02-03-2021, 07:31 PM
So what happened?
Isn’t today LOI signing
02-03-2021, 07:52 PM
Most recruits sign during the early signing period, so LOI date is now a bit of a letdown.
The good news is that we have a reasonably well-balanced class, addressing most position groups (assuming Shield Taylor winds up a tight end), and no gaping holes unlike in some years past. The bad news is that the overall level of recruit is down compared to past years and the class is somewhat devoid of star power. I think Aaron Armitage is the only 4* player in the group, although a reasonable number would be considered high-three stars. I believe the class ranks 8th in the Pac-12, and about 50th nationwide.
This is probably Shaw's lowest ranked class (maybe 2013, but that was due to the very low numbers in that class). I don't think this will be the class that propels Stanford back into the upper echelons of the Pac-12, but maybe some guys will emerge. At one point in time things looked really dire, so a 8th ranked Pac-12/50th overall class looks ok by comparison.
Time to look towards 2022, where we have already signed two 4* players.
BC
The good news is that we have a reasonably well-balanced class, addressing most position groups (assuming Shield Taylor winds up a tight end), and no gaping holes unlike in some years past. The bad news is that the overall level of recruit is down compared to past years and the class is somewhat devoid of star power. I think Aaron Armitage is the only 4* player in the group, although a reasonable number would be considered high-three stars. I believe the class ranks 8th in the Pac-12, and about 50th nationwide.
This is probably Shaw's lowest ranked class (maybe 2013, but that was due to the very low numbers in that class). I don't think this will be the class that propels Stanford back into the upper echelons of the Pac-12, but maybe some guys will emerge. At one point in time things looked really dire, so a 8th ranked Pac-12/50th overall class looks ok by comparison.
Time to look towards 2022, where we have already signed two 4* players.
BC
Most recruits sign during the early signing period, so LOI date is now a bit of a letdown.
The good news is that we have a reasonably well-balanced class, addressing most position groups (assuming Shield Taylor winds up a tight end), and no gaping holes unlike in some years past. The bad news is that the overall level of recruit is down compared to past years and the class is somewhat devoid of star power. I think Aaron Armitage is the only 4* player in the group, although a reasonable number would be considered high-three stars. I believe the class ranks 8th in the Pac-12, and about 50th nationwide.
This is probably Shaw's lowest ranked class (maybe 2013, but that was due to the very low numbers in that class). I don't think this will be the class that propels Stanford back into the upper echelons of the Pac-12, but maybe some guys will emerge. At one point in time things looked really dire, so a 8th ranked Pac-12/50th overall class looks ok by comparison.
Time to look towards 2022, where we have already signed two 4* players.
BC
The good news is that we have a reasonably well-balanced class, addressing most position groups (assuming Shield Taylor winds up a tight end), and no gaping holes unlike in some years past. The bad news is that the overall level of recruit is down compared to past years and the class is somewhat devoid of star power. I think Aaron Armitage is the only 4* player in the group, although a reasonable number would be considered high-three stars. I believe the class ranks 8th in the Pac-12, and about 50th nationwide.
This is probably Shaw's lowest ranked class (maybe 2013, but that was due to the very low numbers in that class). I don't think this will be the class that propels Stanford back into the upper echelons of the Pac-12, but maybe some guys will emerge. At one point in time things looked really dire, so a 8th ranked Pac-12/50th overall class looks ok by comparison.
Time to look towards 2022, where we have already signed two 4* players.
BC
02-03-2021, 08:15 PM
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
02-03-2021, 09:09 PM
Tonight’s zoom meeting was interesting with film of all the recruits scholarship and walk on
02-04-2021, 10:36 AM
(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
Another way to look at it is that, according to Rivals, Oregon and USC each signed more four- and five-stars (18 and 17, respectively) than Stanford's total number of scholarship signees (16).
If we go by average commit's Rivals star rating, Stanford's class is 48th, so the low-ranking is not because of lack of quantity.
