04-24-2017, 08:10 AM
The Most Coveted Scholarship Offer
Around the net lately there have been stories about how Stanford has become the most coveted, and hardest to get, scholarship offer for football. Now ESPN adds another.
This is nominally behind their paywall, but at least as of the time I post this a large portion of the article is available for free (maybe all of the article, as it seems to reach a conclusion, but I cannot tell for sure).
One notable item is that ESPN seems to rank our incoming blue-chip tackles much less highly than the other services - hopefully they are merely maintaining their reputation as having the least reliable recruit rankings.
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/insider/post?id=109353
EDIT - I see Card86 beat me by two minutes.
I would delete this and move to the other thread if possible, but it appears only moderators can do so.
Moderators - help?Â
This is nominally behind their paywall, but at least as of the time I post this a large portion of the article is available for free (maybe all of the article, as it seems to reach a conclusion, but I cannot tell for sure).
One notable item is that ESPN seems to rank our incoming blue-chip tackles much less highly than the other services - hopefully they are merely maintaining their reputation as having the least reliable recruit rankings.
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/insider/post?id=109353
EDIT - I see Card86 beat me by two minutes.
I would delete this and move to the other thread if possible, but it appears only moderators can do so.
Moderators - help?Â
Around the net lately there have been stories about how Stanford has become the most coveted, and hardest to get, scholarship offer for football. Now ESPN adds another.
This is nominally behind their paywall, but at least as of the time I post this a large portion of the article is available for free (maybe all of the article, as it seems to reach a conclusion, but I cannot tell for sure).
One notable item is that ESPN seems to rank our incoming blue-chip tackles much less highly than the other services - hopefully they are merely maintaining their reputation as having the least reliable recruit rankings.
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/insider/post?id=109353
EDIT - I see Card86 beat me by two minutes.
I would delete this and move to the other thread if possible, but it appears only moderators can do so.
Moderators - help?Â
This is nominally behind their paywall, but at least as of the time I post this a large portion of the article is available for free (maybe all of the article, as it seems to reach a conclusion, but I cannot tell for sure).
One notable item is that ESPN seems to rank our incoming blue-chip tackles much less highly than the other services - hopefully they are merely maintaining their reputation as having the least reliable recruit rankings.
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/insider/post?id=109353
EDIT - I see Card86 beat me by two minutes.
I would delete this and move to the other thread if possible, but it appears only moderators can do so.
Moderators - help?Â
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
04-24-2017, 09:23 AM
I still feel obligated to visit where we scattered their ashes ( Dad: Ocean off of San Luis Obispo Mom: Sequoia Natl. Park [don't tell the Feds] ) And I many times a year-- now more than earlier in life--I thank them for the real sacrifices they made to send me to Stanford. I don't begrudge the full ride football recruits get for signing up. I just hope they all appreciate their choice as much as I have appreciated mine, even though I didn't get the $$$ value they will.
I still feel obligated to visit where we scattered their ashes ( Dad: Ocean off of San Luis Obispo Mom: Sequoia Natl. Park [don't tell the Feds] ) And I many times a year-- now more than earlier in life--I thank them for the real sacrifices they made to send me to Stanford. I don't begrudge the full ride football recruits get for signing up. I just hope they all appreciate their choice as much as I have appreciated mine, even though I didn't get the $$$ value they will.
04-24-2017, 09:41 AM
(04-24-2017, 09:23 AM)Redrum link Wrote:I still feel obligated to visit where we scattered their ashes ( Dad: Ocean off of San Luis Obispo Mom: Sequoia Natl. Park [don't tell the Feds] ) And I many times a year-- now more than earlier in life--I thank them for the real sacrifices they made to send me to Stanford. I don't begrudge the full ride football recruits get for signing up. I just hope they all appreciate their choice as much as I have appreciated mine, even though I didn't get the $$$ value they will.
Excellent post :)
(04-24-2017, 09:23 AM)Redrum link Wrote:I still feel obligated to visit where we scattered their ashes ( Dad: Ocean off of San Luis Obispo Mom: Sequoia Natl. Park [don't tell the Feds] ) And I many times a year-- now more than earlier in life--I thank them for the real sacrifices they made to send me to Stanford. I don't begrudge the full ride football recruits get for signing up. I just hope they all appreciate their choice as much as I have appreciated mine, even though I didn't get the $$$ value they will.
