[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordrivals/status/1597819271232430080?s=46&t=L0exzNtasJzSADs2dd3aKQ[/tweet]

Good luck; no idea how he’ll do.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordrivals/status/1597819271232430080?s=46&t=L0exzNtasJzSADs2dd3aKQ[/tweet]

Good luck; no idea how he’ll do.

BC

[msqueri]

Unsurprising. Arguably the highest draft stock of any Stanford player. But it's disappointing. He never performed fully up to his athletic ability IMHO and at a program without a culture of leaving could have had a plausible case to come back to improve draft stock. Yet another Stanford player leaving eligibility on the table to be a Day 2 or Day 3 draft pick. As for the team, the 2023 secondary continues to take hits. If Kelly stays in the draft and McGill stays in the portal that's now four of Stanford's five starters (Williamson and Fields out of eligibility) now gone, with Bonner the only shoe we're waiting to drop to make it a complete gutting of the secondary. Again, I think many of us have seen this attrition on the wall all season but that doesn't make it any less notable when it happens. Full rebuild in the secondary.

P.S. I've been curious all year what the heck the story's been with Wyrick. If McGill's gone I now become obsessed with that question.

[msqueri]

Unsurprising. Arguably the highest draft stock of any Stanford player. But it's disappointing. He never performed fully up to his athletic ability IMHO and at a program without a culture of leaving could have had a plausible case to come back to improve draft stock. Yet another Stanford player leaving eligibility on the table to be a Day 2 or Day 3 draft pick. As for the team, the 2023 secondary continues to take hits. If Kelly stays in the draft and McGill stays in the portal that's now four of Stanford's five starters (Williamson and Fields out of eligibility) now gone, with Bonner the only shoe we're waiting to drop to make it a complete gutting of the secondary. Again, I think many of us have seen this attrition on the wall all season but that doesn't make it any less notable when it happens. Full rebuild in the secondary.

P.S. I've been curious all year what the heck the story's been with Wyrick. If McGill's gone I now become obsessed with that question.

[SamuelMcF]

P.S. I've been curious all year what the heck the story's been with Wyrick. If McGill's gone I now become obsessed with that question.

99% sure he played in 4 games then we held him out to redshirt.

[SamuelMcF]

P.S. I've been curious all year what the heck the story's been with Wyrick. If McGill's gone I now become obsessed with that question.

99% sure he played in 4 games then we held him out to redshirt.

[msqueri]

P.S. I've been curious all year what the heck the story's been with Wyrick. If McGill's gone I now become obsessed with that question.

99% sure he played in 4 games then we held him out to redshirt.

Yes, I think that's Occam's Razor. Just odd that it was never discussed and nobody even asked. Only at Stanford can the reigning starting nickel back be a complete irrelevance on the football team and nobody thinks to ask.

Also somewhat odd to see strategic redshirting decisions when we are so cavalier generally (see Ashton Daniels, Jason Thompson, Mudia Reuben, Sam Roush, CJ Hawkins, Scotty Edwards) and when players rarely stay at Stanford five years anymore. Wyrick's redshirt is likely to benefit some other school (or at least would have been the case under the new regime, hopefully a new coach can build some loyalty and team spirit).

[msqueri]

P.S. I've been curious all year what the heck the story's been with Wyrick. If McGill's gone I now become obsessed with that question.

99% sure he played in 4 games then we held him out to redshirt.

Yes, I think that's Occam's Razor. Just odd that it was never discussed and nobody even asked. Only at Stanford can the reigning starting nickel back be a complete irrelevance on the football team and nobody thinks to ask.

Also somewhat odd to see strategic redshirting decisions when we are so cavalier generally (see Ashton Daniels, Jason Thompson, Mudia Reuben, Sam Roush, CJ Hawkins, Scotty Edwards) and when players rarely stay at Stanford five years anymore. Wyrick's redshirt is likely to benefit some other school (or at least would have been the case under the new regime, hopefully a new coach can build some loyalty and team spirit).

[Spiny_Norman]

This news is not a surprise since KBK weeks ago accepted an invitation to play in the Senior Bowl which clearly communicated his intention to leave.

Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have also accepted Senior Bowl invites. I guess it is possible for them to withdraw their acceptances. But they are probably gone as well.

[Spiny_Norman]

This news is not a surprise since KBK weeks ago accepted an invitation to play in the Senior Bowl which clearly communicated his intention to leave.

