[Farm93]

LOL my left foot. It is easy to take the road of "Dream School." There are hundreds of dream schools out there sir or madam.

"Dream School" is indeed a subjective term.

Objectively, how many US colleges have an admissions rate below 5%? there's only one.

Next lowest admissions rate among FBS schools is approximately double.

Sorry everyone.   Assumed we were all familiar with the Princeton Review's annual "Dream College" survey.
For those unfamiliar with this survey, Stanford has been #1 either with students or parents each year in the last decade of this rather reputable survey.

In 2020 Stanford was #1 with parents and #1 with students.
https://www.princetonreview.com/press/co...ss-release

As it was in 2019
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases...University

And in 2018
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases...19838.html

And on and on for quite some time.   In 2021, Stanford was only the #1 Dream school for parents.  It was #2 for students.
Blaming COVID protocols for that one as the campus experience IMHO 4 years living at Stanford is a bit more dreamy than 4 years at Harvard.
https://www.princetonreview.com/college-...es-worries

When compiled over time it is very clear that Stanford is one of the nation's most desirable schools.  A dream school, if you will.   With Stanford's ample financial resources there just aren't that many students running to the exits, but there are thousands trying to transfer in.  Therefore the transfer portal will be a one way door as long as the university is doing its thing.

To think that the football team will be able to do what USC did this year and bring in 6 or more transfers to augment a weak HS class and/or gaps in the roster is just not going to happen. 

Though I will concede that what is best for the university and its undergraduate population may not be best for the football team's long term success.    IIWII

[Farm93]

LOL my left foot. It is easy to take the road of "Dream School." There are hundreds of dream schools out there sir or madam.

"Dream School" is indeed a subjective term.

Objectively, how many US colleges have an admissions rate below 5%? there's only one.

Next lowest admissions rate among FBS schools is approximately double.

Sorry everyone.   Assumed we were all familiar with the Princeton Review's annual "Dream College" survey.
For those unfamiliar with this survey, Stanford has been #1 either with students or parents each year in the last decade of this rather reputable survey.

In 2020 Stanford was #1 with parents and #1 with students.
https://www.princetonreview.com/press/co...ss-release

As it was in 2019
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases...University

And in 2018
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases...19838.html

And on and on for quite some time.   In 2021, Stanford was only the #1 Dream school for parents.  It was #2 for students.
Blaming COVID protocols for that one as the campus experience IMHO 4 years living at Stanford is a bit more dreamy than 4 years at Harvard.
https://www.princetonreview.com/college-...es-worries

When compiled over time it is very clear that Stanford is one of the nation's most desirable schools.  A dream school, if you will.   With Stanford's ample financial resources there just aren't that many students running to the exits, but there are thousands trying to transfer in.  Therefore the transfer portal will be a one way door as long as the university is doing its thing.

To think that the football team will be able to do what USC did this year and bring in 6 or more transfers to augment a weak HS class and/or gaps in the roster is just not going to happen. 

Though I will concede that what is best for the university and its undergraduate population may not be best for the football team's long term success.    IIWII

[Phogge]

I like the Ivy League scenario. Picture it:

Beautiful Fall day at the stadium. Paper tickets, no scholies, no Red Coats, only hot dogs and soda, BYOB. Small band basketball style. No insidious twenty year old band announcers, plenty of room to relax, take a nap. Problem is finding opponents.

[Phogge]

I like the Ivy League scenario. Picture it:

Beautiful Fall day at the stadium. Paper tickets, no scholies, no Red Coats, only hot dogs and soda, BYOB. Small band basketball style. No insidious twenty year old band announcers, plenty of room to relax, take a nap. Problem is finding opponents.

[gailtate]

The 40-year decision is essentially meaningless today. Kaput. The kind of football athletes that drive a successful program, some of whom Stanford would attract in sufficient numbers in the past, pay no attention today to the next 40 years. They want to succeed right now, under the tutelage of the best football minds and conditions (that, in case you haven't noticed, Stanford no longer has) to see how far they can go. NOW. Big bowls, big awards, and BIG MONEY. The Harbaugh-effect gave us a taste of this recently, but it was short-lived and temporary and unsustainable--as we now know. I struggle see a future in which Cardinal Football even returns to .500, let alone to relevance in the brave new world. As others have noted, this is slow-death to Stanford given the  business model for its sprawling athletics. Not to mention the hapless leadership therein, which is a whole other sad tale. We've landed in the worst of all worlds. Who'd-a-thunk-it in the afterglow of that Iowa Rose Bowl?

