[Spiny_Norman]

At least next year’s team will be a bunch of young guys. Might have to sign 40 given the expected exodus. 


https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/18/medi...years.aspx

Kyu Blu Kelly, Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have already accepted Senior Bowl invitations. They are gone. We'll probably see a number of transfers out as well.

[Spiny_Norman]

At least next year’s team will be a bunch of young guys. Might have to sign 40 given the expected exodus. 


https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/18/medi...years.aspx

Kyu Blu Kelly, Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have already accepted Senior Bowl invitations. They are gone. We'll probably see a number of transfers out as well.

[MVCard]

At least next year’s team will be a bunch of young guys. Might have to sign 40 given the expected exodus. 


https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/18/medi...years.aspx

Kyu Blu Kelly, Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have already accepted Senior Bowl invitations. They are gone. We'll probably see a number of transfers out as well.

Yes.  Lack of institutional support for the program is noticed by the players and their families.  When your team is going off campus to Chipotle to eat after-hours because they won’t open a campus dining hall for them after practice ends… because “equity”… well, these players have choices and I expect they will make them in the offseason.

Up 11 in the fourth and we lose… sigh.

[MVCard]

At least next year’s team will be a bunch of young guys. Might have to sign 40 given the expected exodus. 


https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/18/medi...years.aspx

Kyu Blu Kelly, Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have already accepted Senior Bowl invitations. They are gone. We'll probably see a number of transfers out as well.

Yes.  Lack of institutional support for the program is noticed by the players and their families.  When your team is going off campus to Chipotle to eat after-hours because they won’t open a campus dining hall for them after practice ends… because “equity”… well, these players have choices and I expect they will make them in the offseason.

Up 11 in the fourth and we lose… sigh.

[newguy]

At least next year’s team will be a bunch of young guys. Might have to sign 40 given the expected exodus. 


https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/18/medi...years.aspx

Kyu Blu Kelly, Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have already accepted Senior Bowl invitations. They are gone. We'll probably see a number of transfers out as well.

Yes.  Lack of institutional support for the program is noticed by the players and their families.  When your team is going off campus to Chipotle to eat after-hours because they won’t open a campus dining hall for them after practice ends… because “equity”… well, these players have choices and I expect they will make them in the offseason.

if that's the case, then the administration isn't even pretending that they care about our student-athletes.

[newguy]

At least next year’s team will be a bunch of young guys. Might have to sign 40 given the expected exodus. 


https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/18/medi...years.aspx

Kyu Blu Kelly, Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have already accepted Senior Bowl invitations. They are gone. We'll probably see a number of transfers out as well.

Yes.  Lack of institutional support for the program is noticed by the players and their families.  When your team is going off campus to Chipotle to eat after-hours because they won’t open a campus dining hall for them after practice ends… because “equity”… well, these players have choices and I expect they will make them in the offseason.

if that's the case, then the administration isn't even pretending that they care about our student-athletes.

[Phogge]

If that's the case then everyone should transfer.

[Phogge]

If that's the case then everyone should transfer.

[Austroturf]

Looks as if I got to watch the "good" half of Stanford football this weekend.  Not sure I want to watch the second half.  Holy moly. 

I agree: any decent Stanford player with any hope for his future in the sport has to be considering a transfer.  The remaining roster will include 1) those who no other team wants or 2) those who value a Stanford education over football.  The latter of these groups may contain some good to excellent players; but the supporting cast will be missing.  The result will be more losing seasons.  This is a death spiral for the program.  

I cannot imagine there is anyone on this board who still believes in the current program leadership.  Everything is in disarray, and I feel truly sorry for the players.  We had an 11-point lead in the 4th quarter vs. a lousy Cal team missing two key offensive coaches, then proceeded to give up 21 unanswered points in 10 minutes of play.  Unacceptable by any standard.  Fire the whole bunch.  The only memorable event was Karty's 61-yard FG as time expired: this was a new Big Game record for longest FG.  Something at least.  

For those who worry about our hiring the next Buddy Teevens, well, there is always that risk.  But I have been watching the turnaround job that Bielema has been undertaking at Illinois.  Yes, the Illini have had a few rough games recently; but they took Harbaugh and his Wolverines to the wire in the Big House yesterday, and this is Bielema's 2nd season on the job.  Recruiting rankings for Illinois are in the 40s, while we have been averaging top 25.  Coaching matters.  At 7-4, the Illini are bowl-bound this year; at 3-8, we don't even have the Axe to cuddle up to in the off-season.

