[newguy]

I saw just a few offensive and defensive linemen among the new signees. Apparently any significant infusion of OL and DL talent will come from the group of 11 being pursued to enter via the portal.

2 of our 4 OL recruits decommited.

To go where, and how strong were they?

Siosiua Vete is a 3-star who signed with BYU
and Vaea Ikakoula is a 3-star who signed with Iowa State.
https://247sports.com/college/stanford/s...decommits/

[newguy]

I saw just a few offensive and defensive linemen among the new signees. Apparently any significant infusion of OL and DL talent will come from the group of 11 being pursued to enter via the portal.

2 of our 4 OL recruits decommited.

To go where, and how strong were they?

Siosiua Vete is a 3-star who signed with BYU
and Vaea Ikakoula is a 3-star who signed with Iowa State.
https://247sports.com/college/stanford/s...decommits/

[chrisk]

Taylor said they are working with 11 transfers to recruit and get them admitted mid-year.

I hate that this is just a part of doing business in college football today.  I support players' right to transfer, just as I do any student.  But there is a real problem when Stanford might take 25 transfers through regular pathways, and half that number just for football.  like, are we pretending that this is anything other than "free agency" any more?

BC

No, nobody is pretending it is anything other than free agency. The "working with" statement could mean many things. It could mean that some of these transfers are undecided. It could also mean they are not yet "admitted". Some of them could also be grad transfers. A bit of uncertainty remains. If Stanford admits 11 undergraduate transfers for football alone I will be very surprised. The number of transfers this year may be more than 25. It could be double that. Still, athletes being 22% of the transfer class would be "high". Not crazy high, but atypical. One also has to consider transfers in other sports.

A couple of points that Taylor made about transfers:

Stanford has had to speed up its process so it can turn around the recruiting of transfers in less than 48 hours (he didn't specify where admissions fit into the process)

Stanford has data on many potential transfers from when they were in the high school recruiting pool. That can help in determining who to pursue and the chances of success.

He said that currently graduates are in the transfer portal, with undergrads being able to enter next week.

---

for 2023-24 Stanford admitted 67 transfers and enrolled 58, which is an increase from the recent past when the number was as you recalled ~25 (and in some year 10-15)

https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/up...nal_v2.pdf

back in the day (when I transferred in) my class (class of '82, I transferred in fall of 1979) ended up with ~200 transfers in total so a little over 10% of total '82 undergraduates (~1800), most appeared to arrive between winter quarter of their frosh year (so yes one quarter elsewhere (so I'm guessing a "late" acceptance as a transfer) through the beginning of junior year).  I don't know what the transfer out rate was then.

The transfer numbers bounce around a lot, depending on a host of factors.  But I do wonder if the recent numbers are inflated due to trends in the number of transfer athletes admitted (football, of course, but women's basketball had two, and I am sure others did too).

Regardless, since athletes make up 12% of the student body, you would expect that proportionally you'd wind up with around 7/62 transfers being athletes.

BC

In the 2021-23 range, there would have been downward pressure on the number of transfers, because of the students who took leaves during COVID and then came back to finish. That pressure should be pretty much complete now.

[chrisk]

Taylor said they are working with 11 transfers to recruit and get them admitted mid-year.

I hate that this is just a part of doing business in college football today.  I support players' right to transfer, just as I do any student.  But there is a real problem when Stanford might take 25 transfers through regular pathways, and half that number just for football.  like, are we pretending that this is anything other than "free agency" any more?

BC

No, nobody is pretending it is anything other than free agency. The "working with" statement could mean many things. It could mean that some of these transfers are undecided. It could also mean they are not yet "admitted". Some of them could also be grad transfers. A bit of uncertainty remains. If Stanford admits 11 undergraduate transfers for football alone I will be very surprised. The number of transfers this year may be more than 25. It could be double that. Still, athletes being 22% of the transfer class would be "high". Not crazy high, but atypical. One also has to consider transfers in other sports.

A couple of points that Taylor made about transfers:

Stanford has had to speed up its process so it can turn around the recruiting of transfers in less than 48 hours (he didn't specify where admissions fit into the process)

Stanford has data on many potential transfers from when they were in the high school recruiting pool. That can help in determining who to pursue and the chances of success.

