(Football Recruiting) Is it just me or....

(Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - 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) Is it just me or.... (/thread-5416.html)

Pages: 1 2

(Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - metsjetsfan - 07-30-2013

...are Stanford coaches being wayyy more "generous" in giving out offers to recruits this year?

Seems like almost everyday, I'll see a tweet saying that some recruit received a Stanford offer. In most cases, it also appears that the recruit is not necessarily highly touted (e.g. 3 stars with few offers from top football schools).

Given my perception of how attractive a Stanford offer currently appears to recruits and potential high "matriculation rate," I wonder if coaches are giving out too many offers and will end up with too many commitments (and perhaps too many commitments from less targeted 2-3 star recruits, squeezing out 4-5 star recruits who take longer to decide). Nothing against 2-3 star recruits of course, as we've had tremendous success developing those types of recruits, but I think there's a reason those types of recruits commit on the spot as soon as they're given an offer.

Perhaps I never noticed before how many offers Stanford gave out because I only started following Stanford recruiting accounts on Twitter during the 2012-13 recruiting cycle (when we only signed ~14 recruits). I also don't have access to any premium message boards. However, I was closely following the 2011-12 recruiting cycle on Rivals, Scout, and ESPN when we signed 20+ recruits, and I don't remember this many confirmed offers to potential recruits this early.

Is it just me or is this year's activity normal when we have 20+ scholarships available? Perhaps someone who's been following those Stanford football Twitter accounts and/or has access to premium message boards can comment?

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - AthleticsDynasty - 07-30-2013

I would bet the coaches don't even know how many stars a recruit has when they offer.

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - JohnR34231 - 07-31-2013

As I posted before, I don't think the coaches really care how many stars a recruit has when they offer. The bring a kid into camp and if they like him they offer.
Is this a mistake? Time will tell, but for now I think we have to trust their judgment. It has worked out pretty well so far.

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - slide - 07-31-2013

(07-30-2013, 10:09 PM)metsjetsfan link Wrote:...are Stanford coaches being wayyy more "generous" in giving out offers to recruits this year?

not sure about being way more generous on offers to the class of 2014 (signing LOIs in Feb 2014).Â triangulating from various sources, we have about 90 offers out to fill a class of 20+.Â with the class of 2013, we signed 12 on an offer base of about 72 offers.Â for 2015, it does appear we are offering earlier, but we still trail our poll "peers" in number of early offers given.Â if anything, it appears we are on the other end of what you fear.

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - metsjetsfan - 07-31-2013

(07-31-2013, 06:13 AM)slide link Wrote:[quote author=metsjetsfan link=topic=8168.msg64963#msg64963 date=1375247349]
...are Stanford coaches being wayyy more "generous" in giving out offers to recruits this year?

(07-31-2013, 06:13 AM)slide link Wrote:not sure about being way more generous on offers to the class of 2014 (signing LOIs in Feb 2014).Â triangulating from various sources, we have about 90 offers out to fill a class of 20+.Â with the class of 2013, we signed 12 on an offer base of about 72 offers.Â for 2015, it does appear we are offering earlier, but we still trail our poll "peers" in number of early offers given.Â if anything, it appears we are on the other end of what you fear.

This is what I was looking for. Exact numbers on offers given/commits in previous years definitely helps assuage my concerns.

And in response to other posts, I'm not saying I don't support giving offers to 2/3 star recruits. My greater concern was the number of offers we were giving out in comparison to number of recruits who we can sign. To repeat myself, we've obviously shown the ability to develop 2/3 star recruits into tremendous players, so I have fewer concerns in that regards.

And I think coaches are definitely aware of how many stars recruits are given, though I also believe it does not factor into the decision to give an offer at all. I've seen several interviews where Coach Shaw will cite the number of stars or whether a player was highly recruited when discussing/introducing a player.