Austin Jones must be feeling pretty good about his decision to transfer: 121 yards on 21 carries and two TDs in yesterday's epic win vs. the Bruins.  Why endure the meat-grinder behind a dysfunctional O-line with dysfunctional coaching when you can unleash your potential at a winning program?  More players and recruits will have similar thoughts.  If this year's roster has looked threadbare, next year's will be down to the bone.

[Austroturf]

Looks as if I got to watch the "good" half of Stanford football this weekend.  Not sure I want to watch the second half.  Holy moly. 

I agree: any decent Stanford player with any hope for his future in the sport has to be considering a transfer.  The remaining roster will include 1) those who no other team wants or 2) those who value a Stanford education over football.  The latter of these groups may contain some good to excellent players; but the supporting cast will be missing.  The result will be more losing seasons.  This is a death spiral for the program.  

I cannot imagine there is anyone on this board who still believes in the current program leadership.  Everything is in disarray, and I feel truly sorry for the players.  We had an 11-point lead in the 4th quarter vs. a lousy Cal team missing two key offensive coaches, then proceeded to give up 21 unanswered points in 10 minutes of play.  Unacceptable by any standard.  Fire the whole bunch.  The only memorable event was Karty's 61-yard FG as time expired: this was a new Big Game record for longest FG.  Something at least.  

For those who worry about our hiring the next Buddy Teevens, well, there is always that risk.  But I have been watching the turnaround job that Bielema has been undertaking at Illinois.  Yes, the Illini have had a few rough games recently; but they took Harbaugh and his Wolverines to the wire in the Big House yesterday, and this is Bielema's 2nd season on the job.  Recruiting rankings for Illinois are in the 40s, while we have been averaging top 25.  Coaching matters.  At 7-4, the Illini are bowl-bound this year; at 3-8, we don't even have the Axe to cuddle up to in the off-season.

Austin Jones must be feeling pretty good about his decision to transfer: 121 yards on 21 carries and two TDs in yesterday's epic win vs. the Bruins.  Why endure the meat-grinder behind a dysfunctional O-line with dysfunctional coaching when you can unleash your potential at a winning program?  More players and recruits will have similar thoughts.  If this year's roster has looked threadbare, next year's will be down to the bone.

[JohnR34231]

I just saw the highlights but I thought the defense played reasonably well. The offense gave the game away in the fourth quarter with the fumble return for a TD and the near pick six. 
Going into the season I thought the offense would be the strength of the team. Sure didn't turn out that way.

[JohnR34231]

I just saw the highlights but I thought the defense played reasonably well. The offense gave the game away in the fourth quarter with the fumble return for a TD and the near pick six. 
Going into the season I thought the offense would be the strength of the team. Sure didn't turn out that way.

[81alum]

I just saw the highlights but I thought the defense played reasonably well. The offense gave the game away in the fourth quarter with the fumble return for a TD and the near pick six. 
Going into the season I thought the offense would be the strength of the team. Sure didn't turn out that way.

Those are my thoughts too.

The wide receivers cannot get separation.  The offensive line is porous.  We have no running backs.  The quarterback is not mobile.  A recipe for disaster after disaster.

My main question is--how the heck does the defense do as well as it does?

[81alum]

I just saw the highlights but I thought the defense played reasonably well. The offense gave the game away in the fourth quarter with the fumble return for a TD and the near pick six. 
Going into the season I thought the offense would be the strength of the team. Sure didn't turn out that way.

Those are my thoughts too.

The wide receivers cannot get separation.  The offensive line is porous.  We have no running backs.  The quarterback is not mobile.  A recipe for disaster after disaster.

My main question is--how the heck does the defense do as well as it does?

[JohnR34231]

I just saw the highlights but I thought the defense played reasonably well. The offense gave the game away in the fourth quarter with the fumble return for a TD and the near pick six. 
Going into the season I thought the offense would be the strength of the team. Sure didn't turn out that way.

Those are my thoughts too.

The wide receivers cannot get separation.  The offensive line is porous.  We have no running backs.  The quarterback is not mobile.  A recipe for disaster after disaster.

My main question is--how the heck does the defense do as well as it does?

No running backs is certainly correct, but I give Mitch Leigber some kudos for his performance in filling in there yesterday. 136 yards running and receiving, a beautiful one handed catch that set up a TD. He certainly wasn't the reason we lost.

[JohnR34231]

I just saw the highlights but I thought the defense played reasonably well. The offense gave the game away in the fourth quarter with the fumble return for a TD and the near pick six. 
Going into the season I thought the offense would be the strength of the team. Sure didn't turn out that way.

