the quality of this class - Printable Version

the quality of this class - 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: the quality of this class (/thread-4735.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: the quality of this class - washingtonismoney - 01-17-2013

(01-17-2013, 04:53 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:We have 12 commitments. Of those commitments, five of them are ESPN top 300. Only two schools have an equal or larger number of ESPN 300 commits. Only Under Stanford Control has a higher percentage of ESPN 300 commits. This may not be a class on par with last year's, but it's nothing to be sneezed at.

ESPN's just one datum though -- and given their bias towards the southeast and against the west, one that will probably end up favoring us most years. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, just that it's probably best to take a range of opinions in. 247 likes us as the second-best class in the Pac-12 by rating (they rate all players on a 70-100 scale); Scout, on the other hand, has us fifth in the conference; Rivals also has us fifth in the conference, though basically 3rd-5th are a dead heat.

Like I said, it's not a disastrous class; there are a number of very good prospects; but at the same time it's not an experience we should want to repeat terribly often in the future ... assuming we like Pasadena in January.

re: Burns and Browne -- it doesn't have much to do with enthusiasm. We never offered Browne; early in the recruiting cycle Browne sounded really excited about the possibility of getting an offer, but we went with Burns. We like Burns more than Browne, and I don't think it has anything to do with Chryst.

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-17-2013

Yes, it's one data set (each individual school measure is one datum). The Rivals data indicate that this is one of the best classes in the conference. The rating puts heavy emphasis on the number of recruits, but when the results are adjusted based on the size of the class, it's also second in the conference. Stanford doesn't need a bunch of five star kids to be successful. It needs the right combination of very good players.

As for those complaining about the lack of numbers, that lack of numbers comes from having a large number of returning players, so by definition, there's depth. If the small number of commits came from not being able to sign enough students for the number of openings it had, that would be something to worry about.

Re: the quality of this class - washingtonismoney - 01-17-2013

(01-17-2013, 06:18 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Yes, it's one data set (each individual school measure is one datum). The Rivals data indicate that this is one of the best classes in the conference. The rating puts heavy emphasis on the number of recruits, but when the results are adjusted based on the size of the class, it's also second in the conference. Stanford doesn't need a bunch of five star kids to be successful. It needs the right combination of very good players.

All data above was per capita. Rivals and Scout don't like our classes relatively much.

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-17-2013

Sorry, but you're wrong. Rivals' algorithm is based on the number of commits, the number of four star commits, and the average. Sort the chart based on average by clicking on the Avg. column, and you'll see a different picture.

Re: the quality of this class - washingtonismoney - 01-17-2013

(01-17-2013, 07:42 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Sorry, but you're wrong. Rivals' algorithm is based on the number of commits, the number of four star commits, and the average. Sort the chart based on average by clicking on the Avg. column, and you'll see a different picture.

O RLY?:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92321181@N03/8390347153/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92321181@N03/8391430070/in/photostream

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-17-2013

You must have really hated that 2009 class:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2009/all/all

Re: the quality of this class - washingtonismoney - 01-17-2013

A clear-cut third place in the Pac-12, and close behind second vs fifth in the Pac-12? The two situations are (at the moment) scarcely comparable.

EDIT: To say nothing of the team's changing fortunes since then. It should be easier to recruit to a three-time BCS bowl team than one coming off of a 5-7 season.

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-17-2013

Yeah because back then we didn't have three all conference guys returning. You're not going to get top five classes every year. To get a class that fills in some holes and adds depth to an already good team is nothing to sneer at.

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-17-2013

How 'bout this class of mostly two-stars. http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/stanford-63

They really sucked. Eight three stars, seven two stars and only two guys with four stars. We couldn't possibly have been thinking about the Rose Bowl with those guys. The only people worth note were the quarterback and wide receiver. Only three linemen were selected, one of them with two stars.