He said that currently graduates are in the transfer portal, with undergrads being able to enter next week.

---

for 2023-24 Stanford admitted 67 transfers and enrolled 58, which is an increase from the recent past when the number was as you recalled ~25 (and in some year 10-15)

https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/up...nal_v2.pdf

back in the day (when I transferred in) my class (class of '82, I transferred in fall of 1979) ended up with ~200 transfers in total so a little over 10% of total '82 undergraduates (~1800), most appeared to arrive between winter quarter of their frosh year (so yes one quarter elsewhere (so I'm guessing a "late" acceptance as a transfer) through the beginning of junior year).  I don't know what the transfer out rate was then.

The transfer numbers bounce around a lot, depending on a host of factors.  But I do wonder if the recent numbers are inflated due to trends in the number of transfer athletes admitted (football, of course, but women's basketball had two, and I am sure others did too).

Regardless, since athletes make up 12% of the student body, you would expect that proportionally you'd wind up with around 7/62 transfers being athletes.

BC

In the 2021-23 range, there would have been downward pressure on the number of transfers, because of the students who took leaves during COVID and then came back to finish. That pressure should be pretty much complete now.

[CompSci87]

I edited a few posts to fix the quoting.

[CompSci87]

I edited a few posts to fix the quoting.

[msqueri]

Reactions:

* It's an odd feeling to be coming off of yet another three win season and sign the #45 class in the country and to be in this good of a mood. This Signing Day feels like hope with the after glow of the Luck announcement and the eyebrow-raising mention of working on 11 mid-year transfers. There's hope and I agree with those who felt the pep in Taylor's step/wind in his sails seemed palpable today.

* Understandably/predictably Taylor was upbeat in describing the class. It can be no other way. Usually I would throw some shade at such descriptions for the #45 class in the country by 247 composite and #47 by 247 industry rankings but the possibility of a much more competitive off-season in the transfer portal softens the blow quite a bit. My dismay at a mid-40s recruiting class was in large part because in 2023 our #44 recruiting class was #59 in the overall rankings when transfers were added in and in 2024 our #31 recruiting class was #49 in the overall rankings when transfers were added in, to say nothing of the outgoing transfer attrition that gutted us one of those years. That led me to think that being #45 or #47 this year was a recipe for struggling to crack the top 60 in the actual analysis. If we bring in 11 transfers, especially if some/many of them are good, it could end up being the case that our overall recruiting for 2025 is much more mediocre than it is bad. That would be encouraging.

* For all the class' shortcomings, I am very excited about Hall (and think WR more broadly remains a strength of our pipeline, including Thorpe), relieved to inject Bachmeier into the competition, and especially happy we brought in a handful of guys in the trenches and front seven I think are solid and probably underrated. I don't like the volume over several years at OL, though that is mitigated if we deliver in the transfer portal annually (obviously a big if), and really don't like the state of Stanford DB recruiting, but it could end up being an ok class.

* Taylor really emphasized the class being well-rounded. Mostly agree, though obviously no running backs (fine given last year's haul) and three is probably the bare minimum for OL to think you are adding roundedness. One of the things I'm wondering about but haven't thought deeply enough is how to think about the volume of players overall. It is just so discombobulating to be in this transitional period with the House settlement, removal of traditional approach to 85 scholarships, etc. Part of me wants to count roster spots based on anticipated attrition/transfer portal, incoming recruits, and 11 potential transfers and get a sense of how big of a roster we will have.....but I have no earthly idea what to expect from our competition when the dust settles. It seems like buckle up time. I guess the way to think about it now is to control what you can control, which means thoughtful and intensive efforts to retain the players who most need to be retained and to go out and get the best guys you possibly can with the apparent 11 transfer slots.

* Slight intrigue that Taylor said one corner and three safeties when the release said two and two. Only slight intrigue as I'm in show me mode for all the DBs but especially the potential corners (Garland and McAllister).