Those are my thoughts too.

The wide receivers cannot get separation.  The offensive line is porous.  We have no running backs.  The quarterback is not mobile.  A recipe for disaster after disaster.

My main question is--how the heck does the defense do as well as it does?

No running backs is certainly correct, but I give Mitch Leigber some kudos for his performance in filling in there yesterday. 136 yards running and receiving, a beautiful one handed catch that set up a TD. He certainly wasn't the reason we lost.

[Mick]

Austin Jones must be feeling pretty good about his decision to transfer: 121 yards on 21 carries and two TDs in yesterday's epic win vs. the Bruins.  Why endure the meat-grinder behind a dysfunctional O-line with dysfunctional coaching when you can unleash your potential at a winning program?  More players and recruits will have similar thoughts.  If this year's roster has looked threadbare, next year's will be down to the bone.

I wonder what Austin Jones will be doing in 10 years?

[Mick]

Austin Jones must be feeling pretty good about his decision to transfer: 121 yards on 21 carries and two TDs in yesterday's epic win vs. the Bruins.  Why endure the meat-grinder behind a dysfunctional O-line with dysfunctional coaching when you can unleash your potential at a winning program?  More players and recruits will have similar thoughts.  If this year's roster has looked threadbare, next year's will be down to the bone.

I wonder what Austin Jones will be doing in 10 years?

[Austroturf]

I just saw the highlights but I thought the defense played reasonably well. The offense gave the game away in the fourth quarter with the fumble return for a TD and the near pick six. 
Going into the season I thought the offense would be the strength of the team. Sure didn't turn out that way.

I finally had the stomach to watch the second half highlights (didn't need to revisit the first half), and I concur with your assessment.  Offensive ineptitude gave the game away in the final 20 minutes.  Fourteen points can be directly attributable to mishaps on offense.  Take those off the board, and we prevail.  

Cal also did their level best to hand us the game, but we weren't taking it.  Two end-zone picks on errant throws by Plummer saved between 6 and 14 points, so credit the defense.    

During the best years of Harshaw (2009-2015), what really distinguished those teams was their discipline.  As the saying goes, they weren't "beating themselves".  Today, it is the other way around.  Stanford currently ranks 125th (out of 131 teams) in turnover margin.  And it should be noted that, in yesterday's game, we nearly lost the ball two other times due to special teams mishaps in the first half.  In one area, we still rank towards the top: fewest penalty yards (#10).  We used to let other teams beat themselves; and Cal tried yesterday; but we were not to be outdone.

[Austroturf]

I just saw the highlights but I thought the defense played reasonably well. The offense gave the game away in the fourth quarter with the fumble return for a TD and the near pick six. 
Going into the season I thought the offense would be the strength of the team. Sure didn't turn out that way.

I finally had the stomach to watch the second half highlights (didn't need to revisit the first half), and I concur with your assessment.  Offensive ineptitude gave the game away in the final 20 minutes.  Fourteen points can be directly attributable to mishaps on offense.  Take those off the board, and we prevail.  

Cal also did their level best to hand us the game, but we weren't taking it.  Two end-zone picks on errant throws by Plummer saved between 6 and 14 points, so credit the defense.    

During the best years of Harshaw (2009-2015), what really distinguished those teams was their discipline.  As the saying goes, they weren't "beating themselves".  Today, it is the other way around.  Stanford currently ranks 125th (out of 131 teams) in turnover margin.  And it should be noted that, in yesterday's game, we nearly lost the ball two other times due to special teams mishaps in the first half.  In one area, we still rank towards the top: fewest penalty yards (#10).  We used to let other teams beat themselves; and Cal tried yesterday; but we were not to be outdone.

[81alum]

.
No running backs is certainly correct, but I give Mitch Leigber some kudos for his performance in filling in there yesterday. 136 yards running and receiving, a beautiful one handed catch that set up a TD. He certainly wasn't the reason we lost.

I agree with that.  Had we won the game, he would have been one of those Big Game heroes for the ages--one of those examples of unlikely personas who come from seemingly nowhere to make the Big Game unpredictable, surprising, and occasionally uplifting.  It is such a shame that the 4th quarter meltdown will obliterate the memory of his remarkable performance.

[81alum]

.
No running backs is certainly correct, but I give Mitch Leigber some kudos for his performance in filling in there yesterday. 136 yards running and receiving, a beautiful one handed catch that set up a TD. He certainly wasn't the reason we lost.