Here's the average commit's Rivals star ratings for each Stanford class going back to 2002, ordered from best to worst in terms of national ranking:
3.93--2017 (3rd)
3.73--2012 (4th)
3.45--2014 (14th)
3.33--2013 (17th)
3.32--2011 (17th)
3.35--2020 (18th)
3.27--2009 (20th)
3.27--2015 (20th)
3.16--2016 (23rd)
3.24--2019 (25th)
3.06--2002 (26th)
3.2--2018 (27th)
3.14--2010 (28th)
2.88--2005 (29th)
2.58--2004 (35th)
2.77--2003 (41st)
2.71--2008 (45th)
2.94--2021 (48th)
2.63--2007 (49th)
2.44--2006 (56th)
So over the past 20 years, the median class ranking for Stanford--based on average star rating for each commit--is mid 20s. Given that there are 65 power 5 teams, that's not overly impressive. Over the past 11 years, during the Shaw era, the median class ranking is 18th.
The Sagarin ratings for college football show that through 2010-2019 (2020 is an obvious outlier), the 18th ranked team finishes with a median of 9 wins and 4 losses. During the 9 years of the Shaw era preceding 2020, Stanford's median record is 10 wins and 3 losses. Stanford's median Sagarin rating during the same period is 14th.
I'm trying to establish a sense of reasonable expectations. Three Rose Bowls in four years is unsustainable and 4-8 is unacceptable. But based on recent history, while the goal is always a Pac-12 championship, 9 wins and a top 20 ranking is a solid benchmark.
If we go by average commit's Rivals star rating, Stanford's class is 48th, so the low-ranking is not because of lack of quantity.
Here's the average commit's Rivals star ratings for each Stanford class going back to 2002, ordered from best to worst in terms of national ranking:
3.93--2017 (3rd)
3.73--2012 (4th)
3.45--2014 (14th)
3.33--2013 (17th)
3.32--2011 (17th)
3.35--2020 (18th)
3.27--2009 (20th)
3.27--2015 (20th)
3.16--2016 (23rd)
3.24--2019 (25th)
3.06--2002 (26th)
3.2--2018 (27th)
3.14--2010 (28th)
2.88--2005 (29th)
2.58--2004 (35th)
2.77--2003 (41st)
2.71--2008 (45th)
2.94--2021 (48th)
2.63--2007 (49th)
2.44--2006 (56th)
So over the past 20 years, the median class ranking for Stanford--based on average star rating for each commit--is mid 20s. Given that there are 65 power 5 teams, that's not overly impressive. Over the past 11 years, during the Shaw era, the median class ranking is 18th.
The Sagarin ratings for college football show that through 2010-2019 (2020 is an obvious outlier), the 18th ranked team finishes with a median of 9 wins and 4 losses. During the 9 years of the Shaw era preceding 2020, Stanford's median record is 10 wins and 3 losses. Stanford's median Sagarin rating during the same period is 14th.
I'm trying to establish a sense of reasonable expectations. Three Rose Bowls in four years is unsustainable and 4-8 is unacceptable. But based on recent history, while the goal is always a Pac-12 championship, 9 wins and a top 20 ranking is a solid benchmark.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
Another way to look at it is that, according to Rivals, Oregon and USC each signed more four- and five-stars (18 and 17, respectively) than Stanford's total number of scholarship signees (16).
If we go by average commit's Rivals star rating, Stanford's class is 48th, so the low-ranking is not because of lack of quantity.
Here's the average commit's Rivals star ratings for each Stanford class going back to 2002, ordered from best to worst in terms of national ranking:
3.93--2017 (3rd)
3.73--2012 (4th)
3.45--2014 (14th)
3.33--2013 (17th)
3.32--2011 (17th)
3.35--2020 (18th)
3.27--2009 (20th)
3.27--2015 (20th)
3.16--2016 (23rd)
3.24--2019 (25th)
3.06--2002 (26th)
3.2--2018 (27th)
3.14--2010 (28th)
2.88--2005 (29th)
2.58--2004 (35th)
2.77--2003 (41st)
2.71--2008 (45th)
2.94--2021 (48th)
2.63--2007 (49th)
2.44--2006 (56th)
So over the past 20 years, the median class ranking for Stanford--based on average star rating for each commit--is mid 20s. Given that there are 65 power 5 teams, that's not overly impressive. Over the past 11 years, during the Shaw era, the median class ranking is 18th.
