The CardBoard
Football Recruiting Recruiting - 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: Football Recruiting Recruiting (/thread-18274.html)


Recruiting - cardcrimson - 10-05-2019

According to Rivals, we have 13 commits for the 2020 season, one of whom is a kicker. We're currently ranked 31st in the country and 4th in the Pac-12. Also, we have the fewest commits of any of the top 50 classes.

An interesting tidbit, there are only two 5 star recruits that have signed with any Pac-12 school. Stanford has one of them. So we have that going for us, which is nice.

RE: Recruiting - SamuelMcF - 10-05-2019

(10-05-2019, 08:55 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  According to Rivals, we have 13 commits for the 2020 season, one of whom is a kicker. We're currently ranked 31st in the country and 4th in the Pac-12. Also, we have the fewest commits of any of the top 50 classes.

An interesting tidbit, there are only two 5 star recruits that have signed with any Pac-12 school. Stanford has one of them. So we have that going for us, which is nice.

Try the stickied "Fball RecruitingClass of 2020" thread, which has over 400 comments in it so far.

Rivals is trash. Use 247sports.

RE: Recruiting - BobK - 10-05-2019

247 leaves off one always. We have 14 plus the mission QB. I think it’s the long s paper left off

RE: Recruiting - cardcrimson - 10-05-2019

Was less of a recruiting comment and more of a why do we only have 14 recruits, the lowest of any of the first 50 classes.

Also, odd that none of the teams in the pac-12 are attracting the top tier talent at this point.

RE: Recruiting - d4cohn - 10-05-2019

(10-05-2019, 01:12 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  Was less of a recruiting comment and more of a why do we only have 14 recruits, the lowest of any of the first 50 classes.

Also, odd that none of the teams in the pac-12 are attracting the top tier talent at this point.

I don't think it is odd given the Pac-12 is irrelevant in the CFP race. The Pac-12 has only made the playoff 2 times in 5 years,
and it will almost certainly be 2 in 6 when the Pac-12 misses this year.

lex24 - lex24 - 10-05-2019

I’d be very curious to see a breakdown o& the top 100 prospects by region. Is that available?  Just a guess that a fairly high majority come from the South plus Texas and Oklahoma. 

Be even more curious to see top 100 list today versus 15 years ago. Another guess, but I suspect Calif has dropped.  I just think more and more kids are playing other sports - basketball, lacrosse, etc. in California. I don’t think football in high school is King.

RE: lex24 - martyup - 10-05-2019

(10-05-2019, 02:24 PM)lex24 Wrote:  
I just think more and more kids are playing other sports - basketball, lacrosse, etc. in California. I don’t think football in high school is King.

Friday night lightweights. 
[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Fd6...f=1&nofb=1]

RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 10-05-2019

(10-05-2019, 02:24 PM)lex24 Wrote:  
I’d be very curious to see a breakdown o& the top 100 prospects by region. Is that available?  Just a guess that a fairly high majority come from the South plus Texas and Oklahoma. 

Be even more curious to see top 100 list today versus 15 years ago. Another guess, but I suspect Calif has dropped.  I just think more and more kids are playing other sports - basketball, lacrosse, etc. in California. I don’t think football in high school is King.

Come on lex. You live in Contra Costa and you forgot about swimming and waterpolo?!?

RE: Recruiting - SamuelMcF - 10-05-2019

(10-05-2019, 01:12 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  Was less of a recruiting comment and more of a why do we only have 14 recruits, the lowest of any of the first 50 classes.

Guys wait to get in before committing.

RE: Recruiting - OutsiderFan - 10-06-2019

(10-05-2019, 11:27 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(10-05-2019, 01:12 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  Was less of a recruiting comment and more of a why do we only have 14 recruits, the lowest of any of the first 50 classes.

Guys wait to get in before committing.

Is this the new normal? And is it a Shaw directive now? There must be some guys for whom the football office knows they are slam dunks to be admitted, that are allowed to publicly commit before official admission, yes? So is it safe to say the public commits are admission slam dunks or have been admitted already?

