[OutsiderFan]

First, he compared Zach Ertz to Tony Gonzalez, saying he's going to be a Pro Bowl TE for 10 years, after Greg Cosell raved about him on his film review, and he pointed out that Chip Kelly drafted him because Ertz killed him in college.  As an aside, both Cowherd and Cosell said the Colts aren't very good, are relying on Luck to carry them, and that he shouldn't be blamed for the team's failures.

Next Cowherd talked up Condi as his choice for NFL Commissioner, saying she would be the "ideal" choice.  I must admit that given how the NFL is continuing to spiral, my position on both her qualifications and likelihood she would in fact be chosen, is evolving.  The NFL seems to lack integrity and leadership in a big way and Condi would certainly be a great option for a clean slate in terms of public perception.

Finally, in a discussion about how few college athletes could actually get into the schools they are recruited to if not athletes, Cowherd said he asked two major football program coaches how many football players could get into school without football scholarships.  Their answer was 1-2 per year, in classes of 25. Not exactly talking about Stanford, but certainly started raising the issue of "should we be raising the standards for football players to receive scholarships to attend major universities," while bringing up how there were 162 college football players arrested last year, while only four college baseball players were.

At some point it does seem all the negative press football is getting at both the college and pro level is going to lead to higher college entrance standards for scholarship football players at some point, and that Stanford could benefit if it does in fact happen.

[OutsiderFan]

First, he compared Zach Ertz to Tony Gonzalez, saying he's going to be a Pro Bowl TE for 10 years, after Greg Cosell raved about him on his film review, and he pointed out that Chip Kelly drafted him because Ertz killed him in college.  As an aside, both Cowherd and Cosell said the Colts aren't very good, are relying on Luck to carry them, and that he shouldn't be blamed for the team's failures.

Next Cowherd talked up Condi as his choice for NFL Commissioner, saying she would be the "ideal" choice.  I must admit that given how the NFL is continuing to spiral, my position on both her qualifications and likelihood she would in fact be chosen, is evolving.  The NFL seems to lack integrity and leadership in a big way and Condi would certainly be a great option for a clean slate in terms of public perception.

Finally, in a discussion about how few college athletes could actually get into the schools they are recruited to if not athletes, Cowherd said he asked two major football program coaches how many football players could get into school without football scholarships.  Their answer was 1-2 per year, in classes of 25. Not exactly talking about Stanford, but certainly started raising the issue of "should we be raising the standards for football players to receive scholarships to attend major universities," while bringing up how there were 162 college football players arrested last year, while only four college baseball players were.

At some point it does seem all the negative press football is getting at both the college and pro level is going to lead to higher college entrance standards for scholarship football players at some point, and that Stanford could benefit if it does in fact happen.

[Redrum]

Right now Stanford has an advantage with (for lack of a more precise term) "academically oriented" student athletes.  We are not alone, but it's our self-imposed requirements that limit our recruiting pool.  If  more schools start pitching the academics and higher entrance requirements,  that brings more competition to a smaller recruit pool.  It doesn't matter whether those schools' pitch is legit, bogus or just clever "rebranding" of an unchanged reality,  the net effect would be more competition and we would lose some of those recruiting battles.    Hard for me to see why that would be a good thing.  For society, maybe.  For Stanford...not so much.

[Redrum]

Right now Stanford has an advantage with (for lack of a more precise term) "academically oriented" student athletes.  We are not alone, but it's our self-imposed requirements that limit our recruiting pool.  If  more schools start pitching the academics and higher entrance requirements,  that brings more competition to a smaller recruit pool.  It doesn't matter whether those schools' pitch is legit, bogus or just clever "rebranding" of an unchanged reality,  the net effect would be more competition and we would lose some of those recruiting battles.    Hard for me to see why that would be a good thing.  For society, maybe.  For Stanford...not so much.

[FarmBoy]

Finally, in a discussion about how few college athletes could actually get into the schools they are recruited to if not athletes, Cowherd said he asked two major football program coaches how many football players could get into school without football scholarships.  Their answer was 1-2 per year, in classes of 25. Not exactly talking about Stanford, but certainly started raising the issue of "should we be raising the standards for football players to receive scholarships to attend major universities," while bringing up how there were 162 college football players arrested last year, while only four college baseball players were.