Michael Wilson and Elijah Higgins have also accepted Senior Bowl invites. I guess it is possible for them to withdraw their acceptances. But they are probably gone as well.

[BostonCard]

I agree with you; why redshirt someone who can help you.  To be fair, we did return pretty much everyone in the defensive backfield from last season and added a graduate transfer. However, even if we only used him in dime formations, that is more help for Stanford than if he redshirts and grad-transfers out.

At this point, I'm thinking the only reasons to redshirt a player are a) they are injured or b) there can't crack the two deep (accounting for injuries).  And in the case of b, these are sometimes going to be players not invited back for a fifth year anyways, unless they demonstrate exceptional development.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree with you; why redshirt someone who can help you.  To be fair, we did return pretty much everyone in the defensive backfield from last season and added a graduate transfer. However, even if we only used him in dime formations, that is more help for Stanford than if he redshirts and grad-transfers out.

At this point, I'm thinking the only reasons to redshirt a player are a) they are injured or b) there can't crack the two deep (accounting for injuries).  And in the case of b, these are sometimes going to be players not invited back for a fifth year anyways, unless they demonstrate exceptional development.

BC

[SamuelMcF]

I agree with you; why redshirt someone who can help you.  To be fair, we did return pretty much everyone in the defensive backfield from last season and added a graduate transfer. However, even if we only used him in dime formations, that is more help for Stanford than if he redshirts and grad-transfers out.

Counterpoint: no it's not. He will have 2 more years here regardless, and then have the choice to leave or not. He will ALWAYS have had those 2 more years here. Either he plays sparingly and only has those 2 more years, OR he doesn't play, has those 2 more years, then could possibly have a fifth.

Also, we almost never ran dime.

[SamuelMcF]

I agree with you; why redshirt someone who can help you.  To be fair, we did return pretty much everyone in the defensive backfield from last season and added a graduate transfer. However, even if we only used him in dime formations, that is more help for Stanford than if he redshirts and grad-transfers out.

Counterpoint: no it's not. He will have 2 more years here regardless, and then have the choice to leave or not. He will ALWAYS have had those 2 more years here. Either he plays sparingly and only has those 2 more years, OR he doesn't play, has those 2 more years, then could possibly have a fifth.

Also, we almost never ran dime.

[Phogge]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

[Phogge]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

[82lsju]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

he appears to have graduated in four years...

[82lsju]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

he appears to have graduated in four years...

[Phogge]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

he appears to have graduated in four years...

OK. He redshirted his soph year. So if he graduated in June of 1970 then he must have been pursuing a post grad degree in the Fall as he played his Voldemort season.

So when did the academic plan that students had to submit start?

[Phogge]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

he appears to have graduated in four years...

OK. He redshirted his soph year. So if he graduated in June of 1970 then he must have been pursuing a post grad degree in the Fall as he played his Voldemort season.

So when did the academic plan that students had to submit start?

[JohnR34231]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

I knew football guys that were around for five years in the Plunkett era and I'm reasonably sure they didn't have to file a plan. At least if they did, they never talked about it.

[JohnR34231]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

I knew football guys that were around for five years in the Plunkett era and I'm reasonably sure they didn't have to file a plan. At least if they did, they never talked about it.

[Goose]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

I knew football guys that were around for five years in the Plunkett era and I'm reasonably sure they didn't have to file a plan. At least if they did, they never talked about it.

Plunkett had a serious thyroid tumor removed his freshman year. I am pretty sure that would have generated a reason for slower academic progress and an extra year, if such were required. As I recall, the way the system worked back then was that you had to get your advisor to sign your course list each fall quarter (every quarter as a freshman). This was designed to make sure you were "making satisfactory progress towards a degree". It was usually a pretty perfunctory process and I am pretty sure my advisor didn't look at my transcript to see how I actually was doing. If you weren't "on schedule" to graduate on time (because you actually failed too many courses, which today is of course impossible :-), you and your advisor both got a computer notice and things did get messy. OTOH, if you had enough units to graduate and didn't apply to do so, when you showed up for year five you and you advisor "would have some 'splaining" to do. They were supposed to get you out in four years, and if they didn't it was a problem for both you and your advisor. However, if your advisor was supportive, it might have gone through OK. I don't know because I never knew anybody who did it. Stanford was expensive enough (even then) that few would spend the money if it was avoidable. Most scholarships also were for four years, though not all. Athletic scholarships were probably a different matter.