RE: Recruiting - 2006alum - 10-06-2019

(10-06-2019, 07:28 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  
(10-05-2019, 11:27 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  Guys wait to get in before committing.

Is this the new normal? And is it a Shaw directive now? There must be some guys for whom the football office knows they are slam dunks to be admitted, that are allowed to publicly commit before official admission, yes? So is it safe to say the public commits are admission slam dunks or have been admitted already?

I can't speak for football but this is generally how it works for basketball. Recruits very rarely announce commitments until they've either been admitted or been given extremely credible promises of admissibility. 

And sometime in the past few recruiting cycles I recall a football recruit (I'm sure other will remember who it was) who had to back out of his commitment very late in the game in a manner that made it pretty clear that he got an unexpected admissions ding late in the process, and it was kind of awkward all the way around. So that situation may have left an impression on future cycles' recruits, as well as in how the football coaches advise recruits to time their commitments. For all we know, it might have come as a surprise to the coaches as well.

I'll say it again - football is harder for recruiting even than basketball, because you need 4-6 times the recruits and the Stanford football team alone constitutes more than 1% of all Stanford students (70+/~6900), so the admissions process for football has a not insignificant impact on Stanford's overall admissions process. I tip my hat to Shaw & Co. for generally managing it with such grace, because it has to be really frustrating to pursue exciting recruits and find out late in the process that they aren't going to get in.

RE: Recruiting - washingtonismoney - 10-06-2019

I don't think the slow pace of commits is anything unusual. Since time immemorial Stanford has had recruits commit more slowly than other schools. Stanford appears on pace for a pretty solid class, so this strikes me as pretty low on the list of concerns for Shaw. (though obviously he should be stretching to get a really bang-up class.)

RE: Recruiting - BostonCard - 10-06-2019

(10-06-2019, 08:22 AM)washingtonismoney Wrote:  I don't think the slow pace of commits is anything unusual. Since time immemorial Stanford has had recruits commit more slowly than other schools. Stanford appears on pace for a pretty solid class, so this strikes me as pretty low on the list of concerns for Shaw. (though obviously he should be stretching to get a really bang-up class.)

Generally I agree, but there are fewer players left uncommitted, so unless there are some stealths currently committed to other schools who we can turn (and there usually are), I’m not sure we will close as strong as we have in the past.

Also, the class is looking very unbalanced, and we may be looking at a situation where a dearth or defensive players will again bite us in the behind in three years.

BC

RE: Recruiting - CTcard - 10-06-2019

(10-06-2019, 08:22 AM)washingtonismoney Wrote:  I don't think the slow pace of commits is anything unusual. Since time immemorial Stanford has had recruits commit more slowly than other schools. Stanford appears on pace for a pretty solid class, so this strikes me as pretty low on the list of concerns for Shaw. (though obviously he should be stretching to get a really bang-up class.)

In addition, west coast recruits tend to commit later. U$C often comes roaring up the rankings late, and UCLA used to do so before their recruiting apparently tanked.

RE: Recruiting - slide - 10-06-2019

(10-06-2019, 03:09 PM)CTcard Wrote:  In addition, west coast recruits tend to commit later. U$C often comes roaring up the rankings late, and UCLA used to do so before their recruiting apparently tanked.

it might happen as you outline, but I am doubtful this year.  we do not have that many offers still out there in play.  
the '20 offer this weekend could be seen as further issues either with grades of current offerees or lack of traction with offerees or both.

this class (as BC has pointed out) is very lopsided/tilted to offense, and we are still short on ILBs and Ss

RE: Recruiting - winflop - 10-06-2019

Quantity as at least as important as quality. We are short several scholarships and need to replenish plus hedge against the usual spate of early draft entries, grad transfers, and medical retirements - or we will find ourselves in the same spot as this year with a too thin roster

RE: Recruiting - d4cohn - 10-06-2019

According to 247, looks like we are in at least decent/good position to land most of the 
remaining uncommitted guys that we have offered (which I think, as Coach Shaw says,
speaks to the fact that a Stanford offer is without terms, conditions or time limits).

I think we will end up with a very solid class when all is said and done (already top 3 in Pac).