[jayasena]

Everyone knows a verbal commitment to Stanford means nothing until admissions approves a recruit.  It always baffled me why Stanford would accept public verbals from guys who weren't slam dunks for admission.  Recruits with questionable profiles can always say Stanford is high on their list, and then commit when admitted.  This would also lessen the anxiety Stanford fans have, wondering if committed recruits will be admitted.

First of all, i don't think lessening the anxiety for fans should be a concern at all. If grown adults want to lose sleep over the decisions of 17-year-olds they are not responsible for, that's on said adults and no one else.

Second, while I agree in principle that accepting verbals before admission is risky, I can see why that may be necessary. For example, a recruit may want to be "done" with the recruiting process early. If that means a choice between Stanford accepting a risky verbal or seeing the recruit commit elsewhere, it comes down to a calculated risk that may be worth taking. And in general, telling recruits who are ready to commit to wait can be interpreted as slow-playing and can drive them elsewhere. So maybe our level of risk tolerance (or need for such) has reduced over the past couple of years but I doubt it ever completely goes away.

[jayasena]

Everyone knows a verbal commitment to Stanford means nothing until admissions approves a recruit.  It always baffled me why Stanford would accept public verbals from guys who weren't slam dunks for admission.  Recruits with questionable profiles can always say Stanford is high on their list, and then commit when admitted.  This would also lessen the anxiety Stanford fans have, wondering if committed recruits will be admitted.

First of all, i don't think lessening the anxiety for fans should be a concern at all. If grown adults want to lose sleep over the decisions of 17-year-olds they are not responsible for, that's on said adults and no one else.

Second, while I agree in principle that accepting verbals before admission is risky, I can see why that may be necessary. For example, a recruit may want to be "done" with the recruiting process early. If that means a choice between Stanford accepting a risky verbal or seeing the recruit commit elsewhere, it comes down to a calculated risk that may be worth taking. And in general, telling recruits who are ready to commit to wait can be interpreted as slow-playing and can drive them elsewhere. So maybe our level of risk tolerance (or need for such) has reduced over the past couple of years but I doubt it ever completely goes away.