* Taylor seems excited about Bachmeier. Again one of those things where it wouldn't/couldn't be any other way, but certainly there is lots to like. I remain deeply intrigued by the profound stylistic difference between Brown and Bachmeier. As I said at the time of commitment, "if we thought from the Brown recruitment that Taylor would stick to a type in getting a cool, calm, and collected game manager to be accurate and distribute, I think Bachmeier confounds that. Bear is not those things as much as he's a frenetic, physically imposing off-platform improvisor. This will be an interesting competition." With Daniels now gone and Taylor's demonstrated proclivity to build in QB running packages/platoons at multiple different schools, there seems to be a fair likelihood we will see ways to incorporate both at some point. The wildcard for me is bringing in a transfer QB, which I would guess we will do. Will be interesting to see what level we go for. I have a couple of guys in mind but am eager to see what plays out.

* Interesting to hear Taylor say he is "disappointed" Daniels is transferring. That is not dispositive in suggesting it was something we tried to avoid - certainly one would expect a classy and positive answer in public - but maybe tilts in the direction of Daniels looking for greener grass rather than other theories. Still think multiple factors/psychologies could be in play here though.

* The Luck talk was heavy on his football role. It will take time to get a sense of how much of the role is football and how much is business but from this press conference the message seems to come through loud and clear that Luck is a pro style GM responsible for directing the roster and its construction. This reinforces the idea a fair amount of football control is being taken from Taylor and transferred to Luck. Taylor really said as much that he would now be focused on team culture and the offense. For those who doubted that Luck would run recruiting and roster construction I think you should take note of this. Subjectively, Taylor conveyed/emoted all of the gracious things and one can't really pick up any resentment over this development. Still, one can't help but marvel at a major college football head coach being explicitly removed from running the program. Really uncharted (and I think fascinating and pretty exciting) waters here.

* The extremely long answer to the question about Stanford's value proposition in the new landscape was one of the most interesting Stanford press conference moments of all time. From 8:18 to 11:24 of the video Taylor waxed poetic on this, giving an astoundingly positive answer compared to how he has talked about this topic for two years. As others have noted, it's like a brobdingnagian weight has been lifted from him and he feels he can now compete, like he had been kind of grimly soldiering through a scenario he didn't see much hope in and now feels energized to take on the landscape. Really a remarkable change in public posture, which matches the vibes those of us who love the program are hearing/feeling since Saturday.

* That answer was heavier on the unique Stanford value proposition than on the challenges of the landscape. Probably a window into how we will continue to try to position ourselves in NIL value propositions. To the extent Taylor did talk about challenges, it was very much past tense in the context of mid-year transfers and post-baccs being essential features of current college football and those now being areas we are ready to compete. Both of those phrases - "mid-year" and "post-bacc" - were repeatedly raised. Also interesting to hear how Taylor thinks about this as the key to immediately competing. After two years of a clear slow rebuild patient vibe, he's flipped a switch to talking about SMU's immediate ACC relevance, not as a lament we can't match but as an example of why the changes we're making can help us compete quickly. Astounding for those who've listened to him the last two years. Part of me wonders if the immediacy talk reflects increased pressure on him to perform next year with a new GM and a new president and two years of failure to start his Stanford tenure. Maybe, or maybe it's just infectious enthusiasm from the things we've rolled out/decided to be in a better position to compete.

[msqueri]

Reactions:

* It's an odd feeling to be coming off of yet another three win season and sign the #45 class in the country and to be in this good of a mood. This Signing Day feels like hope with the after glow of the Luck announcement and the eyebrow-raising mention of working on 11 mid-year transfers. There's hope and I agree with those who felt the pep in Taylor's step/wind in his sails seemed palpable today.

* Understandably/predictably Taylor was upbeat in describing the class. It can be no other way. Usually I would throw some shade at such descriptions for the #45 class in the country by 247 composite and #47 by 247 industry rankings but the possibility of a much more competitive off-season in the transfer portal softens the blow quite a bit. My dismay at a mid-40s recruiting class was in large part because in 2023 our #44 recruiting class was #59 in the overall rankings when transfers were added in and in 2024 our #31 recruiting class was #49 in the overall rankings when transfers were added in, to say nothing of the outgoing transfer attrition that gutted us one of those years. That led me to think that being #45 or #47 this year was a recipe for struggling to crack the top 60 in the actual analysis. If we bring in 11 transfers, especially if some/many of them are good, it could end up being the case that our overall recruiting for 2025 is much more mediocre than it is bad. That would be encouraging.

