[Hank 91]

In case you haven't been paying attention, there's been a real uptick in quality and quantity over at CardinalReport.com, the home of Stanford sports on Rivals.com. Andy Drukarev, long an expert on Cardinal recruiting, has signed on and he's been doing a great job, focusing on profiles of committed recruits, looking back at the recruitment of current players, and even reaching out to kids who still haven't made their decisions. Great, great stuff.

[Hank 91]

In case you haven't been paying attention, there's been a real uptick in quality and quantity over at CardinalReport.com, the home of Stanford sports on Rivals.com. Andy Drukarev, long an expert on Cardinal recruiting, has signed on and he's been doing a great job, focusing on profiles of committed recruits, looking back at the recruitment of current players, and even reaching out to kids who still haven't made their decisions. Great, great stuff.

[stan01]

It was about time someone stepped up.  I enjoy Andy's articles and, prior to his move to Rivals, I kept waiting for him to write more.  Most of the recruits are now on twitter and they are being bombarded with interview requests from fans running blogs supporting the big football factories.  Someone like Andy can be a great indirect recruiter for Stanford. 

Speaking of twitter, some recruits pay close attention to which coaches "follow" them.  Coach Sanford is a very skilled Twitter user, a good attribute for a recruiting coordinator, while Coach Shaw needs to up his twitter game.  He only added TE Hunter Henry to the list of players he follows about a week ago, but has been following Peter Kalambayi for a long time.  We can only hope that football players who are a good fit for Stanford won't be bothered by such small inconsistencies. 

[stan01]

It was about time someone stepped up.  I enjoy Andy's articles and, prior to his move to Rivals, I kept waiting for him to write more.  Most of the recruits are now on twitter and they are being bombarded with interview requests from fans running blogs supporting the big football factories.  Someone like Andy can be a great indirect recruiter for Stanford. 

Speaking of twitter, some recruits pay close attention to which coaches "follow" them.  Coach Sanford is a very skilled Twitter user, a good attribute for a recruiting coordinator, while Coach Shaw needs to up his twitter game.  He only added TE Hunter Henry to the list of players he follows about a week ago, but has been following Peter Kalambayi for a long time.  We can only hope that football players who are a good fit for Stanford won't be bothered by such small inconsistencies. 

[fullmetal]

He should at least have someone managing his Twitter account, although that's always an iffy proposition--having someone else manage your online presence.

[fullmetal]

He should at least have someone managing his Twitter account, although that's always an iffy proposition--having someone else manage your online presence.

[StannyBoy]

Scout is really going downhill for Stanford coverage since Rivals poached Andy Drukarev. Might have to switch my subscription.

[StannyBoy]

Scout is really going downhill for Stanford coverage since Rivals poached Andy Drukarev. Might have to switch my subscription.

[socalstanfan1]

 

Speaking of twitter, some recruits pay close attention to which coaches "follow" them.  Coach Sanford is a very skilled Twitter user, a good attribute for a recruiting coordinator, while Coach Shaw needs to up his twitter game.  He only added TE Hunter Henry to the list of players he follows about a week ago, but has been following Peter Kalambayi for a long time.  We can only hope that football players who are a good fit for Stanford won't be bothered by such small inconsistencies.

It's all fine and good to follow a recruit, but if I'm the coaches I'm also just a bit nervous about running afoul of some arcane NCAA regulation.  I wonder how developed, and clear, the NCAA rules are in that area?  I know Harbaugh kind of gloried in engaging in a kind of twitter brinksmanship with the NCAA with his tweeting, but Shaw seems somewhat more conservative in that regard.

[socalstanfan1]

 

Speaking of twitter, some recruits pay close attention to which coaches "follow" them.  Coach Sanford is a very skilled Twitter user, a good attribute for a recruiting coordinator, while Coach Shaw needs to up his twitter game.  He only added TE Hunter Henry to the list of players he follows about a week ago, but has been following Peter Kalambayi for a long time.  We can only hope that football players who are a good fit for Stanford won't be bothered by such small inconsistencies.

It's all fine and good to follow a recruit, but if I'm the coaches I'm also just a bit nervous about running afoul of some arcane NCAA regulation.  I wonder how developed, and clear, the NCAA rules are in that area?  I know Harbaugh kind of gloried in engaging in a kind of twitter brinksmanship with the NCAA with his tweeting, but Shaw seems somewhat more conservative in that regard.