[gailtate]

The 40-year decision is essentially meaningless today. Kaput. The kind of football athletes that drive a successful program, some of whom Stanford would attract in sufficient numbers in the past, pay no attention today to the next 40 years. They want to succeed right now, under the tutelage of the best football minds and conditions (that, in case you haven't noticed, Stanford no longer has) to see how far they can go. NOW. Big bowls, big awards, and BIG MONEY. The Harbaugh-effect gave us a taste of this recently, but it was short-lived and temporary and unsustainable--as we now know. I struggle see a future in which Cardinal Football even returns to .500, let alone to relevance in the brave new world. As others have noted, this is slow-death to Stanford given the  business model for its sprawling athletics. Not to mention the hapless leadership therein, which is a whole other sad tale. We've landed in the worst of all worlds. Who'd-a-thunk-it in the afterglow of that Iowa Rose Bowl?

[lex24]

The 40-year decision is essentially meaningless today. Kaput. The kind of football athletes that drive a successful program, some of whom Stanford would attract in sufficient numbers in the past, pay no attention today to the next 40 years. They want to succeed right now, under the tutelage of the best football minds and conditions (that, in case you haven't noticed, Stanford no longer has) to see how far they can go. NOW. Big bowls, big awards, and BIG MONEY. The Harbaugh-effect gave us a taste of this recently, but it was short-lived and temporary and unsustainable--as we now know. I struggle see a future in which Cardinal Football even returns to .500, let alone to relevance in the brave new world. As others have noted, this is slow-death to Stanford given the  business model for its sprawling athletics. Not to mention the hapless leadership therein, which is a whole other sad tale. We've landed in the worst of all worlds. Who'd-a-thunk-it in the afterglow of that Iowa Rose Bowl?

Question:  would you (and others) be satisfied with essentially what they had in the 70s - a team that would generally be a bit above  500 and occasionally knock off a big foe? And then once in a while being in a position to challenge for the conference.

[lex24]

The 40-year decision is essentially meaningless today. Kaput. The kind of football athletes that drive a successful program, some of whom Stanford would attract in sufficient numbers in the past, pay no attention today to the next 40 years. They want to succeed right now, under the tutelage of the best football minds and conditions (that, in case you haven't noticed, Stanford no longer has) to see how far they can go. NOW. Big bowls, big awards, and BIG MONEY. The Harbaugh-effect gave us a taste of this recently, but it was short-lived and temporary and unsustainable--as we now know. I struggle see a future in which Cardinal Football even returns to .500, let alone to relevance in the brave new world. As others have noted, this is slow-death to Stanford given the  business model for its sprawling athletics. Not to mention the hapless leadership therein, which is a whole other sad tale. We've landed in the worst of all worlds. Who'd-a-thunk-it in the afterglow of that Iowa Rose Bowl?

Question:  would you (and others) be satisfied with essentially what they had in the 70s - a team that would generally be a bit above  500 and occasionally knock off a big foe? And then once in a while being in a position to challenge for the conference.

[Papa John]

The rules have changed and you either get on living or get on dying. 
<snip>

Wait, are you quoting Shawshank Redemption?

[Papa John]

The rules have changed and you either get on living or get on dying. 
<snip>

Wait, are you quoting Shawshank Redemption?

[Phogge]

Why not. Better than the Fall of the Roman Empire.

[Phogge]

Why not. Better than the Fall of the Roman Empire.

[DC 86]

When a player leaves pre-graduation, goes to a rival, and isn't expecting their place in the pecking order to be materially different, it means something's broken.

If that's the case then over 100 FBS programs are broken. There are a multitude of indicators that our program is in major crisis, but Jones transferring isn't one of them (or at best is one of the weakest ones) given how widespread it's become for players to transfer to situations where their place in the pecking order isn't going to be materially different.