I wonder what that number would be for Stanford. Considering our 7% admission rate, 1-2 wouldn't be far off. But there's a distinction between "could" get in and "would" get in. For the elite prospects who apply, I think it comes down to luck who actually gets admitted. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that less than 25% of the football players have the credentials to get into Stanford without the bump their athletics give them. 100% could get into a "good" school, but it takes something special to be admitted to schools like Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc without the benefit of athletic gifts.

[FarmBoy]

Finally, in a discussion about how few college athletes could actually get into the schools they are recruited to if not athletes, Cowherd said he asked two major football program coaches how many football players could get into school without football scholarships.  Their answer was 1-2 per year, in classes of 25. Not exactly talking about Stanford, but certainly started raising the issue of "should we be raising the standards for football players to receive scholarships to attend major universities," while bringing up how there were 162 college football players arrested last year, while only four college baseball players were.

I wonder what that number would be for Stanford. Considering our 7% admission rate, 1-2 wouldn't be far off. But there's a distinction between "could" get in and "would" get in. For the elite prospects who apply, I think it comes down to luck who actually gets admitted. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that less than 25% of the football players have the credentials to get into Stanford without the bump their athletics give them. 100% could get into a "good" school, but it takes something special to be admitted to schools like Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc without the benefit of athletic gifts.

[OutsiderFan]

When you go to buy cola, do you buy Coke or the generic "Cola" brand?  The point being, that if kids/parents are being forced to increase academic accomplishments, why wouldn't they want the "it" brand, if they can have it, by in this case being admitted to Stanford?  I mean look at Ben Edwards.  He was committed to Auburn, but when it looked like he had a good shot at getting into Stanford, he de-committed from Auburn, and said publicly he will go to Stanford if admitted.

My assertion is there will be more Ben Edwards types if the academic bar for football scholarships at the major football factories rises. 

[OutsiderFan]

When you go to buy cola, do you buy Coke or the generic "Cola" brand?  The point being, that if kids/parents are being forced to increase academic accomplishments, why wouldn't they want the "it" brand, if they can have it, by in this case being admitted to Stanford?  I mean look at Ben Edwards.  He was committed to Auburn, but when it looked like he had a good shot at getting into Stanford, he de-committed from Auburn, and said publicly he will go to Stanford if admitted.

My assertion is there will be more Ben Edwards types if the academic bar for football scholarships at the major football factories rises. 

[stupac2]

My assertion is there will be more Ben Edwards types if the academic bar for football scholarships at the major football factories rises.

Eventually, maybe, but I think the reason there are so few of those types to begin with is due to factors like endemic poverty in the south (which is where most of this talent comes from). Increasing standards won't change that.

What will happen if standards rise is that the kids who can't clear the bar will just drop out of the pool, so the overall talent will decline. Stanford will get basically the same admits as before, but everyone else's will get worse. Also you'd remove a means of advancement for a lot of poor kids, which seems kind of mean.

[stupac2]

My assertion is there will be more Ben Edwards types if the academic bar for football scholarships at the major football factories rises.

Eventually, maybe, but I think the reason there are so few of those types to begin with is due to factors like endemic poverty in the south (which is where most of this talent comes from). Increasing standards won't change that.

What will happen if standards rise is that the kids who can't clear the bar will just drop out of the pool, so the overall talent will decline. Stanford will get basically the same admits as before, but everyone else's will get worse. Also you'd remove a means of advancement for a lot of poor kids, which seems kind of mean.

[Redrum]

My assertion is there will be more Ben Edwards types if the academic bar for football scholarships at the major football factories rises.

But for the type of candidate that can get into Stanford, the raising of the minimum standards at the other schools would probably be irrelevant as to motivation.  The "rise" in the minimum would affect many other players at the bottom end.  The Stanford-admissible  kids might then opt for those newly reformed football factories because their interest was more skewed to football anyway or they bought the hype and the newly reformed factories were now academically "good enough" or, at least, talking the talk. 