The Sagarin ratings for college football show that through 2010-2019 (2020 is an obvious outlier), the 18th ranked team finishes with a median of 9 wins and 4 losses. During the 9 years of the Shaw era preceding 2020, Stanford's median record is 10 wins and 3 losses. Stanford's median Sagarin rating during the same period is 14th.
I'm trying to establish a sense of reasonable expectations. Three Rose Bowls in four years is unsustainable and 4-8 is unacceptable. But based on recent history, while the goal is always a Pac-12 championship, 9 wins and a top 20 ranking is a solid benchmark.
If we go by average commit's Rivals star rating, Stanford's class is 48th, so the low-ranking is not because of lack of quantity.
Here's the average commit's Rivals star ratings for each Stanford class going back to 2002, ordered from best to worst in terms of national ranking:
3.93--2017 (3rd)
3.73--2012 (4th)
3.45--2014 (14th)
3.33--2013 (17th)
3.32--2011 (17th)
3.35--2020 (18th)
3.27--2009 (20th)
3.27--2015 (20th)
3.16--2016 (23rd)
3.24--2019 (25th)
3.06--2002 (26th)
3.2--2018 (27th)
3.14--2010 (28th)
2.88--2005 (29th)
2.58--2004 (35th)
2.77--2003 (41st)
2.71--2008 (45th)
2.94--2021 (48th)
2.63--2007 (49th)
2.44--2006 (56th)
So over the past 20 years, the median class ranking for Stanford--based on average star rating for each commit--is mid 20s. Given that there are 65 power 5 teams, that's not overly impressive. Over the past 11 years, during the Shaw era, the median class ranking is 18th.
The Sagarin ratings for college football show that through 2010-2019 (2020 is an obvious outlier), the 18th ranked team finishes with a median of 9 wins and 4 losses. During the 9 years of the Shaw era preceding 2020, Stanford's median record is 10 wins and 3 losses. Stanford's median Sagarin rating during the same period is 14th.
I'm trying to establish a sense of reasonable expectations. Three Rose Bowls in four years is unsustainable and 4-8 is unacceptable. But based on recent history, while the goal is always a Pac-12 championship, 9 wins and a top 20 ranking is a solid benchmark.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
02-04-2021, 12:15 PM
(02-04-2021, 11:17 AM)Papa John Wrote: Another way to look at it is that, according to Rivals, Oregon and USC each signed more four- and five-stars (18 and 17, respectively) than Stanford's total number of scholarship signees (16).
If we go by average commit's Rivals star rating, Stanford's class is 48th, so the low-ranking is not because of lack of quantity.
Here's the average commit's Rivals star ratings for each Stanford class going back to 2002, ordered from best to worst in terms of national ranking:
3.93--2017 (3rd)
3.73--2012 (4th)
3.45--2014 (14th)
3.33--2013 (17th)
3.32--2011 (17th)
3.35--2020 (18th)
3.27--2009 (20th)
3.27--2015 (20th)
3.16--2016 (23rd)
3.24--2019 (25th)
3.06--2002 (26th)
3.2--2018 (27th)
3.14--2010 (28th)
2.88--2005 (29th)
2.58--2004 (35th)
2.77--2003 (41st)
2.71--2008 (45th)
2.94--2021 (48th)
2.63--2007 (49th)
2.44--2006 (56th)
So over the past 20 years, the median class ranking for Stanford--based on average star rating for each commit--is mid 20s. Given that there are 65 power 5 teams, that's not overly impressive. Over the past 11 years, during the Shaw era, the median class ranking is 18th.