Re: the quality of this class - washingtonismoney - 01-17-2013

(01-17-2013, 09:19 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:How 'bout this class of mostly two-stars. http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/stanford-63

They really sucked. Eight three stars, seven two stars and only two guys with four stars. We couldn't possibly have been thinking about the Rose Bowl with those guys. The only people worth note were the quarterback and wide receiver. Only three linemen were selected, one of them with two stars.

Well, sure, if you want to change the premise entirely -- from "the star system likes our players just fine!" to "the star system sucks!" -- then that's totally fine and your right. But it's an epic goalpost-move.

(01-17-2013, 09:01 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Yeah because back then we didn't have three all conference guys returning. You're not going to get top five classes every year. To get a class that fills in some holes and adds depth to an already good team is nothing to sneer at.

This is a pretty good strawman. Having all-conference players returning didn't seem to hurt us in 2012, and more to the point I'm not sneering at the class. I'm calling it "OK, not disastrous" and a "B/B+" type of a class. And I don't believe I've posited expectations of a top five class, as I've been measuring the class by a star average basis anyway.

So unless we're in a Little League world where everyone gets a trophy, this seems like a fair judgment of the class to me. Of course, as I've also noted, because of the small class we can afford a bit of an off class, but it's not the sort of thing we want to repeat if we like the idea of Pasadena in January.

Yes, I know this is the point where you harumph about the 2008 class, but what made the 2008 class special was that it was, well, special. It's hard to expect even a really highly-ranted class to perform that well -- I'd be shocked if our 2012 class produced the equivalent of maybe the best QB, maybe the best offensive lineman, and of the best pass rushers in program history.

Nevertheless, looking at history indicates that if you want the odds in your favor, it's a good idea to bring in highly ranked classes. Here's the list of BCS national championship game participants from 2000: Oklahoma, Florida State, Miami, Nebraska, Ohio State, LSU, S.C., Texas, Florida, Alabama, Oregon, N.D, Auburn.Â

Feel free to identify the teams in that list that aren't fixtures in the top ten recruiting rankings. Again, you'll find exceptions, but that's all they are -- exceptions.

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-18-2013

Well, maybe we've found some common ground. I don't think this is an A or A+ class. It's a solid, above average class, but I think a solid class following an A+ class is going to get you there. What's more, this class is an upgrade on what we had in the past. It's not a step to the bad old days. In the past, we might have had a class of mostly 2-3 star guys and maybe two high profile guys. This class is nearly half four-star guys. I'd much rather have a class of really solid guys than a class of not many good athletes and a couple superstars. Even Cotton, who's not rated in the top 100 at his position, is a three star guy.

As far as players not returning not hurting us in last year's class, last year's class still had a lot of openings despite the return of Thomas. (I'm pretty sure we didn't have three returning fifth year All Conference guys.) There's no way we could have pulled in five 4-5 star offensive linemen even if they had been available.

Next year's class is starting out to be like last year's class. It will have the numbers and some really good guys are going to be interested. BUT there are going to be problems with it. In fact, some of the problems are going to be caused by our success. We are going to have a really tough time recruiting wide receivers.

Re: the quality of this class - oman - 01-18-2013

(01-17-2013, 10:27 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=7402.msg57443#msg57443 date=1358482748]
How 'bout this class of mostly two-stars. http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/stanford-63

They really sucked. Eight three stars, seven two stars and only two guys with four stars. We couldn't possibly have been thinking about the Rose Bowl with those guys. The only people worth note were the quarterback and wide receiver. Only three linemen were selected, one of them with two stars.

(01-17-2013, 09:01 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Yeah because back then we didn't have three all conference guys returning. You're not going to get top five classes every year. To get a class that fills in some holes and adds depth to an already good team is nothing to sneer at.

Re: the quality of this class - Renaissance Man - 01-18-2013

Remember that, with our relatively recent reversal of fortune, the rating of players we are recruiting are adjusted upward BECAUSE we are recruiting them.Â

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-18-2013

For clarification, are you suggesting that our four and three star players are really two and three stars?