Furthermore,  the experiment on the good-enough academics approach has been run.  It's called Not.re Dame.  We know from experience that kids who could make it into Stanford  opted to play instead for No.tre Dame.  How is Stanford better off  if it is losing recruiting battles with Not.re Dame?  Despite imaginary girlfriends and all,  why is it better for Stanford that Manti Teyo opted to play for Not.re Dame?  Why is it better for Stanford that Tai-ler Jones switched commitments to play for Not.re Dame?  Would they still have switched from us if Not.re Dame's academics were on par with, say, the Univ. of  Arkansas?  Doubt it.  ND's standards are exactly as you laid out: Not on Stanford's levels but respectable enough..  We don't need more schools who try and possibly succeed in selling that they are academically respectable enough.  Our starting recruiting pool is small enough as it is.  Losing an additional 3-4 kids per class to schools that successfully rebranded themselves as academically "good enough"  is no help to us whatsoever.

Right now we hold an enviable brand position:  THE academic school that plays great football.  We can blow it by playing crappy football.  Hate to see that, but it's fair. We have a chance to keep our brand every Saturday.  We can also lose the brand if some schools come in with an academic pitch that deprives us of top notch football players.  I don't see how having more sharks in the recruiting pool trying to take a bite out of us helps.

[Redrum]

My assertion is there will be more Ben Edwards types if the academic bar for football scholarships at the major football factories rises.

But for the type of candidate that can get into Stanford, the raising of the minimum standards at the other schools would probably be irrelevant as to motivation.  The "rise" in the minimum would affect many other players at the bottom end.  The Stanford-admissible  kids might then opt for those newly reformed football factories because their interest was more skewed to football anyway or they bought the hype and the newly reformed factories were now academically "good enough" or, at least, talking the talk. 

Furthermore,  the experiment on the good-enough academics approach has been run.  It's called Not.re Dame.  We know from experience that kids who could make it into Stanford  opted to play instead for No.tre Dame.  How is Stanford better off  if it is losing recruiting battles with Not.re Dame?  Despite imaginary girlfriends and all,  why is it better for Stanford that Manti Teyo opted to play for Not.re Dame?  Why is it better for Stanford that Tai-ler Jones switched commitments to play for Not.re Dame?  Would they still have switched from us if Not.re Dame's academics were on par with, say, the Univ. of  Arkansas?  Doubt it.  ND's standards are exactly as you laid out: Not on Stanford's levels but respectable enough..  We don't need more schools who try and possibly succeed in selling that they are academically respectable enough.  Our starting recruiting pool is small enough as it is.  Losing an additional 3-4 kids per class to schools that successfully rebranded themselves as academically "good enough"  is no help to us whatsoever.

Right now we hold an enviable brand position:  THE academic school that plays great football.  We can blow it by playing crappy football.  Hate to see that, but it's fair. We have a chance to keep our brand every Saturday.  We can also lose the brand if some schools come in with an academic pitch that deprives us of top notch football players.  I don't see how having more sharks in the recruiting pool trying to take a bite out of us helps.

[OutsiderFan]

Interesting perspective.

I still hold to the Coke vs. "Cola" example.  People can package things and sell them all they want, but at the end of the day, consumers know what the genuine article is, and what the knock-off, wanna-be brand is.  Most people want the real thing, not the pretender. 

When it comes to recruiting, Stanford should welcome any school to claim it offers a similar academic and post college-career development springboard as Stanford.  The proof is in the facts.  Stanford has decades of accomplishments backed by data, and a culture of non-sports excellence to rival any competitor.  If I were charged with recruiting for Stanford, I'd say "bring it on" when it comes to any school claiming similar education value and post-college opportunities.  That would really get my competitive fires stoked in a serious way.

All that said, if a gifted athlete values near-term larger crowds and media attention more than the post athletic career life, he isn't a fit for Stanford anyway.  Losing those guys to ND, etc., really isn't a loss as such.

[OutsiderFan]

Interesting perspective.

I still hold to the Coke vs. "Cola" example.  People can package things and sell them all they want, but at the end of the day, consumers know what the genuine article is, and what the knock-off, wanna-be brand is.  Most people want the real thing, not the pretender. 

When it comes to recruiting, Stanford should welcome any school to claim it offers a similar academic and post college-career development springboard as Stanford.  The proof is in the facts.  Stanford has decades of accomplishments backed by data, and a culture of non-sports excellence to rival any competitor.  If I were charged with recruiting for Stanford, I'd say "bring it on" when it comes to any school claiming similar education value and post-college opportunities.  That would really get my competitive fires stoked in a serious way.

All that said, if a gifted athlete values near-term larger crowds and media attention more than the post athletic career life, he isn't a fit for Stanford anyway.  Losing those guys to ND, etc., really isn't a loss as such.

[Redrum]

When we lost 20-17 20-13 (Doh!!) in the South Bend rain on the 2-inch (if that) line,  how little of a loss to us was it that the aforementioned TJ Jones' 57 receiving yards and 1 TD made the difference in the game?  Likewise,  how little of a loss was it that Manti T'eo led all ND tacklers?  Do you think it's plausible we could have made that last 2 inches if their leading tackler for the game (and the season) hadn't been standing on the other side?  Both those guys could have been playing for us. 

[Redrum]

When we lost 20-17 20-13 (Doh!!) in the South Bend rain on the 2-inch (if that) line,  how little of a loss to us was it that the aforementioned TJ Jones' 57 receiving yards and 1 TD made the difference in the game?  Likewise,  how little of a loss was it that Manti T'eo led all ND tacklers?  Do you think it's plausible we could have made that last 2 inches if their leading tackler for the game (and the season) hadn't been standing on the other side?  Both those guys could have been playing for us. 

[BostonCard]

And then Te'o could have been in the imaginary hospital with his imaginary girlfriend as he imagined her dying.

BC

[BostonCard]

And then Te'o could have been in the imaginary hospital with his imaginary girlfriend as he imagined her dying.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

When we lost 20-17 in the South Bend rain on the 2-inch (if that) line,  how little of a loss to us was it that the aforementioned TJ Jones' 57 receiving yards and 1 TD made the difference in the game?  Likewise,  how little of a loss was it that Manti T'eo led all ND tacklers?  Do you think it's plausible we could have made that last 2 inches if their leading tackler for the game (and the season) hadn't been standing on the other side?  Both those guys could have been playing for us.

The PF on Amanam was absurd.  The PI on Brown was outrageous.  The TD was not allowed in OT.  There is no way the officials were going to let Stanford win that game if they had any ability to influence the outcome.

[OutsiderFan]

When we lost 20-17 in the South Bend rain on the 2-inch (if that) line,  how little of a loss to us was it that the aforementioned TJ Jones' 57 receiving yards and 1 TD made the difference in the game?  Likewise,  how little of a loss was it that Manti T'eo led all ND tacklers?  Do you think it's plausible we could have made that last 2 inches if their leading tackler for the game (and the season) hadn't been standing on the other side?  Both those guys could have been playing for us.

The PF on Amanam was absurd.  The PI on Brown was outrageous.  The TD was not allowed in OT.  There is no way the officials were going to let Stanford win that game if they had any ability to influence the outcome.

[CTcard]

When we lost 20-17 in the South Bend rain on the 2-inch (if that) line,

When did that happen?

Likewise,  how little of a loss was it that Manti T'eo led all ND tacklers?  Do you think it's plausible we could have made that last 2 inches if their leading tackler for the game (and the season) hadn't been standing on the other side?  Both those guys could have been playing for us.

In the game we lost 20-13, the LB with the well developed imagination (and naivete) should have given us the game with a personal foul on his post-play slug of Taylor after the 3rd down play (or second down - one of the two). But alas ...


The carping is just in fun. I agree with your point. The domers are one of our top two recruiting competitors - at least for the top kids - and the competitor that benefits the most from being "almost like Stanford" academically. More fishermen in our pool will not be helpful.

[CTcard]

When we lost 20-17 in the South Bend rain on the 2-inch (if that) line,

When did that happen?

Likewise,  how little of a loss was it that Manti T'eo led all ND tacklers?  Do you think it's plausible we could have made that last 2 inches if their leading tackler for the game (and the season) hadn't been standing on the other side?  Both those guys could have been playing for us.

In the game we lost 20-13, the LB with the well developed imagination (and naivete) should have given us the game with a personal foul on his post-play slug of Taylor after the 3rd down play (or second down - one of the two). But alas ...


The carping is just in fun. I agree with your point. The domers are one of our top two recruiting competitors - at least for the top kids - and the competitor that benefits the most from being "almost like Stanford" academically. More fishermen in our pool will not be helpful.

[Redrum]

Type in haste, repent at leisure.  20-13 

[Redrum]

Type in haste, repent at leisure.  20-13