Excellent post :)
Nice article, though the author doesn't really seem to grok that Stanford's small classes are not a bad thing, but just a natural result of low attrition, which is itself a natural result of recruiting great kids who don't drop out or transfer and rarely go pro without a degree. So he writes stuff like:
and
I don't see why we'd ever get on such a track or why Stanford coaches should be in the universe that would want to.
Quote:Universally, coaches would want to enter every class with a full 25 scholarships, as it makes numbers at each position far easier to navigate.
and
Quote:Eventually, Stanford is likely to get back on a track where it isnt facing this numbers crunch every few recruiting classes.
I don't see why we'd ever get on such a track or why Stanford coaches should be in the universe that would want to.
Nice article, though the author doesn't really seem to grok that Stanford's small classes are not a bad thing, but just a natural result of low attrition, which is itself a natural result of recruiting great kids who don't drop out or transfer and rarely go pro without a degree. So he writes stuff like:
and
I don't see why we'd ever get on such a track or why Stanford coaches should be in the universe that would want to.
Quote:Universally, coaches would want to enter every class with a full 25 scholarships, as it makes numbers at each position far easier to navigate.
and
Quote:Eventually, Stanford is likely to get back on a track where it isnt facing this numbers crunch every few recruiting classes.
I don't see why we'd ever get on such a track or why Stanford coaches should be in the universe that would want to.
04-24-2017, 06:19 PM
I like this Tweet from Jalen Hall, a WR to whom Stanford offered a football scholarship:
"This the one I've worked the hardest for. This the one they said I couldn't get. This the one that took more than football to obtain. Thanks"
"This the one I've worked the hardest for. This the one they said I couldn't get. This the one that took more than football to obtain. Thanks"
I like this Tweet from Jalen Hall, a WR to whom Stanford offered a football scholarship:
"This the one I've worked the hardest for. This the one they said I couldn't get. This the one that took more than football to obtain. Thanks"
"This the one I've worked the hardest for. This the one they said I couldn't get. This the one that took more than football to obtain. Thanks"
04-25-2017, 08:32 AM
(04-24-2017, 04:33 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Nice article, though the author doesn't really seem to grok that Stanford's small classes are not a bad thing, but just a natural result of low attrition, which is itself a natural result of recruiting great kids who don't drop out or transfer and rarely go pro without a degree.
So, here's the thing, our small classes are a bad thing, in that they put us at a competitive disadvantage. Recruiting, like the NFL draft, is essentially a lottery. And like all lotteries, the more tickets you have, the more likely you are to win. I think our experience backs this up, how many players were recruitniks just completely sure were stars in the making, who then did precisely nothing in CFB? It's gotta be too many to count. Predictions are hard, yadda yadda.
Now, I'd still rather have a competitive disadvantage than see kids flunking out or going to jail or being run out of town for not developing like all other top-25 programs seem to have happening constantly. But pretending it's an advantage is silly. (You could argue that it gives us an advantage when recruiting because kids can be sure they'll graduate, but that's some 5D Parcheesi and I don't think it could possibly matter that much.) The only counterargument I can see is that our classes are often small anyway out of need, because there are only so many players out there who can get in, but I have to believe that if we had space we'd be offering more Ben Gardners of the world, ie the two star players with the right attitude who might develop but probably won't. They've been pushed out to prefferred walk on slots, or just regular walk on spots, but if we had the space we'd probably get more of them to complement the increased number of 4*'s we're getting now.
(04-24-2017, 04:33 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Nice article, though the author doesn't really seem to grok that Stanford's small classes are not a bad thing, but just a natural result of low attrition, which is itself a natural result of recruiting great kids who don't drop out or transfer and rarely go pro without a degree.
So, here's the thing, our small classes are a bad thing, in that they put us at a competitive disadvantage. Recruiting, like the NFL draft, is essentially a lottery. And like all lotteries, the more tickets you have, the more likely you are to win. I think our experience backs this up, how many players were recruitniks just completely sure were stars in the making, who then did precisely nothing in CFB? It's gotta be too many to count. Predictions are hard, yadda yadda.
Now, I'd still rather have a competitive disadvantage than see kids flunking out or going to jail or being run out of town for not developing like all other top-25 programs seem to have happening constantly. But pretending it's an advantage is silly. (You could argue that it gives us an advantage when recruiting because kids can be sure they'll graduate, but that's some 5D Parcheesi and I don't think it could possibly matter that much.) The only counterargument I can see is that our classes are often small anyway out of need, because there are only so many players out there who can get in, but I have to believe that if we had space we'd be offering more Ben Gardners of the world, ie the two star players with the right attitude who might develop but probably won't. They've been pushed out to prefferred walk on slots, or just regular walk on spots, but if we had the space we'd probably get more of them to complement the increased number of 4*'s we're getting now.
