The CardBoard
SWEEP! - 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: SWEEP! (/thread-8790.html)


SWEEP! - Hulk01 - 02-04-2015

Some anxious moments out on my limb, yet not really.  Justin Reid listed three leaders because there is no such thing as a signing day announcement without at least two putative finalists.

Yes, Meeks has not announced, but hey: sweep.

If the measure of a Stanford recruiting class is yield, this class beats 2012.  With not many exceptions, the coaches got the admitted prospects who they offered.

Special Luke Kaumatule Award to Justin Reid, iirc, for the most diligent effort to ensure he got into Stanford.

And for those who missed this: Parade named Arcega-Whiteside and Irwin as first team All Americans yesterday. 

Re: SWEEP! - TrumpCard - 02-04-2015

(02-04-2015, 12:16 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:If the measure of a Stanford recruiting class is yield, this class beats 2012.  With not many exceptions, the coaches got the admitted prospects who they offered.

Who are the exceptions?  Do we know if there was ever a committable offer made to Christopher Fredrick, and if so, whether he was admitted?  (He claimed he turned down Stanford to stay with Syracuse, but that would have made him the 10th DB in 2 years, so I have my doubts as to whether the offer was committable.)


Re: SWEEP INDEED! - Redrum - 02-04-2015

Nerd glasses!  Nice poke in the eye to Kal as a bonus.  Seems like a really focused, well-spoken kid.

Said of Stanford (approximately)  that someone told him that he could recognize what success looked like and then he visited Stanford and knew that was true by what he saw.

Re: SWEEP! - StanFan88 - 02-04-2015

Meeks makes the RIGHT 40-year decision, props on the NerdGlasses

Re: SWEEP! - larkinforever - 02-04-2015

(02-04-2015, 02:30 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=11680.msg112529#msg112529 date=1423077411]
If the measure of a Stanford recruiting class is yield, this class beats 2012.  With not many exceptions, the coaches got the admitted prospects who they offered.

Who are the exceptions?  Do we know if there was ever a committable offer made to Christopher Fredrick, and if so, whether he was admitted?  (He claimed he turned down Stanford to stay with Syracuse, but that would have made him the 10th DB in 2 years, so I have my doubts as to whether the offer was committable.)
[/quote]


According to the below, there aren't any exceptions this year...

https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/563096801260347397

Re: SWEEP! - ColoradoTree - 02-04-2015

Hulk, are there any admitted prospects that turned us down, as far as you know?  Like larkinforever noted, the official team Twitter account said that we went 22 for 22 in "admitted, prospective student athletes," but I don't know how broad of a definition of "prospective" the team is using:

https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/563096801260347397

They could be saying that only 22 guys who got offers were admitted, and we landed all 22.  They could also be saying that while more than 22 guys who got offers were admitted, we got the 22 who were seriously considering us. Thoughts?

Re: SWEEP! - BostonCard - 02-04-2015

(02-04-2015, 03:42 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:Hulk, are there any admitted prospects that turned us down, as far as you know?  Like larkinforever noted, the official team Twitter account said that we went 22 for 22 in "admitted, prospective student athletes," but I don't know how broad of a definition of "prospective" the team is using:

https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/563096801260347397

They could be saying that only 22 guys who got offers were admitted, and we landed all 22.  They could also be saying that while more than 22 guys who got offers were admitted, we got the 22 who were seriously considering us. Thoughts?

Let's not overthink this.  While it is a nice sentiment that the numerator matches the denominator here, really, the only thing that matters is the numerator.  The class would be identically good if we had landed the same 22 out of an offered and admitted 40.  Stanford football has always been about the guys we got, not the guys we missed out on.

BC

Re: SWEEP! - ColoradoTree - 02-04-2015

Ferrari, I was thinking of students who may have liked us at one point, went through the application process and were lucky enough to get in, but felt more comfortable at another school at some point in the process and effectively ruled us out a while ago.  It's picking nits, I know, but I was just trying to square the circle between Hulk's "few exceptions" and the team's reported zero exceptions. 

And Boston Card, you're absolutely right that the 22 guys we got are equally good no matter who else was out there.  But I'll quibble on one point--if we truly did land every single player that got admitted, that is incredibly impressive, and demonstrates how predictive admission is.  We all know a player getting in means he's very likely to come here, but 22/22 not only confirms how hard it is to get guys in here, but says worlds about how strong our coaches are at identifying the right kids early in the process. 

Re: SWEEP! - washingtonismoney - 02-04-2015

You could make the case that going 22/22 is a bad thing if it reflects insufficient aggression. As the poker saw goes, if you win every hand in which you show your cards...you're not showing your cards enough.

Re: SWEEP! - Hulk01 - 02-04-2015

I regard as a win a recruit that we offered and that had a good chance of being admitted, or was admitted, and chose another program.

Last year, I consider Bentley Spain (NC), Ross Pierschbacher (Bama) and Matt Nelson (Iowa) as clear losses, plus Sam Hubbard (Ohio State) and Andrew Beck (Texas), but admissions worries could have figured in a couple of those losses.  Nike Watkins (Notre Dame) looked like he could qualify, as did Todd Kell (Tennessee), and Sam Mustipher and Andrew Bars (Notre Dame).

I am very confident that Stanford means something to recruits today that is much different than what it meant even three seasons ago.  We are now on the football map, and getting on that map has drawn more kids' attention to Stanford's other strong qualities.  The wowed recruits this year sounded even more wowed, and the number of commits who suggested that no other team came close was unprecedented.  The arrows are up.

Re: SWEEP! - ColoradoTree - 02-04-2015

washingtonismoney, I see your point.  But I'd be more inclined to think 22/22 was being insufficiently aggressive if we only offered 22 kids, all 22 got in, and all 22 signed letters of intent.  Clearly we'd need to consider increasing offer numbers at that point.  But given that the coaches offer scholarships to kids who end up not getting in (247's site says we gave 79 offers), I don't see our impressive yield rate as insufficient aggression--just truly impressive class management by the coaching staff. 

That said, that we could only get 22 kids through admissions is a potentially worrying sign for future years. We won't bat 1.000 every single year on admitted students.

Re: SWEEP! - BostonCard - 02-04-2015

Well, the coaches only have limited control over that denominator.  The athlete still has to apply and get admitted.  The admission process itself can be considered a bit of a pre-comitment, and one the coaches have limited influence on.  The real denominator under the coaches control contains a lot of players who were extended an offer (conditional on admission),  and either decided they didn't want to apply, or applied and did not get admitted.  That number is necessarily larger than 22, and we hope a fair bit larger than 22.  If only slam dunk admissions were applying, it would be a sign of insufficient aggression.  And if only players who we knew were going to apply were being offered, also a sign of insufficient aggression.

That a large proportion of students who applied and got admitted then sign is not a large surprise.  Because of the commitment involved in filling out the application (not to mention taking AP classes and the SAT, sometimes multiple times), by the time they get accepted, the prospect has to have a serious interest in Stanford.  It requires no effort to keep any school not named Stanford that has extended an offer into the final (and in the case of a local powerhouse, it might actually be more difficult to take a school like LSU out of the running for a Louisiana kid, for example), so the odds of picking Stanford once an athlete has applied, visited and been admitted, are pretty good.  The only exceptions I can think of: parental pressure to at least apply to Stanford and the ego of wanting to say you got into Stanford, and, potentially being completely blown away by another school on a visit.

BC

Re: SWEEP! - TrumpCard - 02-04-2015

(02-04-2015, 04:30 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Last year, I consider Bentley Spain (NC), Ross Pierschbacher (Bama) and Matt Nelson (Iowa) as clear losses, plus Sam Hubbard (Ohio State) and Andrew Beck (Texas), but admissions worries could have figured in a couple of those losses.  Nike Watkins (the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends) looked like he could qualify, as did Todd Kell (Tennessee), and Sam Mustipher and Andrew Bars (the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends).

This year, among recruits we wanted who seemed admissible, I think we lost Tristen Hoge (USB), Garrett Williams (Clemson), and Ricky Town (U$C). 

It's hard to say who else because there are a lot of guys whose admissibility is unknown.  There seemed to be some legitimate interest from Malik Jefferson (Texas), Alex Stump (OSU), Brandon Wimbush (USB), Christian Wilkins (Clemson), and E Saint Brown (USB), and they seemed like they were the type who could be admitted if they were willing to do the work. 

Were Iman Marshall (U$C), Chris Warren (Texas), Soso Jamabo (UCLA), Christian Kirk (TAMU), Brandon Polk (PSU), or Daylon Mack (TAMU) close to admissible? 

Kenneth Brinson (Army) and Christopher Fredrick (Syracuse) could theoretically be losses too, though they were more Plan B guys. 

Any others?

Re: SWEEP! - Bruce Wang - 02-04-2015

We managed to pull in another great potential class despite a disappointing season.