I agree with that.  Had we won the game, he would have been one of those Big Game heroes for the ages--one of those examples of unlikely personas who come from seemingly nowhere to make the Big Game unpredictable, surprising, and occasionally uplifting.  It is such a shame that the 4th quarter meltdown will obliterate the memory of his remarkable performance.

[Austroturf]

Austin Jones must be feeling pretty good about his decision to transfer: 121 yards on 21 carries and two TDs in yesterday's epic win vs. the Bruins.  Why endure the meat-grinder behind a dysfunctional O-line with dysfunctional coaching when you can unleash your potential at a winning program?  More players and recruits will have similar thoughts.  If this year's roster has looked threadbare, next year's will be down to the bone.

I wonder what Austin Jones will be doing in 10 years?

That's a good question.  But that same question is applicable to every player.  My point is this: Jones clearly thinks he has a future in football, maybe even an NFL future.  He determined that he could not achieve that goal as cannon fodder on a deficient offense, so he transferred.  Other good to excellent players have similar aspirations which may or may not pan out for them.  But if they believe in their future at the college and professional level, they will steer clear of Stanford.  And that will compromise our ability to attract and retain such talent, which in turn will vitiate the quality of our team, perpetuating a downward cycle.    

Back when our team was succeeding, excellent players could combine the 40-year decision with their professional aspirations.  That is becoming increasingly difficult, forcing players to make a call.  Jones made his, and it appears to be working out for him so far.  In ten years, we can revisit his decision.  But that decision certainly hurt our depth at RB this year, and he will not be the last to leave.

[Austroturf]

Austin Jones must be feeling pretty good about his decision to transfer: 121 yards on 21 carries and two TDs in yesterday's epic win vs. the Bruins.  Why endure the meat-grinder behind a dysfunctional O-line with dysfunctional coaching when you can unleash your potential at a winning program?  More players and recruits will have similar thoughts.  If this year's roster has looked threadbare, next year's will be down to the bone.

I wonder what Austin Jones will be doing in 10 years?

That's a good question.  But that same question is applicable to every player.  My point is this: Jones clearly thinks he has a future in football, maybe even an NFL future.  He determined that he could not achieve that goal as cannon fodder on a deficient offense, so he transferred.  Other good to excellent players have similar aspirations which may or may not pan out for them.  But if they believe in their future at the college and professional level, they will steer clear of Stanford.  And that will compromise our ability to attract and retain such talent, which in turn will vitiate the quality of our team, perpetuating a downward cycle.    

Back when our team was succeeding, excellent players could combine the 40-year decision with their professional aspirations.  That is becoming increasingly difficult, forcing players to make a call.  Jones made his, and it appears to be working out for him so far.  In ten years, we can revisit his decision.  But that decision certainly hurt our depth at RB this year, and he will not be the last to leave.

[ADPinWDC]

At least next year’s team will be a bunch of young guys. Might have to sign 40 given the expected exodus. 


https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/18/medi...years.aspx

Kyu Blu Kelly, Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have already accepted Senior Bowl invitations. They are gone. We'll probably see a number of transfers out as well.

Yes.  Lack of institutional support for the program is noticed by the players and their families.  When your team is going off campus to Chipotle to eat after-hours because they won’t open a campus dining hall for them after practice ends… because “equity”… well, these players have choices and I expect they will make them in the offseason.

if that's the case, then the administration isn't even pretending that they care about our student-athletes.

What is horrifying about the Chipotle "EQUITY" (Socialist Governance) example is that this Administration / Faculty REGIME is so insulated from Alumni grievances that they really do not care about Wins & Losses.  It's about "EQUITY", even though the Athletes just "worked overtime" placing their bodies at risk with no additional provisions for "at risk labour".  ... So, Shaw & Co are PERFECT for this Regime -- they make the right excuses and put forward the ideals coveted by this Social Equity Regime.  So far, this Administration seems not to care about embarrassingly empty stadiums. 

Shaw will not be fired. He will be hailed for abiding by EQUITY principles favored by this Regime. 
Will this Regime / Faculty tolerate his $9M a year in non-Equitable compensation?  When? 
Even though we are a Private University, founded by an uber-Capitalist Robber Baron, this Regime behaves more like a politically correct EQUITY-first State school... to keep the Federal funding rolling in, like $1.3 billion in R&D.  Shaw's salary take is a small inequity to tolerate.