The Sagarin ratings for college football show that through 2010-2019 (2020 is an obvious outlier), the 18th ranked team finishes with a median of 9 wins and 4 losses. During the 9 years of the Shaw era preceding 2020, Stanford's median record is 10 wins and 3 losses. Stanford's median Sagarin rating during the same period is 14th.
I'm trying to establish a sense of reasonable expectations. Three Rose Bowls in four years is unsustainable and 4-8 is unacceptable. But based on recent history, while the goal is always a Pac-12 championship, 9 wins and a top 20 ranking is a solid benchmark.
Please stop polluting people's minds with your concise, relevant data and eminently rational reasoning.
(02-04-2021, 11:17 AM)Papa John Wrote: Another way to look at it is that, according to Rivals, Oregon and USC each signed more four- and five-stars (18 and 17, respectively) than Stanford's total number of scholarship signees (16).
If we go by average commit's Rivals star rating, Stanford's class is 48th, so the low-ranking is not because of lack of quantity.
Here's the average commit's Rivals star ratings for each Stanford class going back to 2002, ordered from best to worst in terms of national ranking:
3.93--2017 (3rd)
3.73--2012 (4th)
3.45--2014 (14th)
3.33--2013 (17th)
3.32--2011 (17th)
3.35--2020 (18th)
3.27--2009 (20th)
3.27--2015 (20th)
3.16--2016 (23rd)
3.24--2019 (25th)
3.06--2002 (26th)
3.2--2018 (27th)
3.14--2010 (28th)
2.88--2005 (29th)
2.58--2004 (35th)
2.77--2003 (41st)
2.71--2008 (45th)
2.94--2021 (48th)
2.63--2007 (49th)
2.44--2006 (56th)
So over the past 20 years, the median class ranking for Stanford--based on average star rating for each commit--is mid 20s. Given that there are 65 power 5 teams, that's not overly impressive. Over the past 11 years, during the Shaw era, the median class ranking is 18th.
The Sagarin ratings for college football show that through 2010-2019 (2020 is an obvious outlier), the 18th ranked team finishes with a median of 9 wins and 4 losses. During the 9 years of the Shaw era preceding 2020, Stanford's median record is 10 wins and 3 losses. Stanford's median Sagarin rating during the same period is 14th.
I'm trying to establish a sense of reasonable expectations. Three Rose Bowls in four years is unsustainable and 4-8 is unacceptable. But based on recent history, while the goal is always a Pac-12 championship, 9 wins and a top 20 ranking is a solid benchmark.
Please stop polluting people's minds with your concise, relevant data and eminently rational reasoning.
02-04-2021, 02:15 PM
(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the brobdingnagian student body that loves on their football team to no end.
(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the brobdingnagian student body that loves on their football team to no end.
02-04-2021, 02:54 PM
(02-04-2021, 02:15 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the of immense proportions student body that loves on their football team to no end.
We've had several commits talk about how they were blown away by the visit. Of course, that kind of makes Shaw's refusal to move "Big Visit" to before the fall LoI date even more baffling.
BC
(02-04-2021, 02:15 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the of immense proportions student body that loves on their football team to no end.
We've had several commits talk about how they were blown away by the visit. Of course, that kind of makes Shaw's refusal to move "Big Visit" to before the fall LoI date even more baffling.
BC
02-04-2021, 03:13 PM
(02-04-2021, 02:15 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the of immense proportions student body that loves on their football team to no end.
It hurt Stanford IMMENSELY.
(02-04-2021, 02:15 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the of immense proportions student body that loves on their football team to no end.
It hurt Stanford IMMENSELY.
02-04-2021, 03:35 PM
(02-04-2021, 03:13 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(02-04-2021, 02:15 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the of immense proportions student body that loves on their football team to no end.
It hurt Stanford IMMENSELY.
On the flip side, no test scores were required for admission this year. That should of helped us expand our pool. No test scores are required next year as well.