[Hank 91]

Scout is really going downhill for Stanford coverage since Rivals poached Andy Drukarev. Might have to switch my subscription.

If the last two days is any indication, you should switch. He's had great stuff on the Stanford QB camp, as well as a hefty piece on general recruiting. He's local, so I'm guessing he'll be giving some good insight once the team starts practicing. (Though I'm sure the practices will still mostly be closed.)

[Hank 91]

Scout is really going downhill for Stanford coverage since Rivals poached Andy Drukarev. Might have to switch my subscription.

If the last two days is any indication, you should switch. He's had great stuff on the Stanford QB camp, as well as a hefty piece on general recruiting. He's local, so I'm guessing he'll be giving some good insight once the team starts practicing. (Though I'm sure the practices will still mostly be closed.)

[akiddoc]

The 2 boards are completely different. One with lots of articles and almost no discussion. One with lots of discussion and no current professional writing.

[akiddoc]

The 2 boards are completely different. One with lots of articles and almost no discussion. One with lots of discussion and no current professional writing.

[yvonne]

Pay for the articles and get the discussion for free.

[yvonne]

Pay for the articles and get the discussion for free.

[Redrum]

Pleistocene history:  When the Bootleg first affiliated with one of the first of the big national recruiting networks,  it was a fairly new idea.  Like the Cold War, but no Soviet Union.  This first national network affiliation was the trigger that,  in part, spawned the Cardboard.  At the time, the Bootleg had already morphed from mail-out/ faxed weekly newsletter/ sports rant  to a bulletin board with little editorial news content.  Part of the driver for the Bootleg was access to national editorial coverage and available content on a national recruiting scene.  IIRC,  the guys who started the UDub  Dawgman site were key members and founders of the original network.

Then, the first big schism occurred.  IIRC,  the financial model for that first national network fell apart and the individual site owner operators split,  some staying with the original syndicate (the Rivals of today), some affiliated with the new Scout network.  The Bootleg went Scout.  That explains-- among more global business forces-- why there was no Rivals coverage of Stanford for many years.  Meanwhile the Cardboard  survived,  an early mammal scurrying around while the Tyrannosaurs fought for national dominance and the Big Bucks.

Eventually,  as part of a strategic move to cover every major conference,  Rivals got around to founding and supporting a Stanford site.  The new Rivals site featured lots of local,  Stanford-focused editorial content.  Rick Jones worked his ass off,  going to summer workouts, practices, scrimmages and catching quick interviews.  Just from the standpoint of going out and digging up fresh Stanford content,  he did a great job vs. the Bootleg.  But the Rivals bulletin board barely had a discernable pulse.  From a business standpoint,  it was no contest.  Rick Jones moved on.  Stanford also became more professional ( controlling and restrictive)  with its media rights and access.  The school got better at producing its own content but that damaged editorial content opportunities for both Scout and Rivals.

Oddly, what you see now is pretty much as its been for years.  Rivals getting a series of good contributing writers.  Jon Haskins, former Stanford LB and now a coach on the Florida gator staff,  was a real get and high value contributor.  Scout had a of extremely large proportions advantage in actual paying subscribers and participants,  but with the departure of  Mike Eubanks to the Stanford athletic dept.,  uneven in its Stanford-centric coverage. 

And the Cardboard has thrived of late.  A lot of those early Bootleg/Cardboard posters are still around here.  Akkidoc is one of many.  Not sure we are decisive proof,  but it seems  the success of the Cardboard, Bootleg and college sites around the nation demonstrate that the bulletin board foundation has proven more important to survival and success than editorial content.  That said,  Hank's blog site is a good great one.  Personally,  I keep my Scout subscription but have let my Rivals subscription lapse.  It the site gets better, might renew it,  but not now.

[Redrum]

Pleistocene history:  When the Bootleg first affiliated with one of the first of the big national recruiting networks,  it was a fairly new idea.  Like the Cold War, but no Soviet Union.  This first national network affiliation was the trigger that,  in part, spawned the Cardboard.  At the time, the Bootleg had already morphed from mail-out/ faxed weekly newsletter/ sports rant  to a bulletin board with little editorial news content.  Part of the driver for the Bootleg was access to national editorial coverage and available content on a national recruiting scene.  IIRC,  the guys who started the UDub  Dawgman site were key members and founders of the original network.

