The CardBoard
David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - 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: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity (/thread-18692.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - cardcrimson - 12-14-2019

(12-14-2019, 11:52 AM)Phogge Wrote:  . . . .especially since there will be no sellouts in the near future.

Do you really think the portal's full at 12? I'd expect a few more, at least.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - teejers1 - 12-14-2019

(12-13-2019, 01:35 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(12-13-2019, 12:54 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  2011 was Harbaugh's players and Andrew Luck running the offensive show.

You can't at once claim that Shaw always underperforms his talent and at the same time say that in 2011 and 2015 it was Harbaugh recruits.  If he really always underperforms his talent, it doesn't matter who recruited the talent.  Clearly with top notch talent, Shaw doesn't underperform, since twice he has led top-five offenses.

Criticisms of the 2014 offense are valid, and have been made more eloquently by CTCard among others.

BC
One last thought.  Willingham's 1999 team, like Shaw's 2015 team, had fifth year seniors (including the QB) recruited by their predecessors.  You have never called into question Willingham's 1999 accomplishment because there might have been some Walsh leftovers.

BC

Newsflash:  Shaw underperformed to talent in 2011.  The Stanford team was not prepared for the home Oregon game, and we all know what happened at the Fiesta Bowl.

2015 was a great year.  But have you looked at Stanford's roster that year?  Loaded.  Shaw gets credit for recruiting most all of them, for sure.  But that was also at Northwestern, right?  But I'll never convince you on 2015, so I'll just stick with "the exception that proves the rule."

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - CowboyIndian - 12-14-2019

(12-14-2019, 06:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Newsflash:  Shaw underperformed to talent in 2011.  The Stanford team was not prepared for the home Oregon game, and we all know what happened at the Fiesta Bowl.

2015 was a great year.  But have you looked at Stanford's roster that year?  Loaded.  Shaw gets credit for recruiting most all of them, for sure.  But that was also at Northwestern, right?  But I'll never convince you on 2015, so I'll just stick with "the exception that proves the rule."

As far as I can tell, your argument seems to insist that any year we don’t go 15-0, Shaw is at fault. Have you been following Michigan...or any of 130 or so other teams? ONE team MIGHT have that record At the end of this year.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - JohnR34231 - 12-15-2019

(12-14-2019, 11:31 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:  
(12-14-2019, 06:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Newsflash:  Shaw underperformed to talent in 2011.  The Stanford team was not prepared for the home Oregon game, and we all know what happened at the Fiesta Bowl.

2015 was a great year.  But have you looked at Stanford's roster that year?  Loaded.  Shaw gets credit for recruiting most all of them, for sure.  But that was also at Northwestern, right?  But I'll never convince you on 2015, so I'll just stick with "the exception that proves the rule."

As far as I can tell, your argument seems to insist that any year we don’t go 15-0, Shaw is at fault. Have you been following Michigan...or any of 130 or so other teams?  ONE team MIGHT have that record At the end of this year.

My father was a college football coach, and he used to say many decades ago:
When you lose, of course you're a bum.
When you win it's look at all that talent on the roster. Anyone could win with that.
Doesn't look like things have changed that much over the years.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - gailtate - 12-15-2019

(12-15-2019, 05:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:  
(12-14-2019, 11:31 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:  
(12-14-2019, 06:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Newsflash:  Shaw underperformed to talent in 2011.  The Stanford team was not prepared for the home Oregon game, and we all know what happened at the Fiesta Bowl.
















2015 was a great year.  But have you looked at Stanford's roster that year?  Loaded.  Shaw gets credit for recruiting most all of them, for sure.  But that was also at Northwestern, right?  But I'll never convince you on 2015, so I'll just stick with "the exception that proves the rule."

As far as I can tell, your argument seems to insist that any year we don’t go 15-0, Shaw is at fault. Have you been following Michigan...or any of 130 or so other teams?  ONE team MIGHT have that record At the end of this year.

My father was a college football coach, and he used to say many decades ago:
When you lose, of course you're a bum.
When you win it's look at all that talent on the roster. Anyone could win with that.
Doesn't look like things have changed that much over the years.


A few years ago, after Stanford had beaten ND in Palo Alto, I went to one of the ND boards to enjoy some schadenfreude. Read something prescient from a Irish fan who told the irate posters not to sweat the "rise" of Stanford. It was, he reassured them, a blip. A mirage. He went on to say that the Cardinal would inevitably "revert to their mean of mediocrity", Notre would prevail, that God would be back in heaven and all would be right in the world. Damn.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - JohnR34231 - 12-15-2019

(12-15-2019, 09:29 AM)gailtate Wrote:  
(12-15-2019, 05:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:  
(12-14-2019, 11:31 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:  
(12-14-2019, 06:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Newsflash:  Shaw underperformed to talent in 2011.  The Stanford team was not prepared for the home Oregon game, and we all know what happened at the Fiesta Bowl.
