(02-04-2021, 03:13 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(02-04-2021, 02:15 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the of immense proportions student body that loves on their football team to no end.
It hurt Stanford IMMENSELY.
On the flip side, no test scores were required for admission this year. That should of helped us expand our pool. No test scores are required next year as well.
02-04-2021, 04:45 PM
I'm old enough to remember when we had a saying "If they visit, they will come" because our closing rate on athletes who were admitted and visited was nearly 100%. We're talking coffee-level closing.
BC
BC
I'm old enough to remember when we had a saying "If they visit, they will come" because our closing rate on athletes who were admitted and visited was nearly 100%. We're talking coffee-level closing.
BC
BC
(02-04-2021, 11:17 AM)Papa John Wrote: Here's the average commit's Rivals star ratings for each Stanford class going back to 2002, ordered from best to worst in terms of national ranking:
3.93--2017 (3rd)
3.73--2012 (4th)
3.45--2014 (14th)
3.33--2013 (17th)
3.32--2011 (17th)
3.35--2020 (18th)
3.27--2009 (20th)
3.27--2015 (20th)
3.16--2016 (23rd)
3.24--2019 (25th)
3.06--2002 (26th)
3.2--2018 (27th)
3.14--2010 (28th)
2.88--2005 (29th)
2.58--2004 (35th)
2.77--2003 (41st)
2.71--2008 (45th)
2.94--2021 (48th)
2.63--2007 (49th)
2.44--2006 (56th)
...
I'm trying to establish a sense of reasonable expectations. Three Rose Bowls in four years is unsustainable and 4-8 is unacceptable. But based on recent history, while the goal is always a Pac-12 championship, 9 wins and a top 20 ranking is a solid benchmark.
- I have been under the impression that the recruit scores have skewed over time. Yet, the correlation between average recruit score and ranking is remarkably strong.
- Nine of the top ten have been since 2011.
- I am not quite sure how one would use this to set expectations overall. Presumably, if you think the team should be better, you would also think the recruiting should be better.
- The not very well rated 2008 class included: Andrew Luck, Chris Owusu, Jonathan Martin, Chase Thomas, Delano Howell, David DeCastro, Michael Thomas, Warren Reuland, Sam Schwartzenstein, Johnson Bademosi. Possibly the most important class in the emergence of Stanford football as a national power (for that matter, probably true solely for Andrew Luck).
(02-04-2021, 03:35 PM)donkey687 Wrote: On the flip side, no test scores were required for admission this year. That should of helped us expand our pool. No test scores are required next year as well.
Presumably that doesn't mean there are no admissions criteria or evaluations. That should only expand the pool if top football players are better students than test takers.
(02-04-2021, 11:17 AM)Papa John Wrote: Here's the average commit's Rivals star ratings for each Stanford class going back to 2002, ordered from best to worst in terms of national ranking:
3.93--2017 (3rd)
3.73--2012 (4th)
3.45--2014 (14th)
3.33--2013 (17th)
3.32--2011 (17th)
3.35--2020 (18th)
3.27--2009 (20th)
3.27--2015 (20th)
3.16--2016 (23rd)
3.24--2019 (25th)
3.06--2002 (26th)
3.2--2018 (27th)
3.14--2010 (28th)
2.88--2005 (29th)
2.58--2004 (35th)
2.77--2003 (41st)
2.71--2008 (45th)
2.94--2021 (48th)
2.63--2007 (49th)
2.44--2006 (56th)
...
I'm trying to establish a sense of reasonable expectations. Three Rose Bowls in four years is unsustainable and 4-8 is unacceptable. But based on recent history, while the goal is always a Pac-12 championship, 9 wins and a top 20 ranking is a solid benchmark.
- I have been under the impression that the recruit scores have skewed over time. Yet, the correlation between average recruit score and ranking is remarkably strong.
- Nine of the top ten have been since 2011.
- I am not quite sure how one would use this to set expectations overall. Presumably, if you think the team should be better, you would also think the recruiting should be better.