[ADPinWDC]

At least next year’s team will be a bunch of young guys. Might have to sign 40 given the expected exodus. 


https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/18/medi...years.aspx

Kyu Blu Kelly, Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have already accepted Senior Bowl invitations. They are gone. We'll probably see a number of transfers out as well.

Yes.  Lack of institutional support for the program is noticed by the players and their families.  When your team is going off campus to Chipotle to eat after-hours because they won’t open a campus dining hall for them after practice ends… because “equity”… well, these players have choices and I expect they will make them in the offseason.

if that's the case, then the administration isn't even pretending that they care about our student-athletes.

What is horrifying about the Chipotle "EQUITY" (Socialist Governance) example is that this Administration / Faculty REGIME is so insulated from Alumni grievances that they really do not care about Wins & Losses.  It's about "EQUITY", even though the Athletes just "worked overtime" placing their bodies at risk with no additional provisions for "at risk labour".  ... So, Shaw & Co are PERFECT for this Regime -- they make the right excuses and put forward the ideals coveted by this Social Equity Regime.  So far, this Administration seems not to care about embarrassingly empty stadiums. 

Shaw will not be fired. He will be hailed for abiding by EQUITY principles favored by this Regime. 
Will this Regime / Faculty tolerate his $9M a year in non-Equitable compensation?  When? 
Even though we are a Private University, founded by an uber-Capitalist Robber Baron, this Regime behaves more like a politically correct EQUITY-first State school... to keep the Federal funding rolling in, like $1.3 billion in R&D.  Shaw's salary take is a small inequity to tolerate.

[Spiny_Norman]

Stanford finished last in the P12 North in 2019.
Stanford finished last in the P12 North in 2021.
Stanford will finish last in the entire P12 in 2022.

If nothing changes, nothing changes.

[Spiny_Norman]

Stanford finished last in the P12 North in 2019.
Stanford finished last in the P12 North in 2021.
Stanford will finish last in the entire P12 in 2022.

If nothing changes, nothing changes.

[SamuelMcF]

For those who worry about our hiring the next Buddy Teevens, well, there is always that risk.  But I have been watching the turnaround job that Bielema has been undertaking at Illinois.  Yes, the Illini have had a few rough games recently; but they took Harbaugh and his Wolverines to the wire in the Big House yesterday, and this is Bielema's 2nd season on the job.  Recruiting rankings for Illinois are in the 40s, while we have been averaging top 25.  Coaching matters.  At 7-4, the Illini are bowl-bound this year; at 3-8, we don't even have the Axe to cuddle up to in the off-season.

Easy hack to a turnaround: 15 players in Illinois' 2-deep are transfers. A lot of the players from Illinois' worse-ranked recruiting classes were pushed out because they suck, and replaced by said transfers who do not suck. This is happening at almost every school in the country.

That said, a handful of transfers are usually more of a short-term band-aid than an actual cure. You don't have to rely on transfers to be good if the rest of the operation (coaching, development, S&C, recruiting pipelines) is run well. Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, and Iowa (ok, everything but the abysmal offensive coaching at Iowa) are good examples of teams that took just 0-1 transfers last season. Actually, they're the ONLY other examples. We're in rare company, but the rest of the company is way better at this thing than we are.

THAT said, one specific transfer can be a cure: a QB. Half of last week's top 25 had transfer QBs. Caleb Williams, Bo Nix, Michael Penix, Cam Rising, Hendon Hooker, Jayden Daniels, Jaxson Dart, Jordan Travis, Adrian Martinez, John Rhys Plumlee, Ben Bryant. And this doesn't include Illinois' transfer QB Tommy Devito. Why develop your own QB when you can just pluck a proven guy developed elsewhere with the promise of a starting job?

[SamuelMcF]

For those who worry about our hiring the next Buddy Teevens, well, there is always that risk.  But I have been watching the turnaround job that Bielema has been undertaking at Illinois.  Yes, the Illini have had a few rough games recently; but they took Harbaugh and his Wolverines to the wire in the Big House yesterday, and this is Bielema's 2nd season on the job.  Recruiting rankings for Illinois are in the 40s, while we have been averaging top 25.  Coaching matters.  At 7-4, the Illini are bowl-bound this year; at 3-8, we don't even have the Axe to cuddle up to in the off-season.

Easy hack to a turnaround: 15 players in Illinois' 2-deep are transfers. A lot of the players from Illinois' worse-ranked recruiting classes were pushed out because they suck, and replaced by said transfers who do not suck. This is happening at almost every school in the country.

That said, a handful of transfers are usually more of a short-term band-aid than an actual cure. You don't have to rely on transfers to be good if the rest of the operation (coaching, development, S&C, recruiting pipelines) is run well. Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, and Iowa (ok, everything but the abysmal offensive coaching at Iowa) are good examples of teams that took just 0-1 transfers last season. Actually, they're the ONLY other examples. We're in rare company, but the rest of the company is way better at this thing than we are.

THAT said, one specific transfer can be a cure: a QB. Half of last week's top 25 had transfer QBs. Caleb Williams, Bo Nix, Michael Penix, Cam Rising, Hendon Hooker, Jayden Daniels, Jaxson Dart, Jordan Travis, Adrian Martinez, John Rhys Plumlee, Ben Bryant. And this doesn't include Illinois' transfer QB Tommy Devito. Why develop your own QB when you can just pluck a proven guy developed elsewhere with the promise of a starting job?

[lex24]

For those who worry about our hiring the next Buddy Teevens, well, there is always that risk.  But I have been watching the turnaround job that Bielema has been undertaking at Illinois.  Yes, the Illini have had a few rough games recently; but they took Harbaugh and his Wolverines to the wire in the Big House yesterday, and this is Bielema's 2nd season on the job.  Recruiting rankings for Illinois are in the 40s, while we have been averaging top 25.  Coaching matters.  At 7-4, the Illini are bowl-bound this year; at 3-8, we don't even have the Axe to cuddle up to in the off-season.

Easy hack to a turnaround: 15 players in Illinois' 2-deep are transfers. A lot of the players from Illinois' worse-ranked recruiting classes were pushed out because they suck, and replaced by said transfers who do not suck. This is happening at almost every school in the country.

That said, a handful of transfers are usually more of a short-term band-aid than an actual cure. You don't have to rely on transfers to be good if the rest of the operation (coaching, development, S&C, recruiting pipelines) is run well. Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, and Iowa (ok, everything but the abysmal offensive coaching at Iowa) are good examples of teams that took just 0-1 transfers last season. Actually, they're the ONLY other examples. We're in rare company, but the rest of the company is way better at this thing than we are.

THAT said, one specific transfer can be a cure: a QB. Half of last week's top 25 had transfer QBs. Caleb Williams, Bo Nix, Michael Penix, Cam Rising, Hendon Hooker, Jayden Daniels, Jaxson Dart, Jordan Travis, Adrian Martinez, John Rhys Plumlee, Ben Bryant. And this doesn't include Illinois' transfer QB Tommy Devito. Why develop your own QB when you can just pluck a proven guy developed elsewhere with the promise of a starting job?

And yet, at least one prominent poster contends that Stanfords inability to tap into the portal (or more accurately Stanfords one way portal door - out only) is not a significant issue.  I think it’s a humongous issue.

And I don’t see a solution. As I understand it, Stanford University wide accepts a minuscule number of transfers. Unless Admissions relaxes standards for transfers, the portal is going to continue to be a major problem.

This is not to say it can’t be overcome with tremendous recruiting and player development. Winning is, after all, a great deodorant. But the ability others have that Stanford doesn’t - go fix holes through the portal - is a massive advantage.

There are 3 FCS schools that took 0 transfers - Army, Navy, Air Force.

[lex24]

For those who worry about our hiring the next Buddy Teevens, well, there is always that risk.  But I have been watching the turnaround job that Bielema has been undertaking at Illinois.  Yes, the Illini have had a few rough games recently; but they took Harbaugh and his Wolverines to the wire in the Big House yesterday, and this is Bielema's 2nd season on the job.  Recruiting rankings for Illinois are in the 40s, while we have been averaging top 25.  Coaching matters.  At 7-4, the Illini are bowl-bound this year; at 3-8, we don't even have the Axe to cuddle up to in the off-season.

Easy hack to a turnaround: 15 players in Illinois' 2-deep are transfers. A lot of the players from Illinois' worse-ranked recruiting classes were pushed out because they suck, and replaced by said transfers who do not suck. This is happening at almost every school in the country.

That said, a handful of transfers are usually more of a short-term band-aid than an actual cure. You don't have to rely on transfers to be good if the rest of the operation (coaching, development, S&C, recruiting pipelines) is run well. Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, and Iowa (ok, everything but the abysmal offensive coaching at Iowa) are good examples of teams that took just 0-1 transfers last season. Actually, they're the ONLY other examples. We're in rare company, but the rest of the company is way better at this thing than we are.

THAT said, one specific transfer can be a cure: a QB. Half of last week's top 25 had transfer QBs. Caleb Williams, Bo Nix, Michael Penix, Cam Rising, Hendon Hooker, Jayden Daniels, Jaxson Dart, Jordan Travis, Adrian Martinez, John Rhys Plumlee, Ben Bryant. And this doesn't include Illinois' transfer QB Tommy Devito. Why develop your own QB when you can just pluck a proven guy developed elsewhere with the promise of a starting job?

And yet, at least one prominent poster contends that Stanfords inability to tap into the portal (or more accurately Stanfords one way portal door - out only) is not a significant issue.  I think it’s a humongous issue.

And I don’t see a solution. As I understand it, Stanford University wide accepts a minuscule number of transfers. Unless Admissions relaxes standards for transfers, the portal is going to continue to be a major problem.

This is not to say it can’t be overcome with tremendous recruiting and player development. Winning is, after all, a great deodorant. But the ability others have that Stanford doesn’t - go fix holes through the portal - is a massive advantage.

There are 3 FCS schools that took 0 transfers - Army, Navy, Air Force.

[Giants]

For those who worry about our hiring the next Buddy Teevens, well, there is always that risk.  But I have been watching the turnaround job that Bielema has been undertaking at Illinois.  Yes, the Illini have had a few rough games recently; but they took Harbaugh and his Wolverines to the wire in the Big House yesterday, and this is Bielema's 2nd season on the job.  Recruiting rankings for Illinois are in the 40s, while we have been averaging top 25.  Coaching matters.  At 7-4, the Illini are bowl-bound this year; at 3-8, we don't even have the Axe to cuddle up to in the off-season.

Easy hack to a turnaround: 15 players in Illinois' 2-deep are transfers. A lot of the players from Illinois' worse-ranked recruiting classes were pushed out because they suck, and replaced by said transfers who do not suck. This is happening at almost every school in the country.

That said, a handful of transfers are usually more of a short-term band-aid than an actual cure. You don't have to rely on transfers to be good if the rest of the operation (coaching, development, S&C, recruiting pipelines) is run well. Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, and Iowa (ok, everything but the abysmal offensive coaching at Iowa) are good examples of teams that took just 0-1 transfers last season. Actually, they're the ONLY other examples. We're in rare company, but the rest of the company is way better at this thing than we are.

THAT said, one specific transfer can be a cure: a QB. Half of last week's top 25 had transfer QBs. Caleb Williams, Bo Nix, Michael Penix, Cam Rising, Hendon Hooker, Jayden Daniels, Jaxson Dart, Jordan Travis, Adrian Martinez, John Rhys Plumlee, Ben Bryant. And this doesn't include Illinois' transfer QB Tommy Devito. Why develop your own QB when you can just pluck a proven guy developed elsewhere with the promise of a starting job?

And yet, at least one prominent poster contends that Stanfords inability to tap into the portal (or more accurately Stanfords one way portal door - out only) is not a significant issue.  I think it’s a humongous issue.

And I don’t see a solution.  As I understand it, Stanford University wide accepts a minuscule number of transfers.  Unless Admissions relaxes standards for transfers, the portal is going to continue to be a major problem.

This is not to say it can’t be overcome with tremendous recruiting and player development.  Winning is, after all, a great deodorant.  But the ability others  have that Stanford doesn’t - go fix holes through the portal - is a massive advantage.

There are 3 FCS schools that took 0 transfers - Army, Navy, Air Force.

Clemson took one (a grad transfer who started his career at Clemson, transferred to Northwestern, graduated and returned to Clemson). 

Swinney has consistently criticized the concept of the portal and has done quite well.  Obviously, he is an exception to the rule…….

[Giants]

For those who worry about our hiring the next Buddy Teevens, well, there is always that risk.  But I have been watching the turnaround job that Bielema has been undertaking at Illinois.  Yes, the Illini have had a few rough games recently; but they took Harbaugh and his Wolverines to the wire in the Big House yesterday, and this is Bielema's 2nd season on the job.  Recruiting rankings for Illinois are in the 40s, while we have been averaging top 25.  Coaching matters.  At 7-4, the Illini are bowl-bound this year; at 3-8, we don't even have the Axe to cuddle up to in the off-season.

Easy hack to a turnaround: 15 players in Illinois' 2-deep are transfers. A lot of the players from Illinois' worse-ranked recruiting classes were pushed out because they suck, and replaced by said transfers who do not suck. This is happening at almost every school in the country.