[DC 86]

When a player leaves pre-graduation, goes to a rival, and isn't expecting their place in the pecking order to be materially different, it means something's broken.

If that's the case then over 100 FBS programs are broken. There are a multitude of indicators that our program is in major crisis, but Jones transferring isn't one of them (or at best is one of the weakest ones) given how widespread it's become for players to transfer to situations where their place in the pecking order isn't going to be materially different.

[teejers1]

Austin Jones to SC. Yuck.

Remain calm! All is well!

But seriously, this is a scathing indictment of our program.

No, it’s not.  It’s the new reality.  College free agency.  With Stanford having both hands tied behind it’s back.  I knew, and suspect most here did, that the transfer portal was very bad for Stanford.

No, it is. When a player leaves pre-graduation, goes to a rival, and isn't expecting their place in the pecking order to be materially different, it means something's broken. This isn't like the basketball player who transferred out after one season. Jones has been here longer than that.

Maybe. But the portal problem is bigger than Jones. (Who just as easily could have left cause he didn’t like the school, or got convinced by friends, or whatever). My point is, and continues to be, the portal hurts Stanford football.  And will continue to.  No matter what.

And my point is that whatever "the calculus" is for a Stanford kid entering the portal - and I'm talking about the only kids that matter from a W/L perspective (i.e., those who've received meaningful PT and are expected to do so in the future) - the state of the program is a consideration in that mix.  I think a BIG one because I subscribe to the 'dream school' draw of Stanford, especially given Shaw's propensity to recruit "Stanford Men."  What is causing kids who are getting PT to abandon their dream school with eligibility left?

When Stanford Men who are getting PT bail on the program for whatever reason, it's pretty safe to say there is a problem in the program.

[teejers1]

Austin Jones to SC. Yuck.

Remain calm! All is well!

But seriously, this is a scathing indictment of our program.

No, it’s not.  It’s the new reality.  College free agency.  With Stanford having both hands tied behind it’s back.  I knew, and suspect most here did, that the transfer portal was very bad for Stanford.

No, it is. When a player leaves pre-graduation, goes to a rival, and isn't expecting their place in the pecking order to be materially different, it means something's broken. This isn't like the basketball player who transferred out after one season. Jones has been here longer than that.

Maybe. But the portal problem is bigger than Jones. (Who just as easily could have left cause he didn’t like the school, or got convinced by friends, or whatever). My point is, and continues to be, the portal hurts Stanford football.  And will continue to.  No matter what.

And my point is that whatever "the calculus" is for a Stanford kid entering the portal - and I'm talking about the only kids that matter from a W/L perspective (i.e., those who've received meaningful PT and are expected to do so in the future) - the state of the program is a consideration in that mix.  I think a BIG one because I subscribe to the 'dream school' draw of Stanford, especially given Shaw's propensity to recruit "Stanford Men."  What is causing kids who are getting PT to abandon their dream school with eligibility left?

When Stanford Men who are getting PT bail on the program for whatever reason, it's pretty safe to say there is a problem in the program.

[lex24]

Remain calm! All is well!

But seriously, this is a scathing indictment of our program.

No, it’s not.  It’s the new reality.  College free agency.  With Stanford having both hands tied behind it’s back.  I knew, and suspect most here did, that the transfer portal was very bad for Stanford.

No, it is. When a player leaves pre-graduation, goes to a rival, and isn't expecting their place in the pecking order to be materially different, it means something's broken. This isn't like the basketball player who transferred out after one season. Jones has been here longer than that.

Maybe. But the portal problem is bigger than Jones. (Who just as easily could have left cause he didn’t like the school, or got convinced by friends, or whatever). My point is, and continues to be, the portal hurts Stanford football.  And will continue to.  No matter what.

And my point is that whatever "the calculus" is for a Stanford kid entering the portal - and I'm talking about the only kids that matter from a W/L perspective (i.e., those who've received meaningful PT and are expected to do so in the future) - the state of the program is a consideration in that mix.  I think a BIG one because I subscribe to the 'dream school' draw of Stanford, especially given Shaw's propensity to recruit "Stanford Men."  What is causing kids who are getting PT to abandon their dream school with eligibility left?