Nevertheless, obviously I trust the coach's decisions and what they're doing. Just raising a question on whether the number of offers given this year is unusual is all. We claim to be one of the most highly selective/attractive schools because of our academic requirements, but then it appeared to me that we were being very lax in offering recruits. I suppose I've kind of been brainwashed by the idea that almost any recruit who receives a Stanford offer will end up committing because Stanford is such a perfect combination of athletics/academicsÂ :P

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - CompSci87 - 07-31-2013

(07-31-2013, 02:39 AM)JPRI link Wrote:As I posted before, I don't think the coaches really care how many stars a recruit has when they offer. The bring a kid into camp and if they like him they offer.
Is this a mistake?

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - oman - 08-01-2013

By the way, I pointlessly renew my motion for a separate "Recruiting" section of this board.Â I'd rather it be all the time for all sports, but during the off season is good enough.Â

[Image: Sen-Wendy-Davis-filibuster.jpg]

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - yvonne - 08-01-2013

I'll consider it once we have something to talk about besides recruiting.

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - Leftcoast - 08-01-2013

Count my vote for leaving recruiting news on the "big board".Â Putting it elsewhere placed it in the "out of sight, out of mind" category for many of us.

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - Roberton3 - 08-01-2013

(08-01-2013, 07:54 AM)oman link Wrote:By the way, I pointlessly renew my motion for a separate "Recruiting" section of this board.Â I'd rather it be all the time for all sports, but during the off season is good enough.Â

We tried that before, and I think a majority of the folks here (including me) preferred to keep the recruiting discussions on the main board.Â It's a pain to have to check two different sections of the board, and it didn't seem like there was any advantage to the separation.

Also, while I'm always happy to look at pictures of Wendy Davis, I really hope you won't filibuster on this point...

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - PrinceLightfoot - 08-01-2013

I just use the "Show unread posts since last visit" at the top right of the webpage and then click on "new" for each thread to see what I haven't read regardless of where the post originated.

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - stupac2 - 08-01-2013

(08-01-2013, 08:38 AM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:I just use the "Show unread posts since last visit" at the top right of the webpage and then click on "new" for each thread to see what I haven't read regardless of which board the post originated.

Same here. The only Cardboard bookmark I have goes right to my unread, it's makes catching up so much easier.

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - JohnR34231 - 08-02-2013

(07-31-2013, 09:44 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg64965#msg64965 date=1375263596]
As I posted before, I don't think the coaches really care how many stars a recruit has when they offer. The bring a kid into camp and if they like him they offer.
Is this a mistake?

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - AthleticsDynasty - 08-02-2013

(08-02-2013, 07:24 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=8168.msg65004#msg65004 date=1375332267]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg64965#msg64965 date=1375263596]
As I posted before, I don't think the coaches really care how many stars a recruit has when they offer. The bring a kid into camp and if they like him they offer.
Is this a mistake?

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - JohnR34231 - 08-02-2013

(08-02-2013, 08:18 AM)AthleticsDynasty link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg65074#msg65074 date=1375453485]
[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=8168.msg65004#msg65004 date=1375332267]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg64965#msg64965 date=1375263596]
As I posted before, I don't think the coaches really care how many stars a recruit has when they offer. The bring a kid into camp and if they like him they offer.
Is this a mistake?

I'm sure it's not. What are stars, anyway? They are just a rough, national ranking of prospects by some guys who work for Scout, ESPN, or some other service. If our coaches can't do a more accurate job of rating the smaller set of players who can get into Stanford, in a way that takes into account their specific fit for Stanford's team, then they ought to be in another line of work.
[/quote]

The only problem with saying star ratings don't mean bupkis is that it makes it a little difficult to objectively evaluate the quality of our recruiting class. We are now down to assuming the class is good because the coaches say it is. That would be fine, but when have you ever heard a coach say he didn't have a good recruiting class?
[/quote]

You watch highlights, you look at stats, measurable, pedigree and accolades and base your evaluation off of that. Stars are based on subscriptions. How can you take the evaluations seriously from people who thought Toby Gerhart was the 7th best fullback in the nation coming out of HS?
[/quote]

OK, if you have the time and desire (not to mention the expertise) to do that for literally hundreds of potential prospects, that's fine.

P.S. To say that the ratings are useless based on a sample of one (Toby Gerhart) is a little silly, don't you think?

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - washingtonismoney - 08-02-2013

(08-02-2013, 08:24 AM)JPRI link Wrote:P.S. To say that the ratings are useless based on a sample of one (Toby Gerhart) is a little silly, don't you think?

Correct! Not to beat a dead horse here, but if you think about rating prospects as an actuarial thing, you'll see per capita five stars do better than four, and so on.

Let's look at the top fifteen of the coaches' poll. Of those fifteen, I'd say only four are not juggernaut recruiters (Oregon, us, OK State, Louisville). The other 11 consistently recruit very well.

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - AthleticsDynasty - 08-02-2013

(08-02-2013, 08:24 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=AthleticsDynasty link=topic=8168.msg65084#msg65084 date=1375456691]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg65074#msg65074 date=1375453485]
[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=8168.msg65004#msg65004 date=1375332267]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg64965#msg64965 date=1375263596]
As I posted before, I don't think the coaches really care how many stars a recruit has when they offer. The bring a kid into camp and if they like him they offer.
Is this a mistake?

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - AthleticsDynasty - 08-02-2013

(08-02-2013, 08:38 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8168.msg65086#msg65086 date=1375457085]
P.S. To say that the ratings are useless based on a sample of one (Toby Gerhart) is a little silly, don't you think?

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - washingtonismoney - 08-02-2013

(08-02-2013, 08:51 AM)AthleticsDynasty link Wrote:What does that mean?

It means they consistently are rated by recruiting services as performing very well. Put it this way: there hasn't been a national championship winner in the BCS era that has averaged higher than 12 on its four-year recruiting rankings. The only teams to come close are Virginia Tech and Oregon.

(08-02-2013, 08:47 AM)AthleticsDynasty link Wrote:You do it for the guys we recruit not for hundreds of prospects. Oh and the samples are endless, Sam Bradford, Johnny Football, Luke Kuechly, Golden Tate, Alex Mack, Ka'Deem Carey and a 100 others who had every possible trait you could look for in a prospect but because they didn't have a lot of fan fare were rated as low-end recruits by Rivals, Scout etc.

Golden Tate was a highly rated player. Rivals had him as the seventh-best athlete in the country.

Anyway, the point isn't to quibble about specific examples -- they obscure. The question is, what do the macro numbers look like? The average five star is twice as likely to get drafted and twice as likely to become an All-American as an average four star, which is in turn about twice as likely to get drafted and twice as likely to become an All-American as a three star, which is turn much more likely than a two star to accomplish those two things.

Re: (Football Recruiting) Is it just me or.... - AthleticsDynasty - 08-02-2013

(08-02-2013, 08:59 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It means they consistently are rated by recruiting services as performing very well. Put it this way: there hasn't been a national championship winner in the BCS era that has averaged higher than 12 on its four-year recruiting rankings. The only teams to come close are Virginia Tech and Oregon.

You can't look talk about sample size then only look at the select teams that have won BCS championships(which is every bit as much about fan fare as recruiting rankings are). Lets look at something objective like major conference champions in the last 5 years Stanford, Kansas State, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin x3, Virginia Tech x2, Oregon x3. None are ranked highly by the "services". So to me it looks like you are just as likely to win your conference without a highly ranked class as you are with.

(08-02-2013, 08:47 AM)AthleticsDynasty link Wrote:Anyway, the point isn't to quibble about specific examples -- they obscure. The question is, what do the macro numbers look like? The average five star is twice as likely to get drafted and twice as likely to become an All-American as an average four star, which is in turn about twice as likely to get drafted and twice as likely to become an All-American as a three star, which is turn much more likely than a two star to accomplish those two things.

So essentially players who go to Texas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Florida, Ohio State... are twice as likely to become All Americans and NFL players? That is not an evaluation of talent, that is common sense. The traditional powerhouses are the teams with the most subscriptions and receive the most stars