That said, a handful of transfers are usually more of a short-term band-aid than an actual cure. You don't have to rely on transfers to be good if the rest of the operation (coaching, development, S&C, recruiting pipelines) is run well. Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, and Iowa (ok, everything but the abysmal offensive coaching at Iowa) are good examples of teams that took just 0-1 transfers last season. Actually, they're the ONLY other examples. We're in rare company, but the rest of the company is way better at this thing than we are.

THAT said, one specific transfer can be a cure: a QB. Half of last week's top 25 had transfer QBs. Caleb Williams, Bo Nix, Michael Penix, Cam Rising, Hendon Hooker, Jayden Daniels, Jaxson Dart, Jordan Travis, Adrian Martinez, John Rhys Plumlee, Ben Bryant. And this doesn't include Illinois' transfer QB Tommy Devito. Why develop your own QB when you can just pluck a proven guy developed elsewhere with the promise of a starting job?

And yet, at least one prominent poster contends that Stanfords inability to tap into the portal (or more accurately Stanfords one way portal door - out only) is not a significant issue.  I think it’s a humongous issue.

And I don’t see a solution.  As I understand it, Stanford University wide accepts a minuscule number of transfers.  Unless Admissions relaxes standards for transfers, the portal is going to continue to be a major problem.

This is not to say it can’t be overcome with tremendous recruiting and player development.  Winning is, after all, a great deodorant.  But the ability others  have that Stanford doesn’t - go fix holes through the portal - is a massive advantage.

There are 3 FCS schools that took 0 transfers - Army, Navy, Air Force.

Clemson took one (a grad transfer who started his career at Clemson, transferred to Northwestern, graduated and returned to Clemson). 

Swinney has consistently criticized the concept of the portal and has done quite well.  Obviously, he is an exception to the rule…….

[gailtate]

While I’ve enjoyed having McKee as a starter, I’m not sure whether we should assume he is the starter next year. He is ultimately 6-14 by my count as a starting QB and our passing and offensive numbers have been trash with him as QB.

I am at a loss to understand how anyone could have enjoyed anything about this season. OK, I'll concede the win in South Bend. Best thing about this season right now is that it's one game away from being over with.

[gailtate]

While I’ve enjoyed having McKee as a starter, I’m not sure whether we should assume he is the starter next year. He is ultimately 6-14 by my count as a starting QB and our passing and offensive numbers have been trash with him as QB.

I am at a loss to understand how anyone could have enjoyed anything about this season. OK, I'll concede the win in South Bend. Best thing about this season right now is that it's one game away from being over with.

[SamuelMcF]

Clemson took one (a grad transfer who started his career at Clemson, transferred to Northwestern, graduated and returned to Clemson). 

Swinney has consistently criticized the concept of the portal and has done quite well.  Obviously, he is an exception to the rule…….

As I said, all 4 of the "exceptions to the rule" have excellent 1. recruiting (both rankings AND pipeline depth), 2. coaching, 3. development, and 4. S&C. (Ok, Iowa has more like 3 - their awful OC/excellent DC & STs count as 0.5 and their good-not-great recruiting counts as 0.5, but their development and S&C are both fantastic.)

And then there's us, who have 0 of the above. If you want to be generous, maybe 0.5 if you go purely by recruiting rankings and ignore the depth issues almost everywhere.

[SamuelMcF]

Clemson took one (a grad transfer who started his career at Clemson, transferred to Northwestern, graduated and returned to Clemson). 

Swinney has consistently criticized the concept of the portal and has done quite well.  Obviously, he is an exception to the rule…….

As I said, all 4 of the "exceptions to the rule" have excellent 1. recruiting (both rankings AND pipeline depth), 2. coaching, 3. development, and 4. S&C. (Ok, Iowa has more like 3 - their awful OC/excellent DC & STs count as 0.5 and their good-not-great recruiting counts as 0.5, but their development and S&C are both fantastic.)

And then there's us, who have 0 of the above. If you want to be generous, maybe 0.5 if you go purely by recruiting rankings and ignore the depth issues almost everywhere.

[newguy]

Stanford finished last in the P12 North in 2019.
Stanford finished last in the P12 North in 2021.
Stanford will finish last in the entire P12 in 2022.

If nothing changes, nothing changes.

this is a succinct TLDR that would make Strunk & White proud.

[newguy]

Stanford finished last in the P12 North in 2019.
Stanford finished last in the P12 North in 2021.
Stanford will finish last in the entire P12 in 2022.

If nothing changes, nothing changes.

this is a succinct TLDR that would make Strunk & White proud.