There was another thing in play at the time, namely the draft. Originally you could be 2S for an indeterminate number of years. When it became obvious that was encouraging people to stay in school just to avoid the draft, the rules were changed to say you could be 2S for only four years, or five years if you were in an accredited program that required five years. Guess when co-terminal programs were invented? Originally, getting admitted to a PhD program was a deferment basically for life, but that too changed. Eventually you had to take your chances after five years in college, max.

[Goose]

Did Jim Plunkett have to file a plan to graduate in five years or is that something new from the “No Fun” Stanford administration?

At State you could take 20 years if you wanted. Just pay the $31 registration fee. Our conference was infamous for guys playing six or seven years. Nobody cared. Nobody checked.

I knew football guys that were around for five years in the Plunkett era and I'm reasonably sure they didn't have to file a plan. At least if they did, they never talked about it.

Plunkett had a serious thyroid tumor removed his freshman year. I am pretty sure that would have generated a reason for slower academic progress and an extra year, if such were required. As I recall, the way the system worked back then was that you had to get your advisor to sign your course list each fall quarter (every quarter as a freshman). This was designed to make sure you were "making satisfactory progress towards a degree". It was usually a pretty perfunctory process and I am pretty sure my advisor didn't look at my transcript to see how I actually was doing. If you weren't "on schedule" to graduate on time (because you actually failed too many courses, which today is of course impossible :-), you and your advisor both got a computer notice and things did get messy. OTOH, if you had enough units to graduate and didn't apply to do so, when you showed up for year five you and you advisor "would have some 'splaining" to do. They were supposed to get you out in four years, and if they didn't it was a problem for both you and your advisor. However, if your advisor was supportive, it might have gone through OK. I don't know because I never knew anybody who did it. Stanford was expensive enough (even then) that few would spend the money if it was avoidable. Most scholarships also were for four years, though not all. Athletic scholarships were probably a different matter.

There was another thing in play at the time, namely the draft. Originally you could be 2S for an indeterminate number of years. When it became obvious that was encouraging people to stay in school just to avoid the draft, the rules were changed to say you could be 2S for only four years, or five years if you were in an accredited program that required five years. Guess when co-terminal programs were invented? Originally, getting admitted to a PhD program was a deferment basically for life, but that too changed. Eventually you had to take your chances after five years in college, max.

[BostonCard]

I don't think there was a requirement for an academic plan in the mid-90's.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't think there was a requirement for an academic plan in the mid-90's.

BC

[footandballtorture]

Bonner will be gone afte this year as well unfortunately, we are 5/5.

Unsurprising. Arguably the highest draft stock of any Stanford player. But it's disappointing. He never performed fully up to his athletic ability IMHO and at a program without a culture of leaving could have had a plausible case to come back to improve draft stock. Yet another Stanford player leaving eligibility on the table to be a Day 2 or Day 3 draft pick. As for the team, the 2023 secondary continues to take hits. If Kelly stays in the draft and McGill stays in the portal that's now four of Stanford's five starters (Williamson and Fields out of eligibility) now gone, with Bonner the only shoe we're waiting to drop to make it a complete gutting of the secondary. Again, I think many of us have seen this attrition on the wall all season but that doesn't make it any less notable when it happens. Full rebuild in the secondary.

P.S. I've been curious all year what the heck the story's been with Wyrick. If McGill's gone I now become obsessed with that question.

[footandballtorture]

Bonner will be gone afte this year as well unfortunately, we are 5/5.

Unsurprising. Arguably the highest draft stock of any Stanford player. But it's disappointing. He never performed fully up to his athletic ability IMHO and at a program without a culture of leaving could have had a plausible case to come back to improve draft stock. Yet another Stanford player leaving eligibility on the table to be a Day 2 or Day 3 draft pick. As for the team, the 2023 secondary continues to take hits. If Kelly stays in the draft and McGill stays in the portal that's now four of Stanford's five starters (Williamson and Fields out of eligibility) now gone, with Bonner the only shoe we're waiting to drop to make it a complete gutting of the secondary. Again, I think many of us have seen this attrition on the wall all season but that doesn't make it any less notable when it happens. Full rebuild in the secondary.