- The not very well rated 2008 class included: Andrew Luck, Chris Owusu, Jonathan Martin, Chase Thomas, Delano Howell, David DeCastro, Michael Thomas, Warren Reuland, Sam Schwartzenstein, Johnson Bademosi. Possibly the most important class in the emergence of Stanford football as a national power (for that matter, probably true solely for Andrew Luck).
(02-04-2021, 03:35 PM)donkey687 Wrote: On the flip side, no test scores were required for admission this year. That should of helped us expand our pool. No test scores are required next year as well.
Presumably that doesn't mean there are no admissions criteria or evaluations. That should only expand the pool if top football players are better students than test takers.
02-04-2021, 04:53 PM
(02-04-2021, 03:13 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(02-04-2021, 02:15 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the of immense proportions student body that loves on their football team to no end.
It hurt Stanford IMMENSELY.
Will on-campus recruiting be allowed this spring?
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(02-04-2021, 03:13 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(02-04-2021, 02:15 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:36 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-04-2021, 10:29 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bobbbbb, did anybody ask why the staff took a gap year re talent?
From what I read, Shaw says that this is a good class that is definitely underrated. Of course, coaches always say things like that when their classes aren't particlarly highly rated by the services.
He had previously said that recruiting was difficult this year because he couldn't bring kids on campus. The campus visit is what really sells the place, he mentioned.
It's real hard for me to believe that no campus visits hurt Stanford. If anything, I think that a big time football player would be swayed more by the of immense proportions student body that loves on their football team to no end.
It hurt Stanford IMMENSELY.
Will on-campus recruiting be allowed this spring?
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
02-04-2021, 05:00 PM
Right now not campus or off campus until iirc mid April. Betting that will be extended.
(02-04-2021, 03:35 PM)donkey687 Wrote: On the flip side, no test scores were required for admission this year. That should of helped us expand our pool. No test scores are required next year as well.
also fewer essays this year
Quote:The admissions office announced on Tuesday that it will release admissions decisions roughly a week later than in previous years due to a “notable increase” in applications for the Class of 2025.
Applicants will receive decisions by April 9 instead of the originally scheduled April 1, and the enrollment deadline has also been extended from May 1 to May 3 to reflect the delayed timeline.
...
While the University also did not speculate as to the cause of increased applicants, Stanford made two changes that may have encouraged more students to apply. First, Stanford waived the standardized testing requirement for applicants applying this year as a result of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The University also reduced the number of supplemental essays for the Class of 2025 from 11 to eight, cutting questions like “What five words best describe you?” and reducing the word count of the meaningful extracurricular activity essay.
https://stanforddaily.com/2021/01/26/sta...JK-NcNahdk
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(02-04-2021, 03:35 PM)donkey687 Wrote: On the flip side, no test scores were required for admission this year. That should of helped us expand our pool. No test scores are required next year as well.
also fewer essays this year
Quote:The admissions office announced on Tuesday that it will release admissions decisions roughly a week later than in previous years due to a “notable increase” in applications for the Class of 2025.
Applicants will receive decisions by April 9 instead of the originally scheduled April 1, and the enrollment deadline has also been extended from May 1 to May 3 to reflect the delayed timeline.
...
While the University also did not speculate as to the cause of increased applicants, Stanford made two changes that may have encouraged more students to apply. First, Stanford waived the standardized testing requirement for applicants applying this year as a result of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The University also reduced the number of supplemental essays for the Class of 2025 from 11 to eight, cutting questions like “What five words best describe you?” and reducing the word count of the meaningful extracurricular activity essay.
https://stanforddaily.com/2021/01/26/sta...JK-NcNahdk
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(02-04-2021, 03:35 PM)donkey687 Wrote: On the flip side, no test scores were required for admission this year. That should of helped us expand our pool. No test scores are required next year as well.
*should've.
No test scores were announced MONTHS after our immediate recruiting competition - the rest of the CA schools, for instance - had already done so.