2015 was a great year.  But have you looked at Stanford's roster that year?  Loaded.  Shaw gets credit for recruiting most all of them, for sure.  But that was also at Northwestern, right?  But I'll never convince you on 2015, so I'll just stick with "the exception that proves the rule."

As far as I can tell, your argument seems to insist that any year we don’t go 15-0, Shaw is at fault. Have you been following Michigan...or any of 130 or so other teams?  ONE team MIGHT have that record At the end of this year.

My father was a college football coach, and he used to say many decades ago:
When you lose, of course you're a bum.
When you win it's look at all that talent on the roster. Anyone could win with that.
Doesn't look like things have changed that much over the years.


A few years ago, after Stanford had beaten ND in Palo Alto, I went to one of the ND boards to enjoy some schadenfreude. Read something prescient from a Irish fan who told the irate posters not to sweat the "rise" of Stanford. It was, he reassured them, a blip. A mirage. He went on to say that the Cardinal would inevitably "revert to their mean of mediocrity", Notre would prevail, that God would be back in heaven and all would be right in the world. Damn.

Well, when ND won in Palo Alto this year, it was the first time they had done so since 2007. I think you would have to consider twelve years more than a "blip".

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - gailtate - 12-15-2019

(12-15-2019, 09:43 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:  
(12-15-2019, 09:29 AM)gailtate Wrote:  
(12-15-2019, 05:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:  
(12-14-2019, 11:31 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:  
(12-14-2019, 06:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Newsflash:  Shaw underperformed to talent in 2011.  The Stanford team was not prepared for the home Oregon game, and we all know what happened at the Fiesta Bowl.
















2015 was a great year.  But have you looked at Stanford's roster that year?  Loaded.  Shaw gets credit for recruiting most all of them, for sure.  But that was also at Northwestern, right?  But I'll never convince you on 2015, so I'll just stick with "the exception that proves the rule."

As far as I can tell, your argument seems to insist that any year we don’t go 15-0, Shaw is at fault. Have you been following Michigan...or any of 130 or so other teams?  ONE team MIGHT have that record At the end of this year.

My father was a college football coach, and he used to say many decades ago:
When you lose, of course you're a bum.
When you win it's look at all that talent on the roster. Anyone could win with that.
Doesn't look like things have changed that much over the years.


A few years ago, after Stanford had beaten ND in Palo Alto, I went to one of the ND boards to enjoy some schadenfreude. Read something prescient from a Irish fan who told the irate posters not to sweat the "rise" of Stanford. It was, he reassured them, a blip. A mirage. He went on to say that the Cardinal would inevitably "revert to their mean of mediocrity", Notre would prevail, that God would be back in heaven and all would be right in the world. Damn.

Well, when ND won in Palo Alto this year, it was the first time they had done so since 2007. I think you would have to consider twelve years more than a "blip".

I assume the writer was looking at Stanford v. Notre Dame from the perspective of each school's football history. From his perspective, the Irish have a fairly sizable edge.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - Phogge - 12-16-2019

College football fans are divided into two classes. 99% who think they have the only team that exists and the other percent, people with an open mind. Of course Notre Dame is up there with Alabama, Michigan, OSU, SC and St. John’s Minnesota (D3). Stanford has a great heritage and nothing to apologize about but is virtually unknown to the 99%.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - stupac2 - 12-16-2019

(12-14-2019, 08:24 AM)81alum Wrote:  but how many admits who are NOT football recruits have been admitted with a "paltry" 3.65 gpa like Christian McCaffrey?

Not that I remember but my HS GPA was probably right around there. Do admits really have a >4 GPA on a 4.0 scale, meaning they average between an A and A+? That seems absurd.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - SamuelMcF - 12-16-2019

(12-16-2019, 12:28 PM)stupac2 Wrote:  
(12-14-2019, 08:24 AM)81alum Wrote:  but how many admits who are NOT football recruits have been admitted with a "paltry" 3.65 gpa like Christian McCaffrey?

Not that I remember but my HS GPA was probably right around there. Do admits really have a >4 GPA on a 4.0 scale, meaning they average between an A and A+? That seems absurd.

I did (c/o '16), but that was weighted...all our AP classes were graded on a 5.0 scale, and I took 8. Our valedictorian (who was accepted to Stanford but went to Yale) had a 4.4. Stanford has its own way of weighting your GPA based on the level of class, but I don't know what it is.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - yvonne - 12-16-2019

I work with kids from the Cupertino school district, and it's definitely true that kids have upper 3.x unweighted GPAs and weighted GPA well over 4.0. What's more, many schools in the area have average SAT scores over 1450. One or two kids from these local schools will get accepted to Stanford.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - 81alum - 12-16-2019

(12-16-2019, 12:28 PM)stupac2 Wrote:  
(12-14-2019, 08:24 AM)81alum Wrote:  but how many admits who are NOT football recruits have been admitted with a "paltry" 3.65 gpa like Christian McCaffrey?

