[washingtonismoney]

It's nominally about signing day, but I find the recruiting comments to be the least interesting. Very much worth a listen: http://www.957thegame.com/topic/play_win...Id=6227779

(I get the sense he very much likes running QBs. Quotes his dad saying something like, "If you put option in your playbook, I have to throw out a third of my defensive playbook." Goes on and says, "So you're dictating to the defense." You know David Shaw likes something when he cites his dad approvingly -- it's his tell.)

[washingtonismoney]

It's nominally about signing day, but I find the recruiting comments to be the least interesting. Very much worth a listen: http://www.957thegame.com/topic/play_win...Id=6227779

(I get the sense he very much likes running QBs. Quotes his dad saying something like, "If you put option in your playbook, I have to throw out a third of my defensive playbook." Goes on and says, "So you're dictating to the defense." You know David Shaw likes something when he cites his dad approvingly -- it's his tell.)

[estephan500]

I had a strange-feeling realization during the Super Bowl: provided our upcoming seasons aren't greatly different from 2012, I would take coach Shaw over coach Harbaugh for Stanford any day of the week.

Seems weird to post negatively about the person that sparked our renaissance. But harbaugh's manner (and yes, that strained-neck intensity that leads to incredible performance) is just less impressive to me than Shaw's chilly approach.

And obviously the question is what the heck one would mean by the upcoming season being greatly different. The same old questions about whether shaw is still riding some Harbaugh momentum, etc.

I guess my main point is that I had been continuing to think of Harbaugh as "the one that got away." Now I don't feel that way so much.

Not that the aesthetic merits of a coach are why we are here.

Also, I admit that that "blue collar shirt" video posted the other week tipped me a bit.  I don't disagree with the points Harbaugh made in that video. Just seemed sort of a blow-hard, gimmicky way to make the point.

[estephan500]

I had a strange-feeling realization during the Super Bowl: provided our upcoming seasons aren't greatly different from 2012, I would take coach Shaw over coach Harbaugh for Stanford any day of the week.

Seems weird to post negatively about the person that sparked our renaissance. But harbaugh's manner (and yes, that strained-neck intensity that leads to incredible performance) is just less impressive to me than Shaw's chilly approach.

And obviously the question is what the heck one would mean by the upcoming season being greatly different. The same old questions about whether shaw is still riding some Harbaugh momentum, etc.

I guess my main point is that I had been continuing to think of Harbaugh as "the one that got away." Now I don't feel that way so much.

Not that the aesthetic merits of a coach are why we are here.

Also, I admit that that "blue collar shirt" video posted the other week tipped me a bit.  I don't disagree with the points Harbaugh made in that video. Just seemed sort of a blow-hard, gimmicky way to make the point.

[OutsiderFan]

These questions may be a bit rhetorical, but I'm still curious, and wonder what some of y'all think about them...


In the interview, Shaw says "we find Stanford kids and go get them."  He then adds in the obligatory comment about how Stanford's pool is smaller than everyone else's.  My questions: 

Is the pool of Stanford kids pretty much the same in terms of size every year?  I mean is there some population ratio where for every 100 high school football players, one is a Stanford kid, and therefore, the pool is pretty much the same size every year?

Does Stanford have the ability to increase the size of its pool by cultivating and guiding more kids early?  I mean is a Stanford kid born and Stanford just has to find them, or can Stanford produce more than would exist if they didn't cultivate them?

Is the success Stanford is having on the football field naturally increasing the size of the pool without regard to whether Stanford is cultivating more kids or not?

if the answers are: no, yes, and yes, it would seem the pool of Stanford kids is growing. 

The guys in this 2013 class were Freshman when Stanford went to the ho hum Sun Bowl (after a long bowl drought), and Sophomores when Stanford went to the Orange Bowl, a year Stanford was seen by many as a flash in the pan.  The 2014 class were Freshman when Stanford went to the Orange Bowl.  My guess is Stanford coaches were going after kids in 2010 (the 2013 class) who really didn't see Stanford as a place to play championship level football, and consequently didn't do the work to get into Stanford.  This left Stanford in a position to really scour the earth trying to find their guys, just to get even 12 into school in the 2013 class.

Given the 2014 class will have seen Stanford ranked as a Top 5 team every year they were in high school, it sure would seem there will have been more kids receptive to getting "on the path to Stanford" starting with the 2014 class, than ever before.  This suggests the pool will be getting larger.  In other words, 2013 is probably the last class for a while where Stanford's pool will be as small as it historically has been.