We did offer a few guys for whom that meant qualification. Way too late in the game at that point. No dice.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2021, 06:51 PM by SamuelMcF.)
(02-04-2021, 03:35 PM)donkey687 Wrote: On the flip side, no test scores were required for admission this year. That should of helped us expand our pool. No test scores are required next year as well.
*should've.
No test scores were announced MONTHS after our immediate recruiting competition - the rest of the CA schools, for instance - had already done so.
We did offer a few guys for whom that meant qualification. Way too late in the game at that point. No dice.
(02-04-2021, 04:50 PM)CTcard Wrote: - I am not quite sure how one would use this to set expectations overall. Presumably, if you think the team should be better, you would also think the recruiting should be better.
- The not very well rated 2008 class included: Andrew Luck, Chris Owusu, Jonathan Martin, Chase Thomas, Delano Howell, David DeCastro, Michael Thomas, Warren Reuland, Sam Schwartzenstein, Johnson Bademosi. Possibly the most important class in the emergence of Stanford football as a national power (for that matter, probably true solely for Andrew Luck).
Great point, and I had the same issues in looking at the data. I thought that the pre-Harbaugh recruiting classes must have been amongst the worst in the power 5 because none of those teams had .500 records. But that's not the case. The most extreme example: the 2006 team was 1-10, yet the 2002-2005 recruiting classes--I never assume too much contribution from true freshmen--were ranked 26th, 41st, 35th and 29th. That's middle of the road for a power 5 school, so 1-10 can't be explained by poor recruiting. On the other hand, Harbaugh's Orange Bowl team (2010) season was powered by the recruiting classes from 2006-2009. Those classes were ranked 56th, 49th, 48th and 20th. And that team was 12-1! And remember that my rankings are based on average stars per commit, so quantity is not an issue.
So I didn't try to set performance expectations based on recruiting from the past 20 years. I just used the data from the Shaw era to try to generate reasonable expectations for Shaw's teams in terms of recruiting and wins-losses, without stating that the correlation between the two is terribly high. I think that 10 years should be enough data for such an analysis, but maybe my method is too crude.
One thing I didn't mention before but was on my mind: these expectations based on median data are probably the highest for any Stanford coach since WW II.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2021, 11:15 PM by Papa John.)
(02-04-2021, 04:50 PM)CTcard Wrote: - I am not quite sure how one would use this to set expectations overall. Presumably, if you think the team should be better, you would also think the recruiting should be better.
- The not very well rated 2008 class included: Andrew Luck, Chris Owusu, Jonathan Martin, Chase Thomas, Delano Howell, David DeCastro, Michael Thomas, Warren Reuland, Sam Schwartzenstein, Johnson Bademosi. Possibly the most important class in the emergence of Stanford football as a national power (for that matter, probably true solely for Andrew Luck).
Great point, and I had the same issues in looking at the data. I thought that the pre-Harbaugh recruiting classes must have been amongst the worst in the power 5 because none of those teams had .500 records. But that's not the case. The most extreme example: the 2006 team was 1-10, yet the 2002-2005 recruiting classes--I never assume too much contribution from true freshmen--were ranked 26th, 41st, 35th and 29th. That's middle of the road for a power 5 school, so 1-10 can't be explained by poor recruiting. On the other hand, Harbaugh's Orange Bowl team (2010) season was powered by the recruiting classes from 2006-2009. Those classes were ranked 56th, 49th, 48th and 20th. And that team was 12-1! And remember that my rankings are based on average stars per commit, so quantity is not an issue.
So I didn't try to set performance expectations based on recruiting from the past 20 years. I just used the data from the Shaw era to try to generate reasonable expectations for Shaw's teams in terms of recruiting and wins-losses, without stating that the correlation between the two is terribly high. I think that 10 years should be enough data for such an analysis, but maybe my method is too crude.
One thing I didn't mention before but was on my mind: these expectations based on median data are probably the highest for any Stanford coach since WW II.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »