is if you've over achieved in High School, why shouldn't you be welcomed to Stanford early? So while at football factories, your ability to play the game drives your ability to enroll early, at Stanford, its that, plus your scholastic achievement, as it is for regular admittance as an athlete.
Then, as it comes to earlier official visits - which I believe is the most critical factor in Stanford being able to compete in recruiting - the school also decided that they would allow early official visits only to recruits who had "made enough academic progress that they would have a realistic shot to be admitted" were they to apply. Reading between the lines, I think this might mean also having to have requested an application and maybe even started it to some degree. So now the recruit is told about the Stanford process, knowing that they can come for a free official visit before they commit, but they must have checked off a few academic prerequisites to show serious Stanford interest before they do. I think this is smart, fair, and will lead to more recruiting success, including better alignment between Stanford recruits. I have always thought there were a few players each year who would have signed with Stanford had they been able to visit before committing/signing. This new visit approach won't miss them.
On the transfer portal, Shaw sees disaster this coming year as a result of the extra year of eligibility for Covid year. He believes there are a lot of guys in the portal who won't be playing football due to the squeeze of early enrollees, or won't be playing at the level they prefer.
Where the reporters failed was nobody asked Shaw a single solitary question about what went wrong this year or anything about how he intends to change anything to turn things around. I mean he made some pretty bold statements about this not happening again, and not a single question about how it won't. It was almost like they were afraid to ask. And no reporter from Chronicle or Merc, from what I could tell. Not even Wilner, who probably would have been the only one to ask the tough questions.
One observation after looking at all the videos. LB Matt Rose is my favorite recruit in the class. He has the fire to be that "Skov type" y'all have been clamoring to see. He is a 4-year starter type that you can build your program on, IMO.
Great post, OF. Very much appreciate the summary.
And, yes, I like the fiery determination of Coach Shaw insisting that 2021 will not happen again. But a few details might have been nice. Of course, if he has any staff changes planned, he would not be divulging them at such an event. Nonetheless, just saying 3-9 is in the past and will not occur again is only words. And of course the journalists did not challenge him. He appears to have cowed them long ago so that nobody dares ask a nasty question.
Nice to hear about your expectations regarding Rose. My fear is that Skov-types are a thing of the past at Stanford (and elsewhere for that matter). A really good linebacker will probably check out after 3 seasons and head for the NFL; and if he spends one of those as a redshirt, he plays 2 seasons. Let's see. Skov started immediately in 2009 and started all 13 games, was injured early in 2011 vs. Arizona and used his medical redshirt to play out his entire eligibility (through 2013). Who does that anymore?
Gotta get as many of their best athletes on the field as possible. From day one. That means playing freshman and accepting there will be some mistakes. Also should mean cutting the playbook down. Considerably. The days of breaking guys in slowly are done. Cause they might be gone quickly.
As we have seen recently.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 08:59 AM)lex24 Wrote: Gotta get as many of their best athletes on the field as possible. From day one. That means playing freshman and accepting there will be some mistakes. Also should mean cutting the playbook down. Considerably. The days of breaking guys in slowly are done. Cause they might be gone quickly.I don't think they are going to cut the playbook down. IMHO that has never been the problem, and as Shaw has stated "There is no baby version of this offense". On any given week, Stanford doesn't have tons of plays installed. The players know how to run the plays that are installed. Many of them are "in" every week and are therefore very familiar. The players can run them. It doesn't affect 10 of of the 11 players much at all in terms of running the plays as drawn up.
What does change is that the QB can't be relied upon to recognize the defense and audible to the best play choice. That requires experience and even then some guys do it much better than others. This is a "big deal" in our offense, but we can be effective even when this aspect of the game is limited. Most of you here were around when Costello replaced Chryst against UCLA. Since it was in-game due to injury, KJ didn't have may reps. KJ had about 3 passing plays he could run. He also used an audible only once in the game as I remember it. One passing play he ran was exactly the wrong play for the defense UCLA was in, but KJ ran it anyway, prolonged the play with his legs, and completed a pass (undoubtedly not as drawn up). That is what happens when QBs are young. Fortunately, with McKee (and even Patu) we will have a QB with some experience. They can call audibles. They have every expectation that their teammates can execute those plays. Mistakes will be made, but probably not that many due to simple lack of reps. The recent problem IMHO has been mistakes made by guys who aren't inexperienced and should know better.