Then, the first big schism occurred.  IIRC,  the financial model for that first national network fell apart and the individual site owner operators split,  some staying with the original syndicate (the Rivals of today), some affiliated with the new Scout network.  The Bootleg went Scout.  That explains-- among more global business forces-- why there was no Rivals coverage of Stanford for many years.  Meanwhile the Cardboard  survived,  an early mammal scurrying around while the Tyrannosaurs fought for national dominance and the Big Bucks.

Eventually,  as part of a strategic move to cover every major conference,  Rivals got around to founding and supporting a Stanford site.  The new Rivals site featured lots of local,  Stanford-focused editorial content.  Rick Jones worked his ass off,  going to summer workouts, practices, scrimmages and catching quick interviews.  Just from the standpoint of going out and digging up fresh Stanford content,  he did a great job vs. the Bootleg.  But the Rivals bulletin board barely had a discernable pulse.  From a business standpoint,  it was no contest.  Rick Jones moved on.  Stanford also became more professional ( controlling and restrictive)  with its media rights and access.  The school got better at producing its own content but that damaged editorial content opportunities for both Scout and Rivals.

Oddly, what you see now is pretty much as its been for years.  Rivals getting a series of good contributing writers.  Jon Haskins, former Stanford LB and now a coach on the Florida gator staff,  was a real get and high value contributor.  Scout had a of extremely large proportions advantage in actual paying subscribers and participants,  but with the departure of  Mike Eubanks to the Stanford athletic dept.,  uneven in its Stanford-centric coverage. 

And the Cardboard has thrived of late.  A lot of those early Bootleg/Cardboard posters are still around here.  Akkidoc is one of many.  Not sure we are decisive proof,  but it seems  the success of the Cardboard, Bootleg and college sites around the nation demonstrate that the bulletin board foundation has proven more important to survival and success than editorial content.  That said,  Hank's blog site is a good great one.  Personally,  I keep my Scout subscription but have let my Rivals subscription lapse.  It the site gets better, might renew it,  but not now.

[yvonne]

I agree that message boards, and social networking in general are a great draw to a site. In fact, the Bootleg's original site had very little activity until the BootBoard was added. However, why, in the age of Facebook, would anyone pay money solely for the purpose of having a conversation? Social networking is a driver of community, but paid content needs to be premium information.

I just got finished working on a site, skills4admins.com. The social networking will be free, but the instructional webinars and individual mentoring will be for premium members. The word premium's in there for a reason.

By the way, ESPN uses this model. The blogs and conversations are free, but they point to content, mostly recruiting information, that is behind a pay wall.

[yvonne]

I agree that message boards, and social networking in general are a great draw to a site. In fact, the Bootleg's original site had very little activity until the BootBoard was added. However, why, in the age of Facebook, would anyone pay money solely for the purpose of having a conversation? Social networking is a driver of community, but paid content needs to be premium information.

I just got finished working on a site, skills4admins.com. The social networking will be free, but the instructional webinars and individual mentoring will be for premium members. The word premium's in there for a reason.

By the way, ESPN uses this model. The blogs and conversations are free, but they point to content, mostly recruiting information, that is behind a pay wall.

[Leftcoast]

I don't know if I agree, Yvonne. 

Paid content in the College sports world seems to mostly mean round the clock recruiting info.  It may be just me but after a (short) while I have had enough of the lives, tweets and shifting preferences of 17 year olds and begin to think fans drift from interested partisans to borderline stalkers.  It isn't this that keeps me coming back to a site but rather the conversation with a like-minded community.  I think your argument may be selling that community, which after all is the Cardboard's bread and butter, short.

Not that I'm protesting that we get that valuable commodity for free in these parts!

[Leftcoast]

I don't know if I agree, Yvonne. 

Paid content in the College sports world seems to mostly mean round the clock recruiting info.  It may be just me but after a (short) while I have had enough of the lives, tweets and shifting preferences of 17 year olds and begin to think fans drift from interested partisans to borderline stalkers.  It isn't this that keeps me coming back to a site but rather the conversation with a like-minded community.  I think your argument may be selling that community, which after all is the Cardboard's bread and butter, short.

Not that I'm protesting that we get that valuable commodity for free in these parts!

[washingtonismoney]

I don't know if I agree, Yvonne. 