04-25-2017, 08:56 AM
In the past 10 years, Stanford has had the following scholarship class sizes:
2008: 17
2009: 23
2010: 24
2011: 19
2012: 22
2013: 13
2014: 20
2015: 22
2016: 25
2017: 14
By my calculation, that's an average of almost 20 letters of intent per year. Stupac2 is correct in saying that, at face value, Stanford has a competitive disadvantage, but I think it's offset by the current staff's approach to recruiting.
2008: 17
2009: 23
2010: 24
2011: 19
2012: 22
2013: 13
2014: 20
2015: 22
2016: 25
2017: 14
By my calculation, that's an average of almost 20 letters of intent per year. Stupac2 is correct in saying that, at face value, Stanford has a competitive disadvantage, but I think it's offset by the current staff's approach to recruiting.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
In the past 10 years, Stanford has had the following scholarship class sizes:
2008: 17
2009: 23
2010: 24
2011: 19
2012: 22
2013: 13
2014: 20
2015: 22
2016: 25
2017: 14
By my calculation, that's an average of almost 20 letters of intent per year. Stupac2 is correct in saying that, at face value, Stanford has a competitive disadvantage, but I think it's offset by the current staff's approach to recruiting.
2008: 17
2009: 23
2010: 24
2011: 19
2012: 22
2013: 13
2014: 20
2015: 22
2016: 25
2017: 14
By my calculation, that's an average of almost 20 letters of intent per year. Stupac2 is correct in saying that, at face value, Stanford has a competitive disadvantage, but I think it's offset by the current staff's approach to recruiting.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
04-25-2017, 09:09 AM
Everyone has the same amount of scholarships to give so our smaller classes relative to the average school is 100% due to less attrition. There are many reasons for attrition. Some are good and some are bad, but I think the net impact of small classes is a positive for Stanford resulting in more veteran players with time in the system.
Attrition that Stanford has less of (stanford seems to have normal attrition to early NFL entries):
1)Players not qualifying or flunking out
2) Players getting arrested.Â
3) Players transferring out due to lack of playing time.
4) Players getting driven off the team to make room for someone better
5) Playing as a true frosh and not having a 5th year
6) Career ending injuries
While items 3) and 4) can be considered good attrition from a competitive stand point, I think the other factors for Stanford having less attrition are in our favor and overcome the benefit of having "more shots on goal" by churning through max size classes every year. It puts more pressure on recruiting as there is less room for error, but I will take more stability and upperclassmen as a positive trade-off.
Attrition that Stanford has less of (stanford seems to have normal attrition to early NFL entries):
1)Players not qualifying or flunking out
2) Players getting arrested.Â
3) Players transferring out due to lack of playing time.
4) Players getting driven off the team to make room for someone better
5) Playing as a true frosh and not having a 5th year
6) Career ending injuries
While items 3) and 4) can be considered good attrition from a competitive stand point, I think the other factors for Stanford having less attrition are in our favor and overcome the benefit of having "more shots on goal" by churning through max size classes every year. It puts more pressure on recruiting as there is less room for error, but I will take more stability and upperclassmen as a positive trade-off.
Everyone has the same amount of scholarships to give so our smaller classes relative to the average school is 100% due to less attrition. There are many reasons for attrition. Some are good and some are bad, but I think the net impact of small classes is a positive for Stanford resulting in more veteran players with time in the system.
Attrition that Stanford has less of (stanford seems to have normal attrition to early NFL entries):
1)Players not qualifying or flunking out
2) Players getting arrested.Â
3) Players transferring out due to lack of playing time.
4) Players getting driven off the team to make room for someone better
5) Playing as a true frosh and not having a 5th year
6) Career ending injuries
While items 3) and 4) can be considered good attrition from a competitive stand point, I think the other factors for Stanford having less attrition are in our favor and overcome the benefit of having "more shots on goal" by churning through max size classes every year. It puts more pressure on recruiting as there is less room for error, but I will take more stability and upperclassmen as a positive trade-off.
Attrition that Stanford has less of (stanford seems to have normal attrition to early NFL entries):
1)Players not qualifying or flunking out
2) Players getting arrested.Â
3) Players transferring out due to lack of playing time.