It seems Stanford will likely continue going out and finding the under the radar guys like Cotton and Tyler, but they will not have to work quite as hard digging to find them because more on the radar guys will be in the pool after this 2013 class, and those diamonds in the rough will more and more often seek Stanford out.

[OutsiderFan]

These questions may be a bit rhetorical, but I'm still curious, and wonder what some of y'all think about them...


In the interview, Shaw says "we find Stanford kids and go get them."  He then adds in the obligatory comment about how Stanford's pool is smaller than everyone else's.  My questions: 

Is the pool of Stanford kids pretty much the same in terms of size every year?  I mean is there some population ratio where for every 100 high school football players, one is a Stanford kid, and therefore, the pool is pretty much the same size every year?

Does Stanford have the ability to increase the size of its pool by cultivating and guiding more kids early?  I mean is a Stanford kid born and Stanford just has to find them, or can Stanford produce more than would exist if they didn't cultivate them?

Is the success Stanford is having on the football field naturally increasing the size of the pool without regard to whether Stanford is cultivating more kids or not?

if the answers are: no, yes, and yes, it would seem the pool of Stanford kids is growing. 

The guys in this 2013 class were Freshman when Stanford went to the ho hum Sun Bowl (after a long bowl drought), and Sophomores when Stanford went to the Orange Bowl, a year Stanford was seen by many as a flash in the pan.  The 2014 class were Freshman when Stanford went to the Orange Bowl.  My guess is Stanford coaches were going after kids in 2010 (the 2013 class) who really didn't see Stanford as a place to play championship level football, and consequently didn't do the work to get into Stanford.  This left Stanford in a position to really scour the earth trying to find their guys, just to get even 12 into school in the 2013 class.

Given the 2014 class will have seen Stanford ranked as a Top 5 team every year they were in high school, it sure would seem there will have been more kids receptive to getting "on the path to Stanford" starting with the 2014 class, than ever before.  This suggests the pool will be getting larger.  In other words, 2013 is probably the last class for a while where Stanford's pool will be as small as it historically has been.

It seems Stanford will likely continue going out and finding the under the radar guys like Cotton and Tyler, but they will not have to work quite as hard digging to find them because more on the radar guys will be in the pool after this 2013 class, and those diamonds in the rough will more and more often seek Stanford out.

[slide]

These questions may be a bit rhetorical, but I'm still curious, and wonder what some of y'all think about them...


In the interview, Shaw says "we find Stanford kids and go get them."  He then adds in the obligatory comment about how Stanford's pool is smaller than everyone else's.  My questions: 

Is the pool of Stanford kids pretty much the same in terms of size every year?  I mean is there some population ratio where for every 100 high school football players, one is a Stanford kid, and therefore, the pool is pretty much the same size every year?

Does Stanford have the ability to increase the size of its pool by cultivating and guiding more kids early?  I mean is a Stanford kid born and Stanford just has to find them, or can Stanford produce more than would exist if they didn't cultivate them?

Is the success Stanford is having on the football field naturally increasing the size of the pool without regard to whether Stanford is cultivating more kids or not?

if the answers are: no, yes, and yes, it would seem the pool of Stanford kids is growing. 

The guys in this 2013 class were Freshman when Stanford went to the ho hum Sun Bowl (after a long bowl drought), and Sophomores when Stanford went to the Orange Bowl, a year Stanford was seen by many as a flash in the pan.  The 2014 class were Freshman when Stanford went to the Orange Bowl.  My guess is Stanford coaches were going after kids in 2010 (the 2013 class) who really didn't see Stanford as a place to play championship level football, and consequently didn't do the work to get into Stanford.  This left Stanford in a position to really scour the earth trying to find their guys, just to get even 12 into school in the 2013 class.

Given the 2014 class will have seen Stanford ranked as a Top 5 team every year they were in high school, it sure would seem there will have been more kids receptive to getting "on the path to Stanford" starting with the 2014 class, than ever before.  This suggests the pool will be getting larger.  In other words, 2013 is probably the last class for a while where Stanford's pool will be as small as it historically has been.

It seems Stanford will likely continue going out and finding the under the radar guys like Cotton and Tyler, but they will not have to work quite as hard digging to find them because more on the radar guys will be in the pool after this 2013 class, and those diamonds in the rough will more and more often seek Stanford out.

good questions and I think you have the answers correct (no, yes, yes). 

on the first question, the '12 and '13 classes are good examples.  at the top, the '12 class athletically and academically was a deeper one for us than '13.  '14 lines up to be better than '13 as well. 

and yes Stanford is starting its outreach to kids and counselors much much earlier (2 to 3 years earlier) than say what we did in Tyrone's day.  in addition to the earlier outreach, we are also actively trying to get kids into the Stanford summer camps to take a look at them.  a good example was the '13 QB group.  Burns, Bateman and Browne all camped together at Stanford.  only Burns received an offer.

on the last question, I think the answer is yes, the pool is expanding at the margins, but it is not doubling in size.  sometimes with the early contact you can course correct and get a player through admissions who might not have been able to do so if you started recruiting in between 6th and 7th semesters.  sometimes you start well out and still get a negative from admissions or a kid just doesn't follow-through on his end. 

a process to address these questions started under Wlat with Nate Hackett, but Harbaugh with Eubanks and Anderson (along with a big assist from Rick Shaw) took it to a new level, and Shaw et al have continued to refine/improve. 

hopefully the work will produce closer to '12 than '13 in the years to come.

[slide]

These questions may be a bit rhetorical, but I'm still curious, and wonder what some of y'all think about them...


In the interview, Shaw says "we find Stanford kids and go get them."  He then adds in the obligatory comment about how Stanford's pool is smaller than everyone else's.  My questions: 

Is the pool of Stanford kids pretty much the same in terms of size every year?  I mean is there some population ratio where for every 100 high school football players, one is a Stanford kid, and therefore, the pool is pretty much the same size every year?

Does Stanford have the ability to increase the size of its pool by cultivating and guiding more kids early?  I mean is a Stanford kid born and Stanford just has to find them, or can Stanford produce more than would exist if they didn't cultivate them?

Is the success Stanford is having on the football field naturally increasing the size of the pool without regard to whether Stanford is cultivating more kids or not?

if the answers are: no, yes, and yes, it would seem the pool of Stanford kids is growing. 

The guys in this 2013 class were Freshman when Stanford went to the ho hum Sun Bowl (after a long bowl drought), and Sophomores when Stanford went to the Orange Bowl, a year Stanford was seen by many as a flash in the pan.  The 2014 class were Freshman when Stanford went to the Orange Bowl.  My guess is Stanford coaches were going after kids in 2010 (the 2013 class) who really didn't see Stanford as a place to play championship level football, and consequently didn't do the work to get into Stanford.  This left Stanford in a position to really scour the earth trying to find their guys, just to get even 12 into school in the 2013 class.

Given the 2014 class will have seen Stanford ranked as a Top 5 team every year they were in high school, it sure would seem there will have been more kids receptive to getting "on the path to Stanford" starting with the 2014 class, than ever before.  This suggests the pool will be getting larger.  In other words, 2013 is probably the last class for a while where Stanford's pool will be as small as it historically has been.

It seems Stanford will likely continue going out and finding the under the radar guys like Cotton and Tyler, but they will not have to work quite as hard digging to find them because more on the radar guys will be in the pool after this 2013 class, and those diamonds in the rough will more and more often seek Stanford out.

good questions and I think you have the answers correct (no, yes, yes). 

on the first question, the '12 and '13 classes are good examples.  at the top, the '12 class athletically and academically was a deeper one for us than '13.  '14 lines up to be better than '13 as well. 

and yes Stanford is starting its outreach to kids and counselors much much earlier (2 to 3 years earlier) than say what we did in Tyrone's day.  in addition to the earlier outreach, we are also actively trying to get kids into the Stanford summer camps to take a look at them.  a good example was the '13 QB group.  Burns, Bateman and Browne all camped together at Stanford.  only Burns received an offer.

on the last question, I think the answer is yes, the pool is expanding at the margins, but it is not doubling in size.  sometimes with the early contact you can course correct and get a player through admissions who might not have been able to do so if you started recruiting in between 6th and 7th semesters.  sometimes you start well out and still get a negative from admissions or a kid just doesn't follow-through on his end. 

a process to address these questions started under Wlat with Nate Hackett, but Harbaugh with Eubanks and Anderson (along with a big assist from Rick Shaw) took it to a new level, and Shaw et al have continued to refine/improve. 

hopefully the work will produce closer to '12 than '13 in the years to come.

[jayasena]

One thing I wonder about the 2013 class is how much of a factor our early-season on-field performance was. There was a lot of negativity even among the posters here (who are probably among the most die-hard Stanford fans). Was the team perceived the same way by the recruits? Were we seen as heading for mediocrity post-Luck? And while the late-season improvements gave us, the fans, enough time to get "back to good", was it too late for some potential recruits to get back on track (get the grades, test scores up etc.)?

In contrast, the 2011 team was consistently good. There was no mid-season coarse-correction. Which kept the 2012 recruits on a more linear trajectory.

[jayasena]

One thing I wonder about the 2013 class is how much of a factor our early-season on-field performance was. There was a lot of negativity even among the posters here (who are probably among the most die-hard Stanford fans). Was the team perceived the same way by the recruits? Were we seen as heading for mediocrity post-Luck? And while the late-season improvements gave us, the fans, enough time to get "back to good", was it too late for some potential recruits to get back on track (get the grades, test scores up etc.)?

In contrast, the 2011 team was consistently good. There was no mid-season coarse-correction. Which kept the 2012 recruits on a more linear trajectory.

[washingtonismoney]

One thing I wonder about the 2013 class is how much of a factor our early-season on-field performance was. There was a lot of negativity even among the posters here (who are probably among the most die-hard Stanford fans). Was the team perceived the same way by the recruits? Were we seen as heading for mediocrity post-Luck? And while the late-season improvements gave us, the fans, enough time to get "back to good", was it too late for some potential recruits to get back on track (get the grades, test scores up etc.)?

In contrast, the 2011 team was consistently good. There was no mid-season coarse-correction. Which kept the 2012 recruits on a more linear trajectory.

I really think 2012 had zero to do with the eventual outcome of the class. There simply weren't enough prospects in the beginning of the process -- whether that was a strategic thing or a demographics thing or both, I don't know -- but the season wasn't at fault. Recruits don't really care about individual games, which is smart.

[washingtonismoney]

One thing I wonder about the 2013 class is how much of a factor our early-season on-field performance was. There was a lot of negativity even among the posters here (who are probably among the most die-hard Stanford fans). Was the team perceived the same way by the recruits? Were we seen as heading for mediocrity post-Luck? And while the late-season improvements gave us, the fans, enough time to get "back to good", was it too late for some potential recruits to get back on track (get the grades, test scores up etc.)?

In contrast, the 2011 team was consistently good. There was no mid-season coarse-correction. Which kept the 2012 recruits on a more linear trajectory.

I really think 2012 had zero to do with the eventual outcome of the class. There simply weren't enough prospects in the beginning of the process -- whether that was a strategic thing or a demographics thing or both, I don't know -- but the season wasn't at fault. Recruits don't really care about individual games, which is smart.

[stupac2]

Is the pool of Stanford kids pretty much the same in terms of size every year?  I mean is there some population ratio where for every 100 high school football players, one is a Stanford kid, and therefore, the pool is pretty much the same size every year?

I think that the overall pool is probably consistent within error, but what's going to fluctuate wildly is how the pool lines up with needs and available roster spots. Could we have replicated last year's lineman haul this year if we had wanted to? Seems unlikely, that was a nice confluence of need and availability. Etc.

Does Stanford have the ability to increase the size of its pool by cultivating and guiding more kids early?  I mean is a Stanford kid born and Stanford just has to find them, or can Stanford produce more than would exist if they didn't cultivate them?

It certainly sounds like Stanford has to get involved fairly early, but I'm sure a good number of these kids would get in without that help.

Is the success Stanford is having on the football field naturally increasing the size of the pool without regard to whether Stanford is cultivating more kids or not?

You have to believe that it is. There were always going to be some kids with smarts and talent who would love Stanford for the opportunity to play DI ball, even if the team wouldn't be in the top 25 every year, but there are necessarily kids who want both. And now that Stanford can offer that, the pool of kids who can be convinced to come here has to have grown, my guess is that it has grown significantly.

[stupac2]

Is the pool of Stanford kids pretty much the same in terms of size every year?  I mean is there some population ratio where for every 100 high school football players, one is a Stanford kid, and therefore, the pool is pretty much the same size every year?

I think that the overall pool is probably consistent within error, but what's going to fluctuate wildly is how the pool lines up with needs and available roster spots. Could we have replicated last year's lineman haul this year if we had wanted to? Seems unlikely, that was a nice confluence of need and availability. Etc.

Does Stanford have the ability to increase the size of its pool by cultivating and guiding more kids early?  I mean is a Stanford kid born and Stanford just has to find them, or can Stanford produce more than would exist if they didn't cultivate them?

It certainly sounds like Stanford has to get involved fairly early, but I'm sure a good number of these kids would get in without that help.

Is the success Stanford is having on the football field naturally increasing the size of the pool without regard to whether Stanford is cultivating more kids or not?

You have to believe that it is. There were always going to be some kids with smarts and talent who would love Stanford for the opportunity to play DI ball, even if the team wouldn't be in the top 25 every year, but there are necessarily kids who want both. And now that Stanford can offer that, the pool of kids who can be convinced to come here has to have grown, my guess is that it has grown significantly.