Re: the quality of this class - DC - 01-18-2013

Eric Cotton was a 2-star initially, and became a 3-star after he chose Stanford and Stanford chose him.Â

I'm not saying this is the case with all the recruits.Â

Re: the quality of this class - socalstanfan1 - 01-19-2013

Increasing the number of stars awarded to a player often happens, I think, when that player starts as nearly a complete unknown before being offered by a major program.Â And before we jump to the conclusion that this is just some kind of "grade inflation" to borrow a term from academia, I think in recruting this may make some sense.Â Cotton is a great example (as is Thomas Oser).

My understanding is that neither Cotton nor Oser promoted themselves by attending recruitment camps and other events.Â In Cotton's case the lack of publicity was probably even greater since he hails from one of the smallest states in the country, hardly a place where recruiters (or recruit website writers) will travel unless they hear of someone spectacular.Â (At least in Oser's place, though he plays at a school that is not an athletic power, he is located in LA, and thus might be noticed by scouts coming to check out other players).Â So Cotton and Oser begin getting publicity after they begin making the rounds to Universities, and begin to recieve offers.Â I think it makes perfect sense for a recruitnik, who has never seen or heard of a player, to assume that if a college program that has had success in developing players has offered someone like Cotton, that he probably deserves some more recognition.Â Hopefully, the evaluator does not just arbitrarily pick a star value.Â But maybe he gets some film, or talks to some coaches, or calls the local press in Idaho, and after hearing some information, gives the rating a bump.Â To me, that seems reasonable, and doesn't mean that Cotton's evaluation is over-valued, but maybe the new star rating is more accurate than the original.

Re: the quality of this class - Renaissance Man - 01-22-2013

To clarify my earlier comment--if our coaches discovered an undervalued two-star recruit six or seven years ago, it didn't provoke attention from other schools and recruiting services.Â I believe that is why we had a number of players perform at a higher level during their time at Stanford than their star rating would have predicted.Â By the same token, it is more likely that U.SC, Alabama and other traditional powers would end up with more players with inflated value, due to their mutual interest in said player.Â A player that Stanford shows interest in today is going to get a closer look from other top programs than he would have a decade ago.Â This also means that a player with a scholarship offer from Stanford who keeps a rating of two stars is probably a two-star prospect, at best, while a four-star is more likely to be overrated than he was in the past.Â We are going to have much better athletes now, than at any time in the past, but we are less likely to find as many overachievers as we have seen the past few years.

Chandler Dorrell - ChicagoCard - 01-26-2013

I listened to David Lombardi interview Devon Allen. He seemed to convey luke warm interest. I think Lombardi seemed to think there was a solid chance for Smythe but that Cunningham was unlikely. What happens then with the scholarships unfilled by these targets? Try to flip somebody or maybe 1 or 2 of the walk-ons get a scholarship? Or would they ever just keep a scholarship unfilled for a year? That might seem a slap in the face to a walk-on, especially those that are already seeing playing time.

Did anybody see that Karl Dorrell's son, Chandler Dorrell, might come to Stanford? He says: "I always grew up loving Stanford," Dorrell said. "When my dad was (at UCLA) Stanford wasn't the best. They had some rough seasons, but I just always loved the school. I visited up there a couple of times when I was younger and just loved the campus and the environment and everything."

http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1464626

Re: the quality of this class - Extra Point - 01-26-2013

"What happens then with the scholarships unfilled by these targets?"

According to Scout, Stanford just gave an offer to two star Utah linebacker Albert Tai. I guess Shaw is giving scholarships to plan B players now, either that or he has found diamonds in the rough.

Does anyone know anything about Xavier Woods? He is another 2 star offer according to Scout. He is not in the Rival database.

Re: the quality of this class - slide - 01-26-2013

here you go:

on recent visit:

http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1462921

Rivals profile:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Xavier-Woods-137157