Paid content in the College sports world seems to mostly mean round the clock recruiting info.  It may be just me but after a (short) while I have had enough of the lives, tweets and shifting preferences of 17 year olds and begin to think fans drift from interested partisans to borderline stalkers.  It isn't this that keeps me coming back to a site but rather the conversation with a like-minded community.  I think your argument may be selling that community, which after all is the Cardboard's bread and butter, short.

Not that I'm protesting that we get that valuable commodity for free in these parts!

But it's very easy to have a free community.

I'm not sure why you'd want to be a member of the Bootleg just to talk to other people. Are they funnier, more attractive, or in any way more interesting social company than we are? If yes to any, enough that you'd fork over a hundred bucks (or whatever it is) per year?

[washingtonismoney]

I don't know if I agree, Yvonne. 

Paid content in the College sports world seems to mostly mean round the clock recruiting info.  It may be just me but after a (short) while I have had enough of the lives, tweets and shifting preferences of 17 year olds and begin to think fans drift from interested partisans to borderline stalkers.  It isn't this that keeps me coming back to a site but rather the conversation with a like-minded community.  I think your argument may be selling that community, which after all is the Cardboard's bread and butter, short.

Not that I'm protesting that we get that valuable commodity for free in these parts!

But it's very easy to have a free community.

I'm not sure why you'd want to be a member of the Bootleg just to talk to other people. Are they funnier, more attractive, or in any way more interesting social company than we are? If yes to any, enough that you'd fork over a hundred bucks (or whatever it is) per year?

[Leftcoast]

Hmmmhhh .... I see your point that it's easy to set up a forum - even for techno-dolts.  And since the barriers to entry are so very low it is hard to convince anyone it's worth $100/yr to purchase access.  I agree with all of that.

I will say that while anyone can put up a Bulletin Board or Facebook feed very few of these become a community.  Look at the free board on the Bootleg or the many fansites on Facebook.  How many of them have created the sort of community we enjoy here?  The care, setting of norms and attracting the distinct voices that this site and one or two others enjoy isn't as easy as throwing out a shingle on the web.  I bet Redrum could add a lengthy list to his Pleistocene era history of those who tried to do just that and failed miserably.

All of which is to say that I bet it's at least as hard to start a vibrant web community as it is to set up a recruiting feed and may I parenthetically offer a big thanks to those of you who have kept this place a web address where it's fun to hang out and where the voices at the holding forth at the bar are unique and worth listening to.

[Leftcoast]

Hmmmhhh .... I see your point that it's easy to set up a forum - even for techno-dolts.  And since the barriers to entry are so very low it is hard to convince anyone it's worth $100/yr to purchase access.  I agree with all of that.

I will say that while anyone can put up a Bulletin Board or Facebook feed very few of these become a community.  Look at the free board on the Bootleg or the many fansites on Facebook.  How many of them have created the sort of community we enjoy here?  The care, setting of norms and attracting the distinct voices that this site and one or two others enjoy isn't as easy as throwing out a shingle on the web.  I bet Redrum could add a lengthy list to his Pleistocene era history of those who tried to do just that and failed miserably.

All of which is to say that I bet it's at least as hard to start a vibrant web community as it is to set up a recruiting feed and may I parenthetically offer a big thanks to those of you who have kept this place a web address where it's fun to hang out and where the voices at the holding forth at the bar are unique and worth listening to.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I'm always confused why most college sports message boards (excepting the great CardBoard) charge money to read things just posted by other random folks, and post your own thoughts.  My second passion is hockey, and the largest hockey forum I know of is completely free, but is associated with a magazine that charges for premium content (and allows users to subscribe for various benefits, like no ads).  Most pro-sports teams also have their own forums supported by the team that are free.  Never understood why schmucks like me are convince to pay for a college sports discussion.

I've had a scout subscription for a couple years now, since I started following recruiting more (and had a duller job), but based on the almost complete lack of content on the bootleg I'm considering getting rid of it as well, since there's an equal amount of discussion over here.  I am a little tempted to subscribe to Rivals as I love Andy's work, and he seems to be doing a lot of it.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I'm always confused why most college sports message boards (excepting the great CardBoard) charge money to read things just posted by other random folks, and post your own thoughts.  My second passion is hockey, and the largest hockey forum I know of is completely free, but is associated with a magazine that charges for premium content (and allows users to subscribe for various benefits, like no ads).  Most pro-sports teams also have their own forums supported by the team that are free.  Never understood why schmucks like me are convince to pay for a college sports discussion.

