[stupac2]

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.

[stupac2]

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.