When Stanford Men who are getting PT bail on the program for whatever reason, it's pretty safe to say there is a problem in the program.

 

  Bottom line is these are the type of arguments that are impossible to refute because we don’t have any real facts so we’re just spewing out what we think. Anyone has any real evidence, love to hear it. Otherwise we can just speculate away.

[lex24]

Remain calm! All is well!

But seriously, this is a scathing indictment of our program.

No, it’s not.  It’s the new reality.  College free agency.  With Stanford having both hands tied behind it’s back.  I knew, and suspect most here did, that the transfer portal was very bad for Stanford.

No, it is. When a player leaves pre-graduation, goes to a rival, and isn't expecting their place in the pecking order to be materially different, it means something's broken. This isn't like the basketball player who transferred out after one season. Jones has been here longer than that.

Maybe. But the portal problem is bigger than Jones. (Who just as easily could have left cause he didn’t like the school, or got convinced by friends, or whatever). My point is, and continues to be, the portal hurts Stanford football.  And will continue to.  No matter what.

And my point is that whatever "the calculus" is for a Stanford kid entering the portal - and I'm talking about the only kids that matter from a W/L perspective (i.e., those who've received meaningful PT and are expected to do so in the future) - the state of the program is a consideration in that mix.  I think a BIG one because I subscribe to the 'dream school' draw of Stanford, especially given Shaw's propensity to recruit "Stanford Men."  What is causing kids who are getting PT to abandon their dream school with eligibility left?

When Stanford Men who are getting PT bail on the program for whatever reason, it's pretty safe to say there is a problem in the program.

 

  Bottom line is these are the type of arguments that are impossible to refute because we don’t have any real facts so we’re just spewing out what we think. Anyone has any real evidence, love to hear it. Otherwise we can just speculate away.

[murky]

..."Wonder how many high school parents are concerned about that and now have a dream for their kids other than Stanford."...

None.  Parents don't expect their elite students to need their college to intercept drug packages their kid ordered in from outside.

[murky]

..."Wonder how many high school parents are concerned about that and now have a dream for their kids other than Stanford."...

None.  Parents don't expect their elite students to need their college to intercept drug packages their kid ordered in from outside.

[SamuelMcF]

The 40-year decision is essentially meaningless today. Kaput. The kind of football athletes that drive a successful program, some of whom Stanford would attract in sufficient numbers in the past, pay no attention today to the next 40 years. They want to succeed right now, under the tutelage of the best football minds and conditions (that, in case you haven't noticed, Stanford no longer has) to see how far they can go. NOW. Big bowls, big awards, and BIG MONEY. The Harbaugh-effect gave us a taste of this recently, but it was short-lived and temporary and unsustainable--as we now know. I struggle see a future in which Cardinal Football even returns to .500, let alone to relevance in the brave new world. As others have noted, this is slow-death to Stanford given the  business model for its sprawling athletics. Not to mention the hapless leadership therein, which is a whole other sad tale. We've landed in the worst of all worlds. Who'd-a-thunk-it in the afterglow of that Iowa Rose Bowl?

Question:  would you (and others) be satisfied with essentially what they had in the 70s - a team that would generally be a bit above  500 and occasionally knock off a big foe? And then once in a while being in a position to challenge for the conference.

I would, because knowing what I know now about the current regime I struggle to see how we get there.

[SamuelMcF]

The 40-year decision is essentially meaningless today. Kaput. The kind of football athletes that drive a successful program, some of whom Stanford would attract in sufficient numbers in the past, pay no attention today to the next 40 years. They want to succeed right now, under the tutelage of the best football minds and conditions (that, in case you haven't noticed, Stanford no longer has) to see how far they can go. NOW. Big bowls, big awards, and BIG MONEY. The Harbaugh-effect gave us a taste of this recently, but it was short-lived and temporary and unsustainable--as we now know. I struggle see a future in which Cardinal Football even returns to .500, let alone to relevance in the brave new world. As others have noted, this is slow-death to Stanford given the  business model for its sprawling athletics. Not to mention the hapless leadership therein, which is a whole other sad tale. We've landed in the worst of all worlds. Who'd-a-thunk-it in the afterglow of that Iowa Rose Bowl?

Question:  would you (and others) be satisfied with essentially what they had in the 70s - a team that would generally be a bit above  500 and occasionally knock off a big foe? And then once in a while being in a position to challenge for the conference.

I would, because knowing what I know now about the current regime I struggle to see how we get there.

[lex24]

..."Wonder how many high school parents are concerned about that and now have a dream for their kids other than Stanford."...

None.  Parents don't expect their elite students to need their college to intercept drug packages their kid ordered in from outside.

But if their elite student is rendered unresponsive by that drug and a university employee is notified of that and the University knows of a particularly dangerous drug circulating around the area, I believe parents  expect the University to take some action.  Before someone dies. 

THAT is the issue - if (and it’s a big if) the allegations are true.

[lex24]

..."Wonder how many high school parents are concerned about that and now have a dream for their kids other than Stanford."...

None.  Parents don't expect their elite students to need their college to intercept drug packages their kid ordered in from outside.

But if their elite student is rendered unresponsive by that drug and a university employee is notified of that and the University knows of a particularly dangerous drug circulating around the area, I believe parents  expect the University to take some action.  Before someone dies. 

THAT is the issue - if (and it’s a big if) the allegations are true.

[Papa John]

Here's a clunky way to look at it, but at least it's data-driven. It's the delta between the number of stars that transfer in versus out. So if you lose a 3-star but gain a 4-star, you have a +1 margin. Of course it doesn't take into account things like playing time, position of need and years of eligibility, but someone else can attempt that exercise if they have the time.

Utah: 0
Arizona State: -6
Oregon State: -11
Cal: -14
Oregon: -22
Stanford: -22
Washington State: -23
USC: -26
UCLA: -28
Arizona: -31
Washington: -32
Colorado: -51 (!)

To this point, not a single team in the conference has a net gain of recruiting stars. Stanford's transfer results are somewhere in the middle of the Pac-12. We'll see how things shake out in the next few months.

[Papa John]

Here's a clunky way to look at it, but at least it's data-driven. It's the delta between the number of stars that transfer in versus out. So if you lose a 3-star but gain a 4-star, you have a +1 margin. Of course it doesn't take into account things like playing time, position of need and years of eligibility, but someone else can attempt that exercise if they have the time.

Utah: 0
Arizona State: -6
Oregon State: -11
Cal: -14
Oregon: -22
Stanford: -22
Washington State: -23
USC: -26
UCLA: -28
Arizona: -31
Washington: -32
Colorado: -51 (!)

To this point, not a single team in the conference has a net gain of recruiting stars. Stanford's transfer results are somewhere in the middle of the Pac-12. We'll see how things shake out in the next few months.

[fullmetal]

Let's start with Reynolds (DL) and Anderson (DC) and add in Pritchard (OC/QB). Honestly the only defensive coach who should stay is Hansen (ILB) but only because last year was his first.

Don't take this the wrong way, but Hansen doesn't even coach here anymore.  Sanders is the new ILB coach.  And Anderson (DC) is in charge of recruiting and would be a h.uge loss.  I still don't think the book's written on Reynolds -- we need to land some quality DL recruits asap.  I'm hoping Reynolds can bring an Oklahoma-quality DL to Stanford...but perhaps my faith is misplaced.

We can do better at OC and definitely at QB coach.  That much should be agreed upon.

I'm hoping Heffernan can figure out why the OL isn't explosive or dominant off the snap. Maybe we need a new S&C person.

So yeah, let's be realistic about who on the coaching staff is good or bad.

[fullmetal]

Let's start with Reynolds (DL) and Anderson (DC) and add in Pritchard (OC/QB). Honestly the only defensive coach who should stay is Hansen (ILB) but only because last year was his first.

Don't take this the wrong way, but Hansen doesn't even coach here anymore.  Sanders is the new ILB coach.  And Anderson (DC) is in charge of recruiting and would be a h.uge loss.  I still don't think the book's written on Reynolds -- we need to land some quality DL recruits asap.  I'm hoping Reynolds can bring an Oklahoma-quality DL to Stanford...but perhaps my faith is misplaced.

We can do better at OC and definitely at QB coach.  That much should be agreed upon.

I'm hoping Heffernan can figure out why the OL isn't explosive or dominant off the snap. Maybe we need a new S&C person.

So yeah, let's be realistic about who on the coaching staff is good or bad.

[gailtate]

[quote="gailtate" pid='342119' dateline='1642787184']

The 40-year decision is essentially meaningless today. Kaput. The kind of football athletes that drive a successful program, some of whom Stanford would attract in sufficient numbers in the past, pay no attention today to the next 40 years. They want to succeed right now, under the tutelage of the best football minds and conditions (that, in case you haven't noticed, Stanford no longer has) to see how far they can go. NOW. Big bowls, big awards, and BIG MONEY. The Harbaugh-effect gave us a taste of this recently, but it was short-lived and temporary and unsustainable--as we now know. I struggle see a future in which Cardinal Football even returns to .500, let alone to relevance in the brave new world. As others have noted, this is slow-death to Stanford given the  business model for its sprawling athletics. Not to mention the hapless leadership therein, which is a whole other sad tale. We've landed in the worst of all worlds. Who'd-a-thunk-it in the afterglow of that Iowa Rose Bowl?

Question:  would you (and others) be satisfied with essentially what they had in the 70s - a team that would generally be a bit above  500 and occasionally knock off a big foe? And then once in a while being in a position to challenge for the conference.

As much as I FANtasize about a return to glory, my absence of confidence in Shaw to make it happen gets in the way. The new world of college football presents enough challenge as it is. I can only hope that Shaw stands down as soon as his youngest gets admitted to Stanford so new leadership can restore a winning culture. It will take nothing less.

[gailtate]

[quote="gailtate" pid='342119' dateline='1642787184']

The 40-year decision is essentially meaningless today. Kaput. The kind of football athletes that drive a successful program, some of whom Stanford would attract in sufficient numbers in the past, pay no attention today to the next 40 years. They want to succeed right now, under the tutelage of the best football minds and conditions (that, in case you haven't noticed, Stanford no longer has) to see how far they can go. NOW. Big bowls, big awards, and BIG MONEY. The Harbaugh-effect gave us a taste of this recently, but it was short-lived and temporary and unsustainable--as we now know. I struggle see a future in which Cardinal Football even returns to .500, let alone to relevance in the brave new world. As others have noted, this is slow-death to Stanford given the  business model for its sprawling athletics. Not to mention the hapless leadership therein, which is a whole other sad tale. We've landed in the worst of all worlds. Who'd-a-thunk-it in the afterglow of that Iowa Rose Bowl?

Question:  would you (and others) be satisfied with essentially what they had in the 70s - a team that would generally be a bit above  500 and occasionally knock off a big foe? And then once in a while being in a position to challenge for the conference.

As much as I FANtasize about a return to glory, my absence of confidence in Shaw to make it happen gets in the way. The new world of college football presents enough challenge as it is. I can only hope that Shaw stands down as soon as his youngest gets admitted to Stanford so new leadership can restore a winning culture. It will take nothing less.

[winflop]

Austin Jones to SC. Yuck.

Remain calm! All is well!

But seriously, this is a scathing indictment of our program.

No, it’s not.  It’s the new reality.  College free agency.  With Stanford having both hands tied behind it’s back.  I knew, and suspect most here did, that the transfer portal was very bad for Stanford.

No, it is. When a player leaves pre-graduation, goes to a rival, and isn't expecting their place in the pecking order to be materially different, it means something's broken. This isn't like the basketball player who transferred out after one season. Jones has been here longer than that.

Maybe. But the portal problem is bigger than Jones. (Who just as easily could have left cause he didn’t like the school, or got convinced by friends, or whatever). My point is, and continues to be, the portal hurts Stanford football.  And will continue to.  No matter what.

That's a problem that's NEVER going to go away as long as the portal exists. Gotta focus on what is fixable WITHIN the program. Stanford (Shaw) needs to make the program sufficiently attractive to current players (and recruits) so that they don't want to leave - at least before they graduate. I don't think that standing pat on a coaching staff after having terrible results in its last two full seasons makes it very attractive.

[winflop]

Austin Jones to SC. Yuck.

Remain calm! All is well!

But seriously, this is a scathing indictment of our program.

No, it’s not.  It’s the new reality.  College free agency.  With Stanford having both hands tied behind it’s back.  I knew, and suspect most here did, that the transfer portal was very bad for Stanford.

No, it is. When a player leaves pre-graduation, goes to a rival, and isn't expecting their place in the pecking order to be materially different, it means something's broken. This isn't like the basketball player who transferred out after one season. Jones has been here longer than that.

Maybe. But the portal problem is bigger than Jones. (Who just as easily could have left cause he didn’t like the school, or got convinced by friends, or whatever). My point is, and continues to be, the portal hurts Stanford football.  And will continue to.  No matter what.

That's a problem that's NEVER going to go away as long as the portal exists. Gotta focus on what is fixable WITHIN the program. Stanford (Shaw) needs to make the program sufficiently attractive to current players (and recruits) so that they don't want to leave - at least before they graduate. I don't think that standing pat on a coaching staff after having terrible results in its last two full seasons makes it very attractive.

[qwerty49]

Here's a clunky way to look at it, but at least it's data-driven. It's the delta between the number of stars that transfer in versus out. So if you lose a 3-star but gain a 4-star, you have a +1 margin. Of course it doesn't take into account things like playing time, position of need and years of eligibility, but someone else can attempt that exercise if they have the time.

Utah: 0
Arizona State: -6
Oregon State: -11
Cal: -14
Oregon: -22
Stanford: -22
Washington State: -23
USC: -26
UCLA: -28
Arizona: -31
Washington: -32
Colorado: -51 (!)

To this point, not a single team in the conference has a net gain of recruiting stars. Stanford's transfer results are somewhere in the middle of the Pac-12. We'll see how things shake out in the next few months.

Only one inherent bias —- some schools start off with more highly-ranked recruits. ( ie if you consistently  bring in a lot of 5-stars, you have nowhere to go but down.)

[qwerty49]

Here's a clunky way to look at it, but at least it's data-driven. It's the delta between the number of stars that transfer in versus out. So if you lose a 3-star but gain a 4-star, you have a +1 margin. Of course it doesn't take into account things like playing time, position of need and years of eligibility, but someone else can attempt that exercise if they have the time.

Utah: 0
Arizona State: -6
Oregon State: -11
Cal: -14
Oregon: -22
Stanford: -22
Washington State: -23
USC: -26
UCLA: -28
Arizona: -31
Washington: -32
Colorado: -51 (!)

To this point, not a single team in the conference has a net gain of recruiting stars. Stanford's transfer results are somewhere in the middle of the Pac-12. We'll see how things shake out in the next few months.

Only one inherent bias —- some schools start off with more highly-ranked recruits. ( ie if you consistently  bring in a lot of 5-stars, you have nowhere to go but down.)

[bbm233]

Getting back to Austin Jones and USC - he now has some competition for PT from Travis Dye, who is transferring in from Oregon. Can I coin a new phrase: "transferred over"???

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...sc-trojans

[bbm233]

Getting back to Austin Jones and USC - he now has some competition for PT from Travis Dye, who is transferring in from Oregon. Can I coin a new phrase: "transferred over"???

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...sc-trojans

[BobK]

That is too funny. Dye is outstanding.

[BobK]

That is too funny. Dye is outstanding.

[old spanish trail]

Getting back to Austin Jones and USC - he now has some competition for PT from Travis Dye, who is transferring in from Oregon. Can I coin a new phrase: "transferred over"???

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...sc-trojans

Ooofta. Travis Dye is really good.

[old spanish trail]

Getting back to Austin Jones and USC - he now has some competition for PT from Travis Dye, who is transferring in from Oregon. Can I coin a new phrase: "transferred over"???

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...sc-trojans

Ooofta. Travis Dye is really good.