I've had a scout subscription for a couple years now, since I started following recruiting more (and had a duller job), but based on the almost complete lack of content on the bootleg I'm considering getting rid of it as well, since there's an equal amount of discussion over here.  I am a little tempted to subscribe to Rivals as I love Andy's work, and he seems to be doing a lot of it.

[Cadet84]

I subscribed to the Bootleg for many years, but finally gave it up a couple of years ago. I didn't feel like paying for the often contentious (and oddly secretive) discussions on the boards, while the content became less and less informative.  I'm very happy checking in on the Cardboard - a much friendlier and more interesting venue.  Thanks again to the folks who keep the board going!

[Cadet84]

I subscribed to the Bootleg for many years, but finally gave it up a couple of years ago. I didn't feel like paying for the often contentious (and oddly secretive) discussions on the boards, while the content became less and less informative.  I'm very happy checking in on the Cardboard - a much friendlier and more interesting venue.  Thanks again to the folks who keep the board going!

[CompSci87]

Some boards thinking charging for access is good way to keep out trolls.

I gather that's why the Bootleg's WBB board is restricted to paid members.

[CompSci87]

Some boards thinking charging for access is good way to keep out trolls.

I gather that's why the Bootleg's WBB board is restricted to paid members.

[OutsiderFan]

There's a lot of inertia with these things.  The first one to establish a community has an almost permanent advantage.  The BearTerritory Rivals site has seen a tremendous upswing in content and subscribers since its current publisher took over two years ago.  It's really the only site that provides good information on California Golden Bears sports.

Bear Insider is simply awful.  No content.  Censorship.  It's like the brown shirts over there if you criticize Cal sports.  Still, because it was first, BI still has many more subscribers, including paid ones than BT, even though BT runs circles around BI in terms of both amount and quality of content.

The Bootleg content production is frankly sad.  Hopefully Dukarev will follow the Ryan Gorcey (BT publisher) approach and simply by sheer volume of content produced, get more subs.  But the forums on the Stanford Rivals site are virtually desolate.  I like this board a lot, so it's kind of a double edged sword to wish CardinalReport that much luck.  It would be great to see more content, but I wouldn't want to see this community diminished.

In fact, while I'm at it... This board is by far and away the best sports message board I've ever been on.  Nobody snipes at each other or calls anyone names.  And the level of discourse is at a very high level.  And no political or religious pissing matches on here either.  I sometimes roll my eyes at where the discussions go (a bit beyond my interest), but that is what makes this place unique!

[OutsiderFan]

There's a lot of inertia with these things.  The first one to establish a community has an almost permanent advantage.  The BearTerritory Rivals site has seen a tremendous upswing in content and subscribers since its current publisher took over two years ago.  It's really the only site that provides good information on California Golden Bears sports.

Bear Insider is simply awful.  No content.  Censorship.  It's like the brown shirts over there if you criticize Cal sports.  Still, because it was first, BI still has many more subscribers, including paid ones than BT, even though BT runs circles around BI in terms of both amount and quality of content.

The Bootleg content production is frankly sad.  Hopefully Dukarev will follow the Ryan Gorcey (BT publisher) approach and simply by sheer volume of content produced, get more subs.  But the forums on the Stanford Rivals site are virtually desolate.  I like this board a lot, so it's kind of a double edged sword to wish CardinalReport that much luck.  It would be great to see more content, but I wouldn't want to see this community diminished.

In fact, while I'm at it... This board is by far and away the best sports message board I've ever been on.  Nobody snipes at each other or calls anyone names.  And the level of discourse is at a very high level.  And no political or religious pissing matches on here either.  I sometimes roll my eyes at where the discussions go (a bit beyond my interest), but that is what makes this place unique!

[FarmBoy]

I sometimes roll my eyes at where the discussions go (a bit beyond my interest)

Now that you mention it, that would be a nice feature. Instead of a down arrow, we should implement a button with this emoticon:  ::)

[FarmBoy]

I sometimes roll my eyes at where the discussions go (a bit beyond my interest)

Now that you mention it, that would be a nice feature. Instead of a down arrow, we should implement a button with this emoticon:  ::)