4) Players getting driven off the team to make room for someone better
5) Playing as a true frosh and not having a 5th year
6) Career ending injuries
While items 3) and 4) can be considered good attrition from a competitive stand point, I think the other factors for Stanford having less attrition are in our favor and overcome the benefit of having "more shots on goal" by churning through max size classes every year. It puts more pressure on recruiting as there is less room for error, but I will take more stability and upperclassmen as a positive trade-off.
04-25-2017, 11:23 AM
Good points, donkey687. For more data points, the average number of 2017 commits for our Pac-12 brethren plus N.otre D.ame--because we play them every year--is 22, so it's not like we're that far off the mark. It's when you look at the overall top 21 classes, excepting Stanford, per 247sports, that things appear out of whack; the 2017 average for that group rounds up to 24 commits. But these rankings tend to favor quantity (30 commits for Michigan!) as much as quality.
I would also point out that defending national champion Clemson only signed 14 commits in 2017, the same number as Stanford.
I would also point out that defending national champion Clemson only signed 14 commits in 2017, the same number as Stanford.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
Good points, donkey687. For more data points, the average number of 2017 commits for our Pac-12 brethren plus N.otre D.ame--because we play them every year--is 22, so it's not like we're that far off the mark. It's when you look at the overall top 21 classes, excepting Stanford, per 247sports, that things appear out of whack; the 2017 average for that group rounds up to 24 commits. But these rankings tend to favor quantity (30 commits for Michigan!) as much as quality.
I would also point out that defending national champion Clemson only signed 14 commits in 2017, the same number as Stanford.
I would also point out that defending national champion Clemson only signed 14 commits in 2017, the same number as Stanford.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
04-25-2017, 05:58 PM
I think the University of Alabama's football program has an average of about a dozen players transferring out, every year, due to lack of playing time.
I don't know if this is because the coaching staff pushes them out (to free up scholarships), or if it is the players deciding Alabama was not a good fit for them, or a combination of both.
I don't know if this is because the coaching staff pushes them out (to free up scholarships), or if it is the players deciding Alabama was not a good fit for them, or a combination of both.
I think the University of Alabama's football program has an average of about a dozen players transferring out, every year, due to lack of playing time.
I don't know if this is because the coaching staff pushes them out (to free up scholarships), or if it is the players deciding Alabama was not a good fit for them, or a combination of both.
I don't know if this is because the coaching staff pushes them out (to free up scholarships), or if it is the players deciding Alabama was not a good fit for them, or a combination of both.
04-26-2017, 03:23 PM
Saban does a lot to encourage the departures of athletes who he's written off, all in the name of freeing up roster spots to evaluate his recruited talent and see if they're up to snuff. "Medical" retirements, transfers, greyshirting, blueshirting...(greenshirting = early enrollment, who knew?). It's a fully-armed and operational football Death Star that chews up recruits and spits out NFL talent with a disproportionate amount of churn thrown out along the wayside. But that's what professionals do in the real world, right?
Saban does a lot to encourage the departures of athletes who he's written off, all in the name of freeing up roster spots to evaluate his recruited talent and see if they're up to snuff. "Medical" retirements, transfers, greyshirting, blueshirting...(greenshirting = early enrollment, who knew?). It's a fully-armed and operational football Death Star that chews up recruits and spits out NFL talent with a disproportionate amount of churn thrown out along the wayside. But that's what professionals do in the real world, right?
04-26-2017, 05:08 PM
(04-26-2017, 03:23 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Saban does a lot to encourage the departures of athletes who he's written off, all in the name of freeing up roster spots to evaluate his recruited talent and see if they're up to snuff. "Medical" retirements, transfers, greyshirting, blueshirting...(greenshirting = early enrollment, who knew?). It's a fully-armed and operational football Death Star that chews up recruits and spits out NFL talent with a disproportionate amount of churn thrown out along the wayside. But that's what professionals do in the real world, right?
Good point. Saban's just preparing them for the real world.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(04-26-2017, 03:23 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Saban does a lot to encourage the departures of athletes who he's written off, all in the name of freeing up roster spots to evaluate his recruited talent and see if they're up to snuff. "Medical" retirements, transfers, greyshirting, blueshirting...(greenshirting = early enrollment, who knew?). It's a fully-armed and operational football Death Star that chews up recruits and spits out NFL talent with a disproportionate amount of churn thrown out along the wayside. But that's what professionals do in the real world, right?
Good point. Saban's just preparing them for the real world.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
04-26-2017, 05:31 PM
For those who enter the orbit of serious money through HS/college sports...the real world arrives early. Business decisions.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »