[washingtonismoney]

Ted Miller is calling Stanford out at the Biggest Loser on NSD

Biggest loser: Stanford's class ranked seventh in the Pac-12, according to ESPN recruiting, but nearly every other recruiting service rated the Cardinal 11th in the Pac-12. Most of that is numbers: 12. Stanford's roster didn't allow for a large class. But this is the Rose Bowl champion, a team that has played in three consecutive BCS games. Other than QB Ryan Burns, Stanford didn't sign any player ranked among the top 15 at his position. Last year, in a class of 22, they signed six such players, and that doesn't include Aziz Shittu, the No. 17 defensive tackle.

I have to say, I kind of agree with the overall sentiments. I know a lot of people here think that the class is justified by size restrictions or that somehow fewer of the top athletes were quality students, but Ted Miller's point about quality can't be ignored. Maybe he's using ESPN ratings that don't account for some of the high ratings on other boards, but a 3 time BCS team should be able to land a few more elite prospects.

Still, in Shaw we trust, and may our 2014 cup overflow with top-300 players.

Top fifteen is an arbitrary standard though (if Miller's going to give a break to Shittu, why not give a break to Kalambayi, who's #17 OLB and Taboada, who's #17 ATH according to ESPN) To use another arbitrary standard, let's try your top 300 players one -- in that (using ESPN's standards), nearly half the class is compromised of such players and as such actually looks pretty solid. (That would tie us with UW and Oregon for third in the conference -- SC and UCLA are, naturally, first and second by that metric.)

What would settle this much better would be average star ratings, but ESPN in its infinite wisdom has not made such a commonsense feature available.

(The problem, by the way, isn't so much that the class is bad, it's not it's not good -- middle of the pack by definition means other teams are ahead of you. Still, this scarcely means you're the biggest loser.)

[washingtonismoney]

Ted Miller is calling Stanford out at the Biggest Loser on NSD

Biggest loser: Stanford's class ranked seventh in the Pac-12, according to ESPN recruiting, but nearly every other recruiting service rated the Cardinal 11th in the Pac-12. Most of that is numbers: 12. Stanford's roster didn't allow for a large class. But this is the Rose Bowl champion, a team that has played in three consecutive BCS games. Other than QB Ryan Burns, Stanford didn't sign any player ranked among the top 15 at his position. Last year, in a class of 22, they signed six such players, and that doesn't include Aziz Shittu, the No. 17 defensive tackle.

I have to say, I kind of agree with the overall sentiments. I know a lot of people here think that the class is justified by size restrictions or that somehow fewer of the top athletes were quality students, but Ted Miller's point about quality can't be ignored. Maybe he's using ESPN ratings that don't account for some of the high ratings on other boards, but a 3 time BCS team should be able to land a few more elite prospects.

Still, in Shaw we trust, and may our 2014 cup overflow with top-300 players.

Top fifteen is an arbitrary standard though (if Miller's going to give a break to Shittu, why not give a break to Kalambayi, who's #17 OLB and Taboada, who's #17 ATH according to ESPN) To use another arbitrary standard, let's try your top 300 players one -- in that (using ESPN's standards), nearly half the class is compromised of such players and as such actually looks pretty solid. (That would tie us with UW and Oregon for third in the conference -- SC and UCLA are, naturally, first and second by that metric.)

What would settle this much better would be average star ratings, but ESPN in its infinite wisdom has not made such a commonsense feature available.

(The problem, by the way, isn't so much that the class is bad, it's not it's not good -- middle of the pack by definition means other teams are ahead of you. Still, this scarcely means you're the biggest loser.)