[Farm93]

Recruiting very well may drop off, in the near term and even more generally. Shaw was empirically the most successful recruiter in Stanford history. But he badly under-performed his recruiting rankings. If we recruited like the #25 team in the country and played like the #75 team in the country under Shaw and then end up recruiting like the #40 team in the country and play like the #25 team in the country under Taylor, Taylor will be a big improvement. (Even if Taylor has us playing like #40 that's a big improvement) I view recruiting as the lifeblood and will be watching it closely, but the fact is the rot in Shaw's program was so bad that talent can decline at Stanford quite a bit without necessarily hurting us on the field because a less rotten coaching staff should be able to get more out of the talent they do have.

Funny thing about recruiting rankings.   I remember Stanford used to be a negative to those services.   

As in, the player WAS a 4 star recruit, but when they accepted their Stanford bid they would magically drop to a 3 star player.    Or any player that accepted a Stanford offer too early would never see anything above a 3 star no matter what they did later in HS.   Does everyone remember those days?

Conversely, a USC recruit almost always became a 4 or 5 star recruit the second they indicated they had a USC offer.

That spans many decades but definitely was the case in the mid-00s and I think members on this board started to capture this phenomenon.

I remember when Joe McKnight (RIP) was hailed as the next RB at USC.   Future Voldemort winner, as talented as Bush, etc.  Then on the field he was chased down in the open field by several members of the Stanford D rather than breaking away for TDs.   And I thought speed is speed.   Either that RB is not a true 4/5 star recruit or Stanford has a lot of underrated gems on this roster.

I can't help but think that at some point in the mid-teens recruiting services got lazy with Stanford recruits.    If a top 10 program like Stanford offered that player then they must be a 4 star recruit.   Why exactly?   Well...because they got an offer from Stanford. 

Shaw was also very good at building up every recruit in a way that was a bit more credible than other coaches.   He also rarely complained about having to settle for a recruit because of admissions.    So all of that presumably elevated his recruits a bit. 

I am confident Stanford will see less of that rating inflation going forward as coaches that use Stanford as a transitional role want to highlight Stanford's limitations (admissions challenges, non-starters focused on academics) to explain away bad plays, bad recruits and bad loses.   That focus on the limitations will presumably help those services reset the ratings value of a Stanford offer.

[Farm93]

Recruiting very well may drop off, in the near term and even more generally. Shaw was empirically the most successful recruiter in Stanford history. But he badly under-performed his recruiting rankings. If we recruited like the #25 team in the country and played like the #75 team in the country under Shaw and then end up recruiting like the #40 team in the country and play like the #25 team in the country under Taylor, Taylor will be a big improvement. (Even if Taylor has us playing like #40 that's a big improvement) I view recruiting as the lifeblood and will be watching it closely, but the fact is the rot in Shaw's program was so bad that talent can decline at Stanford quite a bit without necessarily hurting us on the field because a less rotten coaching staff should be able to get more out of the talent they do have.

Funny thing about recruiting rankings.   I remember Stanford used to be a negative to those services.   

As in, the player WAS a 4 star recruit, but when they accepted their Stanford bid they would magically drop to a 3 star player.    Or any player that accepted a Stanford offer too early would never see anything above a 3 star no matter what they did later in HS.   Does everyone remember those days?

Conversely, a USC recruit almost always became a 4 or 5 star recruit the second they indicated they had a USC offer.

That spans many decades but definitely was the case in the mid-00s and I think members on this board started to capture this phenomenon.

I remember when Joe McKnight (RIP) was hailed as the next RB at USC.   Future Voldemort winner, as talented as Bush, etc.  Then on the field he was chased down in the open field by several members of the Stanford D rather than breaking away for TDs.   And I thought speed is speed.   Either that RB is not a true 4/5 star recruit or Stanford has a lot of underrated gems on this roster.

I can't help but think that at some point in the mid-teens recruiting services got lazy with Stanford recruits.    If a top 10 program like Stanford offered that player then they must be a 4 star recruit.   Why exactly?   Well...because they got an offer from Stanford. 

Shaw was also very good at building up every recruit in a way that was a bit more credible than other coaches.   He also rarely complained about having to settle for a recruit because of admissions.    So all of that presumably elevated his recruits a bit. 

I am confident Stanford will see less of that rating inflation going forward as coaches that use Stanford as a transitional role want to highlight Stanford's limitations (admissions challenges, non-starters focused on academics) to explain away bad plays, bad recruits and bad loses.   That focus on the limitations will presumably help those services reset the ratings value of a Stanford offer.