P.S. I've been curious all year what the heck the story's been with Wyrick. If McGill's gone I now become obsessed with that question.

[Farm93]

Next year will be challenging for the team, and the next 6 months will be rough.

There will be a new head coach and presumably a new system.
The remaining staff presumably will be looking for opportunities outside of Stanford. 
Most players that were on the fence about going pro before Shaw's announcement now are likely to test those waters.
Loads of players can use the portal and will certainly get a look if they leave.   Many of them were 3 or 4 star athletes.  For schools that many have lost players to the portal at the same position the Stanford students will be great gets.   That staff can anticipate they will know they have kids that will not struggle academically, they will be smart enough to learn the system quickly. Presumably some will even follow their position coach if they leave.

And sadly the team finished in last place in the Pac-12, so that would have created some transfer portal activity too. 

These days the departures in situations like this are a given and are not unique to Stanford 2022.

However, at other places a new coach could jump onto the portal and load up on as many transfers as possible.   The future Stanford hire won't get that opportunity.

At less desirable places where the portal game might be challenging, the coach could at least quickly add more HS recruits or load up on the best JuCo talent.   Those too are not available to a Stanford staff.

Those challenges will be good for the new coach to experience and consider because the one-way portal and rather limited opportunity for NIL fame (if not fortune) for most of the players are going to be a part of the job.

[Farm93]

Next year will be challenging for the team, and the next 6 months will be rough.

There will be a new head coach and presumably a new system.
The remaining staff presumably will be looking for opportunities outside of Stanford. 
Most players that were on the fence about going pro before Shaw's announcement now are likely to test those waters.
Loads of players can use the portal and will certainly get a look if they leave.   Many of them were 3 or 4 star athletes.  For schools that many have lost players to the portal at the same position the Stanford students will be great gets.   That staff can anticipate they will know they have kids that will not struggle academically, they will be smart enough to learn the system quickly. Presumably some will even follow their position coach if they leave.

And sadly the team finished in last place in the Pac-12, so that would have created some transfer portal activity too. 

These days the departures in situations like this are a given and are not unique to Stanford 2022.

However, at other places a new coach could jump onto the portal and load up on as many transfers as possible.   The future Stanford hire won't get that opportunity.

At less desirable places where the portal game might be challenging, the coach could at least quickly add more HS recruits or load up on the best JuCo talent.   Those too are not available to a Stanford staff.

Those challenges will be good for the new coach to experience and consider because the one-way portal and rather limited opportunity for NIL fame (if not fortune) for most of the players are going to be a part of the job.

[Mick]

Next year will be challenging for the team, and the next 6 months will be rough.

There will be a new head coach and presumably a new system.
The remaining staff presumably will be looking for opportunities outside of Stanford. 
Most players that were on the fence about going pro before Shaw's announcement now are likely to test those waters.
Loads of players can use the portal and will certainly get a look if they leave.   Many of them were 3 or 4 star athletes.  For schools that many have lost players to the portal at the same position the Stanford students will be great gets.   That staff can anticipate they will know they have kids that will not struggle academically, they will be smart enough to learn the system quickly. Presumably some will even follow their position coach if they leave.

And sadly the team finished in last place in the Pac-12, so that would have created some transfer portal activity too. 

These days the departures in situations like this are a given and are not unique to Stanford 2022.

However, at other places a new coach could jump onto the portal and load up on as many transfers as possible.   The future Stanford hire won't get that opportunity.

At less desirable places where the portal game might be challenging, the coach could at least quickly add more HS recruits or load up on the best JuCo talent.   Those too are not available to a Stanford staff.

Those challenges will be good for the new coach to experience and consider because the one-way portal and rather limited opportunity for NIL fame (if not fortune) for most of the players are going to be a part of the job.

I would have to wonder how attractive our players -- from a last place team -- would be to teams seeking transfers. Wouldn't our transferring players realize that they would be occupying last-string positions, basically as practice players on good teams, or moving to less-acadmically qualified institutions on bad teams? Would our departing stars think they could leave and start for USC, Michigan or Notre Dame?

[Mick]

Next year will be challenging for the team, and the next 6 months will be rough.

There will be a new head coach and presumably a new system.
The remaining staff presumably will be looking for opportunities outside of Stanford. 
Most players that were on the fence about going pro before Shaw's announcement now are likely to test those waters.
Loads of players can use the portal and will certainly get a look if they leave.   Many of them were 3 or 4 star athletes.  For schools that many have lost players to the portal at the same position the Stanford students will be great gets.   That staff can anticipate they will know they have kids that will not struggle academically, they will be smart enough to learn the system quickly. Presumably some will even follow their position coach if they leave.

And sadly the team finished in last place in the Pac-12, so that would have created some transfer portal activity too. 

These days the departures in situations like this are a given and are not unique to Stanford 2022.

However, at other places a new coach could jump onto the portal and load up on as many transfers as possible.   The future Stanford hire won't get that opportunity.

At less desirable places where the portal game might be challenging, the coach could at least quickly add more HS recruits or load up on the best JuCo talent.   Those too are not available to a Stanford staff.

Those challenges will be good for the new coach to experience and consider because the one-way portal and rather limited opportunity for NIL fame (if not fortune) for most of the players are going to be a part of the job.

I would have to wonder how attractive our players -- from a last place team -- would be to teams seeking transfers. Wouldn't our transferring players realize that they would be occupying last-string positions, basically as practice players on good teams, or moving to less-acadmically qualified institutions on bad teams? Would our departing stars think they could leave and start for USC, Michigan or Notre Dame?

[BostonCard]

It worked out alright for Austin Jones.

I guess some of it is predicated on players saying that they were misused or held back by the clueless Stanford coaches.

BC

[BostonCard]

It worked out alright for Austin Jones.

I guess some of it is predicated on players saying that they were misused or held back by the clueless Stanford coaches.

BC

[msqueri]

Yes, that’s part of it. But there are also Stanford players who played at levels plenty of quality teams would want. I view Nugent, Bailey, McKee, Rouse, McGill, Cooper, Bonner, and Herron all as legitimate transfer prospects. I think they all could start or a lot of quality programs. Nugent, Bailey, and Cooper are probably the only ones who would play at top programs, but there are a lot of programs between us and the top dogs.

[msqueri]

Yes, that’s part of it. But there are also Stanford players who played at levels plenty of quality teams would want. I view Nugent, Bailey, McKee, Rouse, McGill, Cooper, Bonner, and Herron all as legitimate transfer prospects. I think they all could start or a lot of quality programs. Nugent, Bailey, and Cooper are probably the only ones who would play at top programs, but there are a lot of programs between us and the top dogs.

[Farm93]

It worked out alright for Austin Jones.

I guess some of it is predicated on players saying that they were misused or held back by the clueless Stanford coaches.

BC

And given the coach just resigned I would think they would have a very credible argument.

The alternatives this late in the recruiting cycle will be lightly recruited JuCos or players in the transfer portal with coach, system or college problems.   So a three or four star recruit that attended Stanford would be a viable option, for a team with a specific need.

Any December portal player will have negatives, but some Stanford players can offer positives for a coach seeking to address specific needs.

The bigger takeaway is that a coaching change generates loads of transfer portal interest.   That's not unique to Stanford.  

What is unique to Stanford is that the new coach will not be able to harness the power of the portal which was a key component for many of those first year coaches around FBS that managed their turnaround stories in 2022.  So I full expect in 2023 there will be other new hires that do a much better job at turning their programs around than the new Stanford coach.

For Stanford, even if the coach is amazing, the reset process will require a lot more patience because Stanford is not going to use the portal like USC did after the 2021 season.

[Farm93]

It worked out alright for Austin Jones.

I guess some of it is predicated on players saying that they were misused or held back by the clueless Stanford coaches.

BC

And given the coach just resigned I would think they would have a very credible argument.

The alternatives this late in the recruiting cycle will be lightly recruited JuCos or players in the transfer portal with coach, system or college problems.   So a three or four star recruit that attended Stanford would be a viable option, for a team with a specific need.

Any December portal player will have negatives, but some Stanford players can offer positives for a coach seeking to address specific needs.

The bigger takeaway is that a coaching change generates loads of transfer portal interest.   That's not unique to Stanford.  

What is unique to Stanford is that the new coach will not be able to harness the power of the portal which was a key component for many of those first year coaches around FBS that managed their turnaround stories in 2022.  So I full expect in 2023 there will be other new hires that do a much better job at turning their programs around than the new Stanford coach.

For Stanford, even if the coach is amazing, the reset process will require a lot more patience because Stanford is not going to use the portal like USC did after the 2021 season.