Receivers are also not going to reliably run option patterns and even when they do the QB may read it different and throw to a different spot. That will cut down on option routes. If you don't have an experienced player to make the line calls, that is also a problem, but is not driven by the playbook. Other than that, I am not sure much else will change. We will still have a lot of plays in the playbook, but will only have a limited number that we intend to use any given week.
Limited institutional memory will mean a slight reduction in the ability to select plays. Shaw can't call plays that were installed a year ago and not run since, because the guys running them weren't there a year ago. However, I strongly suspect that doesn't happen anyway. Maybe in a few cases plays installed a week ago and not expected to be used in the current week.
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - DC 86 - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 08:53 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(12-16-2021, 08:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: One observation after looking at all the videos. LB Matt Rose is my favorite recruit in the class. He has the fire to be that "Skov type" y'all have been clamoring to see. He is a 4-year starter type that you can build your program on, IMO.
Nice to hear about your expectations regarding Rose. My fear is that Skov-types are a thing of the past at Stanford (and elsewhere for that matter). A really good linebacker will probably check out after 3 seasons and head for the NFL; and if he spends one of those as a redshirt, he plays 2 seasons. Let's see. Skov started immediately in 2009 and started all 13 games, was injured early in 2011 vs. Arizona and used his medical redshirt to play out his entire eligibility (through 2013). Who does that anymore?
We need fiery Skov-types for sure and we've seen that recruiting rankings don't correlate perfectly to college performance by any means. But it's premature and unfair to put 4-year starter (or three years so strong that he declares for the draft) expectations on Rose.
Shayne Skov was ranked #106 nationally in his class by 247 (#8 among inside linebackers) and higher by Rivals (#3 nationally at his position); Rose isn't ranked in the top 1,000 overall (he's ranked #152 among linebackers). Let's not set unrealistic expectations and call Rose a disappointment if he only contributes early on special teams and eventually becomes a contributor on defense. If he becomes a first team all-conference player like Skov (entirely possible) then we'll be thrilled. But Skov wasn't just a fiery, passionate player, he was a phenomenal athlete (with a freakish size/speed combination until he got injured).
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - OutsiderFan - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 10:04 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(12-16-2021, 08:53 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(12-16-2021, 08:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: One observation after looking at all the videos. LB Matt Rose is my favorite recruit in the class. He has the fire to be that "Skov type" y'all have been clamoring to see. He is a 4-year starter type that you can build your program on, IMO.
Nice to hear about your expectations regarding Rose. My fear is that Skov-types are a thing of the past at Stanford (and elsewhere for that matter). A really good linebacker will probably check out after 3 seasons and head for the NFL; and if he spends one of those as a redshirt, he plays 2 seasons. Let's see. Skov started immediately in 2009 and started all 13 games, was injured early in 2011 vs. Arizona and used his medical redshirt to play out his entire eligibility (through 2013). Who does that anymore?
We need fiery Skov-types for sure and we've seen that recruiting rankings don't correlate perfectly to college performance by any means. But it's premature and unfair to put 4-year starter (or three years so strong that he declares for the draft) expectations on Rose.
Shayne Skov was ranked #106 nationally in his class by 247 (#8 among inside linebackers) and higher by Rivals (#3 nationally at his position); Rose isn't ranked in the top 1,000 overall (he's ranked #152 among linebackers). Let's not set unrealistic expectations and call Rose a disappointment if he only contributes early on special teams and eventually becomes a contributor on defense. If he becomes a first team all-conference player like Skov (entirely possible) then we'll be thrilled. But Skov wasn't just a fiery, passionate player, he was a phenomenal athlete (with a freakish size/speed combination until he got injured).
I gave the board my opinion on my favorite recruit in the class and why he is. I could be wrong, I could be right. Who cares? What I say has no bearing on anything, and if anyone feels the weight of expectations more than they want to develop and be great on their own, they aren't cut out for competing in major college football. It's my opinion that people like reading perspectives from other fans. That's one of the primary reasons we are on boards like this in the first place, right?
It should be noted that Shaw did say the freshman will have an opportunity to "play a lot." The days of "might have a chance to play as a freshman" are over, especially for the early entries. Shaw sort of tacitly admitted there was a bias against freshman up until recently. He said there will be open competition for all positions and if the Frosh are better, they will play. But even if not starters, they will get more chances to play on special teams at minimum. So instead of redshirting in the past, a player might play on special teams next year.
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - Austroturf - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 10:04 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(12-16-2021, 08:53 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(12-16-2021, 08:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: One observation after looking at all the videos. LB Matt Rose is my favorite recruit in the class. He has the fire to be that "Skov type" y'all have been clamoring to see. He is a 4-year starter type that you can build your program on, IMO.
Nice to hear about your expectations regarding Rose. My fear is that Skov-types are a thing of the past at Stanford (and elsewhere for that matter). A really good linebacker will probably check out after 3 seasons and head for the NFL; and if he spends one of those as a redshirt, he plays 2 seasons. Let's see. Skov started immediately in 2009 and started all 13 games, was injured early in 2011 vs. Arizona and used his medical redshirt to play out his entire eligibility (through 2013). Who does that anymore?
We need fiery Skov-types for sure and we've seen that recruiting rankings don't correlate perfectly to college performance by any means. But it's premature and unfair to put 4-year starter (or three years so strong that he declares for the draft) expectations on Rose.
Shayne Skov was ranked #106 nationally in his class by 247 (#8 among inside linebackers) and higher by Rivals (#3 nationally at his position); Rose isn't ranked in the top 1,000 overall (he's ranked #152 among linebackers). Let's not set unrealistic expectations and call Rose a disappointment if he only contributes early on special teams and eventually becomes a contributor on defense. If he becomes a first team all-conference player like Skov (entirely possible) then we'll be thrilled. But Skov wasn't just a fiery, passionate player, he was a phenomenal athlete (with a freakish size/speed combination until he got injured).
Agree that Rose is currently a blank slate. My comments were more aimed at how special Skov was not only in terms of performance, but also in terms of longevity. He played all of 2009 and 2010, got injured, then played all of 2012 and 2013, thus exhausting his eligibility up to and including the 2014 Rose Bowl. He was the kind of player who helped define a Stanford football era by his ability AND the length of his tenure. Talented players today just don't stay that long, anywhere. If they perceive their draft stock as high, they bolt as soon as they can before injury can compromise it. Nowadays, the story of highly-talented players is more like Walker Little, who has also been mentioned in this thread: promising freshman season, excellent sophomore season, injured early in his junior season, recovered and never played another snap for Stanford.
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - DC 86 - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 10:25 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: He said there will be open competition for all positions and if the Frosh are better, they will play. But even if not starters, they will get more chances to play on special teams at minimum. So instead of redshirting in the past, a player might play on special teams next year.
I would expect all the LB and DB recruits to play on the coverage and/or return teams next year. I don't expect Rose to be a four year starter as you prognosticate but that would be great.
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - Phogge - 12-16-2021
So, did they get Guy #21 or is he a phantom?
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - GoodGrief - 12-16-2021
On the subject of Shayne Skov, let's also laud his telepathic reads of snap counts. This one is my favorite, partially because it's against Notre Dame, and partially because of the idiot NBC announcer who proclaims, "Everyone in the stadium knows he's offsides" and insinuates that Stanford has an unfair "edge." Really great when the replay clearly shows that Shayne was behind the snapped ball and the announcer doesn't even pretend to watch it.
I have never been able to successfully embed a video, and it looks like this will be no exception. But if you go to the 33 second mark, you'll see it.
https://youtu.be/ieo_ansbJmA
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - teejers1 - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 10:46 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(12-16-2021, 10:25 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: He said there will be open competition for all positions and if the Frosh are better, they will play. But even if not starters, they will get more chances to play on special teams at minimum. So instead of redshirting in the past, a player might play on special teams next year.
I would expect all the LB and DB recruits to play on the coverage and/or return teams next year. I don't expect Rose to be a four year starter as you prognosticate but that would be great.
On TOS, early speculation is that the OL from Minnesota could be the surprise big contributor (though as OL, probably not right away).
In fairness to Shaw, 1-11 is not 3-9, so "we'll not see that again" is technically accurate. I'm MUCH more interested in NOT seeing total humiliation/being outclassed on the field. Baby steps. It's hard to really grasp and appreciate how historically bad Stanford football was the last third of this past season.
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - OutsiderFan - 12-16-2021
Another area of failure by the assembled reporters yesterday was not asking a single question about NIL as it relates to Stanford. It's simply amazing that nobody could ask a question on that topic given the current landscape.
That said, as evidenced by including early visits in his answer to the early enrollment question, David Shaw is certainly comfortable bringing up topics he finds important, even if the question doesn't ask about it specifically.
The fact Shaw did not mention NIL once in his comments, and he covered the ground he did, my takeaway is Stanford may not need to rely on NIL money as much as basically every other school in the country. What I mean is it seems to me guys like David Bailey and some others in the class could immediately make more money at other schools, yet despite this they are choosing Stanford.
So it might be that guys who are serious about Stanford can't be swayed by the promise of short-term cash puling recruits to other schools. It's theoretically possible that Stanford requiring X to come on early OVs, and emphasizing things other than NIL money, in addition to the academic requirements (that don't any longer include standardized test scores?), Stanford may have found a way to actually so differentiate itself from the recruiting pitches of other schools, that it might actually end up with a pool of potential admits with more talent in it than it has historically had.
Will be interesting to see how the 2023 class shapes up as Stanford's differentiation from other schools - already significant - becomes even more acute as most schools are trying to do their utmost to get as many pay deals in place for recruits as possible, and Stanford doesn't.
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - slide - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 12:18 PM)teejers1 Wrote: On TOS, early speculation is that the OL from Minnesota could be the surprise big contributor (though as OL, probably not right away).
In fairness to Shaw, 1-11 is not 3-9, so "we'll not see that again" is technically accurate. I'm MUCH more interested in NOT seeing total humiliation/being outclassed on the field. Baby steps. It's hard to really grasp and appreciate how historically bad Stanford football was the last third of this past season.
finger crossed on Heyer too.
OF made some good points, but there is a lot of historical revisionism in Shaw's remarks. on official visits and applications, that is on him and staff. there's barely oversight of Shaw much less oversight at this level of detail. if Shaw is confident enough to trickle out early offers, then that seems to be the bare minimum of recruits who'd merit an offer for a Spring OV.
I know Shaw doesn't want to give up the s'mores/bonding Official Visit weekend, but it grows more tired and less relevant by the year given it is roughly a month after early signing day. we have enough AD staff to handle multiple big weekend visits.
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - teejers1 - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 12:54 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Another area of failure by the assembled reporters yesterday was not asking a single question about NIL as it relates to Stanford. It's simply amazing that nobody could ask a question on that topic given the current landscape.
That said, as evidenced by including early visits in his answer to the early enrollment question, David Shaw is certainly comfortable bringing up topics he finds important, even if the question doesn't ask about it specifically.
The fact Shaw did not mention NIL once in his comments, and he covered the ground he did, my takeaway is Stanford may not need to rely on NIL money as much as basically every other school in the country. What I mean is it seems to me guys like David Bailey and some others in the class could immediately make more money at other schools, yet despite this they are choosing Stanford.
So it might be that guys who are serious about Stanford can't be swayed by the promise of short-term cash puling recruits to other schools. It's theoretically possible that Stanford requiring X to come on early OVs, and emphasizing things other than NIL money, in addition to the academic requirements (that don't any longer include standardized test scores?), Stanford may have found a way to actually so differentiate itself from the recruiting pitches of other schools, that it might actually end up with a pool of potential admits with more talent in it than it has historically had.
Will be interesting to see how the 2023 class shapes up as Stanford's differentiation from other schools - already significant - becomes even more acute as most schools are trying to do their utmost to get as many pay deals in place for recruits as possible, and Stanford doesn't.
Stanford University is a very valuable draw unto itself, irrespective of football team.
And if you want to quantify that draw, think of it this way: in Admissions Scandal, how much were parents willing to pay to have kids admitted to very good private schools? Hint: a LOT more than tuition, room, and board. So even from a "pure numbers" standpoint, the NIL lure would have to be a lot - above $500K (?) - to match "market rate" of an admissions ticket to Stanford. So Stanford should be able to better fend off NIL lure to other schools. Same for Notre Dame, Duke, Vandy, SC, and some of the better public schools (UVA, Michigan, Cal, UCLA, etc.).
And that goes to a broader point: how do you think Shaw would fare recruiting at any other school besides Stanford? Geez . . .
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - Austroturf - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 01:04 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-16-2021, 12:54 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Another area of failure by the assembled reporters yesterday was not asking a single question about NIL as it relates to Stanford. It's simply amazing that nobody could ask a question on that topic given the current landscape.
That said, as evidenced by including early visits in his answer to the early enrollment question, David Shaw is certainly comfortable bringing up topics he finds important, even if the question doesn't ask about it specifically.
The fact Shaw did not mention NIL once in his comments, and he covered the ground he did, my takeaway is Stanford may not need to rely on NIL money as much as basically every other school in the country. What I mean is it seems to me guys like David Bailey and some others in the class could immediately make more money at other schools, yet despite this they are choosing Stanford.
So it might be that guys who are serious about Stanford can't be swayed by the promise of short-term cash puling recruits to other schools. It's theoretically possible that Stanford requiring X to come on early OVs, and emphasizing things other than NIL money, in addition to the academic requirements (that don't any longer include standardized test scores?), Stanford may have found a way to actually so differentiate itself from the recruiting pitches of other schools, that it might actually end up with a pool of potential admits with more talent in it than it has historically had.
Will be interesting to see how the 2023 class shapes up as Stanford's differentiation from other schools - already significant - becomes even more acute as most schools are trying to do their utmost to get as many pay deals in place for recruits as possible, and Stanford doesn't.
Stanford University is a very valuable draw unto itself, irrespective of football team.
And if you want to quantify that draw, think of it this way: in Admissions Scandal, how much were parents willing to pay to have kids admitted to very good private schools? Hint: a LOT more than tuition, room, and board. So even from a "pure numbers" standpoint, the NIL lure would have to be a lot - above $500K (?) - to match "market rate" of an admissions ticket to Stanford. So Stanford should be able to better fend off NIL lure to other schools. Same for Notre Dame, Duke, Vandy, SC, and some of the better public schools (UVA, Michigan, Cal, UCLA, etc.).
And that goes to a broader point: how do you think Shaw would fare recruiting at any other school besides Stanford? Geez . . .
Well, that's sort of what Mike Leach was once insinuating when he was comparing the lure of Stanford to the lure of Pullman on the Palouse. Leach loved taking shots at Shaw and didn't want to hear about how tough it was to get players to come to Stanford. Getting them to commit to playing football in a far corner of Eastern Washington, in a veritable podunkville, was much tougher, the Pirate opined.
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - Phogge - 12-16-2021
I think it was Bobby Murcer who said, "Walker Little was never a Giant, or never a Cardinal."
RE: Signing Day at Gostanford.com - winflop - 12-17-2021
Kudos to the program on a great recruiting class. May they have a coaching staff worthy of their talents (the one they have today is not)