Not that I remember but my HS GPA was probably right around there. Do admits really have a >4 GPA on a 4.0 scale, meaning they average between an A and A+? That seems absurd.
Many high schools calculate weighted GPAs--AP classes, honors classes, and IB classes count as "5" rather than as "4" if an A.  So a student who takes a great many AP classes and gets "A"s in all of them can get a GPA considerably above 4.0.

Stanford admissions does not use weighted GPAs but recalculates GPA in its own way.  It only used the final 3 years and it only uses academic courses, and it uses the 4.0 scale.  However, a student who earns a 4.0 taking a lot of AP classes is a stronger candidate than a student who earns a 4.0 taking just normal classes.  This is one reason why Shaw tells recruits they have to take AP courses.  So Stanford does "weight" the GPA in a subjective sense, even though they don't in a mathematical sense.

Basically, getting a 3.65 gpa--whether weighted or not--is a disaster for a typical Stanford applicant.  Stanford stopped posting the average GPAs of its admits in 2017 since it was so demoralizing, but the last year they did so (2016) 58% of admits had 4.0 gpas, and only 14% lower than 3.7.  Those 14% probably all were absolutely outstanding in some extracurricular.  Since 2016 things have gotten much worse.  That year the admit rate was 4.8% and it has steadily declined to the point that they are refusing to provide it any more.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - stupac2 - 12-17-2019

I find talking about weighted GPAs to be absurd, every school does it differently (mine didn't at all, I've heard of places going as high as 6.0 for certain courses), so you never know what you're talking about. Anyway, perhaps something like a 3.65 would be a disaster now, but I thought that it depends on what else you're doing to make up for it, and that admissions cares more about trend lines, ie I didn't have the strongest 4-year GPA, but my junior/senior year GPAs were probably pretty close to a 4.0 with the most difficult slate I could take at my school, so I think the slightly worse results in earlier years mattered less. No idea if that's still the case (or really if it was even true then).

We're certainly in an interesting place right now regarding admissions to elite schools, it really doesn't seem like the current system can hold up under its own weight for much longer, but short of a massive federal commitment to expanding slots at elite research universities, I'm not sure what to do. (Although I've certainly been a fan of "everyone who clears this bar gets put into the pool and it's a random draw from there", I'm not sure it's practicable.)

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - CTcard - 12-17-2019

(12-17-2019, 11:09 AM)stupac2 Wrote:  I find talking about weighted GPAs to be absurd, every school does it differently (mine didn't at all, I've heard of places going as high as 6.0 for certain courses), so you never know what you're talking about.

This is quite true, and why Stanford pays no attention to what high schools' say is a student's GPA, they recalculate on their own based upon transcript.

Quote:Anyway, perhaps something like a 3.65 would be a disaster now, but I thought that it depends on what else you're doing to make up for it, and that admissions cares more about trend lines, ie I didn't have the strongest 4-year GPA, but my junior/senior year GPAs were probably pretty close to a 4.0 with the most difficult slate I could take at my school, so I think the slightly worse results in earlier years mattered less. No idea if that's still the case (or really if it was even true then).

I think it has been a long time since a Stanford-calculated 3.65 has been very competitive. There's always been room for a significant story.
In the past, Stanford had only considered grades 10-12 and threw out courses they do not consider "academic", so it is possible that Stanford considered your GPA to be higher than did your high school.

Stanford does still publish the common data set. Mostly the GPA information is too coarse to be of much use for this sort of discussion, but perhaps not for 3.65.
For the most recent report (entering class of 2019 I think), Stanford reports that 95.4% of entering freshmen had a GPA of 4.0, 3.6% had a GPA of 3.75 to 3.99, 0.9% had a GPA of 3.5 to 3.74, and 0.1% had a GPA of 3.25 to 3.49. None were lower than that.
It's not entirely clear if Stanford is reporting what the high school says the GPA is or Stanford's own calculation, though there are some words that might indicate the former.
Stanford Common Data Set 2019-20

The oldest Common Data Set easily available is from 2008-09. The categories were slightly different then, but Stanford reported 87.2% of entering frosh had GPA over 3.75, 9.1% had GPA from 3.5 to 3.74, 2.9% had GPA from 3.25 to 3.49, 0.6% had GPA from 3.0 to 3.24, 0.1% had GPA from 2.5 to 2.99, and 0.1% had GPA from 2.0 to 2.49.
[That last one is curious.]
So, either high school grade inflation has been continuing apace, or Stanford has driven up the bar on GPA. Probably both.
Stanford Common Data Set 2008-09

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - cctop - 12-17-2019

(12-17-2019, 12:49 PM)CTcard Wrote:  0.1% had GPA from 2.5 to 2.99, and 0.1% had GPA from 2.0 to 2.49. 
[That last one is curious.]

Two possibilities I can think of:

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - JJJ - 12-17-2019

(12-17-2019, 01:48 PM)cctop Wrote:  
(12-17-2019, 12:49 PM)CTcard Wrote:  0.1% had GPA from 2.5 to 2.99, and 0.1% had GPA from 2.0 to 2.49. 
[That last one is curious.]

Two possibilities I can think of:
  • the smartest guy in my public high school -- arguably the smartest guy I have personally known -- was a C student.  He was so smart that he was bored and didn't bother to turn in homework.  His artificially low GPA made him the secret weapon for the Academic Decathlon team which required a mix of A, B, and C students.
  • maybe the person was a late bloomer like this guy who wrote a Stanford Daily article about being a 30-year-old freshman after getting kicked out of the Navy.    (He has several other short pieces worth reading as well.  Click on his byline to get to them.)

Thanks for sharing the 30yr old freshman story! How did I not come across this before? Great read!

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - BostonCard - 12-17-2019

A couple quick comments:

First, college enrollment is declining (link), so we may have passed the peak of the admissions issues.  In fact, since the peak in 2011, enrollment is down by about 11%.  Though of course admission to elite universities will remain ultra competitive, unless kids continue to get smarter, there might be slightly less pressure on them.

Second, I've worked with smart people from all sorts of institutions.  Stanford is a great place, but it is not the be all and end all, and if my kids (who are approaching the age at which we are starting to think of schools) wind up being like the 95+% of students who apply and don't get in, there are plenty of places where they will receive a great education and have much more reasonable odds of getting in.

BC

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - qwerty49 - 12-18-2019

(12-17-2019, 03:57 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  A couple quick comments:

First, college enrollment is declining (link), so we may have passed the peak of the admissions issues.  In fact, since the peak in 2011, enrollment is down by about 11%.  Though of course admission to elite universities will remain ultra competitive, unless kids continue to get smarter, there might be slightly less pressure on them.

Second, I've worked with smart people from all sorts of institutions.  Stanford is a great place, but it is not the be all and end all, and if my kids (who are approaching the age at which we are starting to think of schools) wind up being like the 95+% of students who apply and don't get in, there are plenty of places where they will receive a great education and have much more reasonable odds of getting in.

BC

I suppose everything's relative.  The general population has more than doubled since I was in high school, and it just feels like the number of class spots in accredited colleges has not increased at the same rate.  More people applying for not as many slots = harder to get in I think.

I just read an article somewhere that the average age of a licensed electrician in Calif was 57.  And that hence a kid graduating from high school here could be doing really well financially as an electrician by the age of 23, and doing better than a lot of college graduates.  Factor in the 80-300K it might take to spend a kid off to college and the investment payback math gets pretty hairy.

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - JustAnotherFan - 12-18-2019

I am getting a kick reading the posts about McCaffrey's GPA. He's wasn't just any 3.65 GPA kid. He was a recruited athlete. A recruited football athlete. A recruited football athlete at an impact position. He was rated as a top 100 recruit, number 1 in Colorado. Not all recruited athletes are the same. Shaw doesn't get to walk applicants across the finish line but he is allowed to highlight his top priorities. That matters.

Oh, he is also a double legacy, with both his mom and dad being Stanford grads. And his dad was a relatively famous Stanford grad. 

He was a no-brainer admit.
BTW, it seems some folks here are hoping that Shaw will be Kirk Ferentz, with his best years at the beginning of his career (after taking over for a Hall of Fame coach), and having 7-9 wins each year this decade with the exception of one four win season and one 12 win season (that ended with a loss to Shaw in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Ferentz

RE: David Shaw is still hot NFL commodity - JohnR34231 - 12-18-2019

(12-18-2019, 04:50 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:  I am getting a kick reading the posts about McCaffrey's GPA. He's wasn't just any 3.65 GPA kid. He was a recruited athlete. A recruited football athlete. A recruited football athlete at an impact position. He was rated as a top 100 recruit, number 1 in Colorado. Not all recruited athletes are the same. Shaw doesn't get to walk applicants across the finish line but he is allowed to highlight his top priorities. That matters.

Oh, he is also a double legacy, with both his mom and dad being Stanford grads. And his dad was a relatively famous Stanford grad. 

He was a no-brainer admit.
BTW, it seems some folks here are hoping that Shaw will be Kirk Ferentz, with his best years at the beginning of his career (after taking over for a Hall of Fame coach), and having 7-9 wins each year this decade with the exception of one four win season and one 12 win season (that ended with a loss to Shaw in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Ferentz

Not sure how accurate it was, but I remember reading that it took some doing to get Christian past admissions.