* For all the class' shortcomings, I am very excited about Hall (and think WR more broadly remains a strength of our pipeline, including Thorpe), relieved to inject Bachmeier into the competition, and especially happy we brought in a handful of guys in the trenches and front seven I think are solid and probably underrated. I don't like the volume over several years at OL, though that is mitigated if we deliver in the transfer portal annually (obviously a big if), and really don't like the state of Stanford DB recruiting, but it could end up being an ok class.

* Taylor really emphasized the class being well-rounded. Mostly agree, though obviously no running backs (fine given last year's haul) and three is probably the bare minimum for OL to think you are adding roundedness. One of the things I'm wondering about but haven't thought deeply enough is how to think about the volume of players overall. It is just so discombobulating to be in this transitional period with the House settlement, removal of traditional approach to 85 scholarships, etc. Part of me wants to count roster spots based on anticipated attrition/transfer portal, incoming recruits, and 11 potential transfers and get a sense of how big of a roster we will have.....but I have no earthly idea what to expect from our competition when the dust settles. It seems like buckle up time. I guess the way to think about it now is to control what you can control, which means thoughtful and intensive efforts to retain the players who most need to be retained and to go out and get the best guys you possibly can with the apparent 11 transfer slots.

* Slight intrigue that Taylor said one corner and three safeties when the release said two and two. Only slight intrigue as I'm in show me mode for all the DBs but especially the potential corners (Garland and McAllister).

* Taylor seems excited about Bachmeier. Again one of those things where it wouldn't/couldn't be any other way, but certainly there is lots to like. I remain deeply intrigued by the profound stylistic difference between Brown and Bachmeier. As I said at the time of commitment, "if we thought from the Brown recruitment that Taylor would stick to a type in getting a cool, calm, and collected game manager to be accurate and distribute, I think Bachmeier confounds that. Bear is not those things as much as he's a frenetic, physically imposing off-platform improvisor. This will be an interesting competition." With Daniels now gone and Taylor's demonstrated proclivity to build in QB running packages/platoons at multiple different schools, there seems to be a fair likelihood we will see ways to incorporate both at some point. The wildcard for me is bringing in a transfer QB, which I would guess we will do. Will be interesting to see what level we go for. I have a couple of guys in mind but am eager to see what plays out.

* Interesting to hear Taylor say he is "disappointed" Daniels is transferring. That is not dispositive in suggesting it was something we tried to avoid - certainly one would expect a classy and positive answer in public - but maybe tilts in the direction of Daniels looking for greener grass rather than other theories. Still think multiple factors/psychologies could be in play here though.

* The Luck talk was heavy on his football role. It will take time to get a sense of how much of the role is football and how much is business but from this press conference the message seems to come through loud and clear that Luck is a pro style GM responsible for directing the roster and its construction. This reinforces the idea a fair amount of football control is being taken from Taylor and transferred to Luck. Taylor really said as much that he would now be focused on team culture and the offense. For those who doubted that Luck would run recruiting and roster construction I think you should take note of this. Subjectively, Taylor conveyed/emoted all of the gracious things and one can't really pick up any resentment over this development. Still, one can't help but marvel at a major college football head coach being explicitly removed from running the program. Really uncharted (and I think fascinating and pretty exciting) waters here.

* The extremely long answer to the question about Stanford's value proposition in the new landscape was one of the most interesting Stanford press conference moments of all time. From 8:18 to 11:24 of the video Taylor waxed poetic on this, giving an astoundingly positive answer compared to how he has talked about this topic for two years. As others have noted, it's like a brobdingnagian weight has been lifted from him and he feels he can now compete, like he had been kind of grimly soldiering through a scenario he didn't see much hope in and now feels energized to take on the landscape. Really a remarkable change in public posture, which matches the vibes those of us who love the program are hearing/feeling since Saturday.

* That answer was heavier on the unique Stanford value proposition than on the challenges of the landscape. Probably a window into how we will continue to try to position ourselves in NIL value propositions. To the extent Taylor did talk about challenges, it was very much past tense in the context of mid-year transfers and post-baccs being essential features of current college football and those now being areas we are ready to compete. Both of those phrases - "mid-year" and "post-bacc" - were repeatedly raised. Also interesting to hear how Taylor thinks about this as the key to immediately competing. After two years of a clear slow rebuild patient vibe, he's flipped a switch to talking about SMU's immediate ACC relevance, not as a lament we can't match but as an example of why the changes we're making can help us compete quickly. Astounding for those who've listened to him the last two years. Part of me wonders if the immediacy talk reflects increased pressure on him to perform next year with a new GM and a new president and two years of failure to start his Stanford tenure. Maybe, or maybe it's just infectious enthusiasm from the things we've rolled out/decided to be in a better position to compete.

[msqueri]

* Pump the talk on needing to bring in older guys for the offensive line STRAIGHT INTO MY VEINS. This is the #1 thing I need to see from Taylor to think he has a clue about eventually turning this around. The offensive line will not compete predominated by second and third year players. Will not. We need a short-term mindset at the OL, supplemented by high school recruits we really like and develop - I am supportive of slotting in Maikkula and Pale as pieces for next year for instance - and then need to repeat a short-term mindset every year. Every year we need to think about multiple proven old guys from other schools we bring in. Just the way this position works and what is necessitated by the landscape, biology, and our own recruiting. Must do. Thrilling to hear Taylor finally stop talking about getting players to stay four years and instead tack on a reference to fifth years, to harp on post-baccs, to say we have to bring in older OL via transfers, to dismiss a question on Williams and Ugorji's relevance in the near-term because we don't want to be throwing true freshmen OL into trial by fire like we did with House (and Taylor didn't mention but we also did it the previous year with Pale and Baklenko). I have been wanting to hear this from Shaw and now Taylor for years. Our decline into a crater has so obviously been impacted by the complete shitshow our OL has been ever since Dalman and Sarell played their last game four years ago and I have been screaming on these boards for the university to realize it and do something about it. Looking forward to news breaking on who these incoming OL are...

* Along similar lines, eye-opening to hear the candor (bluntness really) on OL and DB being the areas we need to improve "dramatically" and get competition. We all know this, of course, but Taylor saying it like this is not the kind of thing he said before the season ended. I imagine the lack of bedside manner - which I imagine is even harsher in private - may not be producing the most happy OL and DB rooms right now. But we do need to improve these groups and in both cases salvation, if it exists, clearly lies on the transfer path rather than in recruiting.

* It's a little hard to tell but I think when Taylor was talking about the OL and DB priority when he said "improve each position as well" he was referring to non-OL and DB positions. If so, I take this as being open to one transfer at pretty much every position and then to load up more at the two priorities. So, notionally, maybe something like one QB, one RB, one WR/TE, three OL, 1 DL, 1 OLB/ILB, and three DB is the ideal next month for us ("mid-year transfer" means we're expecting this to all happen before the next academic quarter, right?). That would be awesome.

* Shout out for the string of questions from Kyle diving deep on the incoming transfer thinking and process. Really a super insightful press conference and very helpful - and encouraging to hear some clear-eyed answers about timelines and academic standards and how we need to be postured. I do have to say it just to put it out in the universe and ward off bad karma from overconfidence: fingers and toes all crossed this doesn't fizzle or end up being over-promised. A lot still has to happen in the next month and then every December as long as college football is like this for us to pull this off. I sensed a smidgeon of Taylor wishing all of this into existence and I really, really hope we don't end up disappointed. Again, fingers and toes crossed.

* While I liked all the questions on incoming transfer dynamics, I would have liked to hear more about how Taylor is thinking about the names entering the transfer portal. I know it's awkward but I would have liked to get more of a window into his thinking on Daniels, Baklenko, and McLaughlin in particular but also just the overall dynamic.

* Coaches always answer enthusiastically when asked questions about specific incoming recruits so it's hard to know whether Taylor's inflections on the answer on Hall indicated excitement or super excitement or SUPER excitement. But for what it's worth, I love Hall as a recruit and can't wait to see him next year. I think he is going to immediately over-recruit people to play like Mosley did this year once healthy.

* It was really interesting to hear Taylor contextualize how highly they think of Bironas in terms of justifying carrying two scholarship kickers in one season (a rarity of course). I did not realize we were going to get a fifth year of Kenney and welcome it.

* I am so happy Levin is our president. End of thought.

* Good reminder on Yamauchi being in the class following his LDS mission. Considering my obsession with OL age, it may be nice to have Yamauchi be older than a normal third or fourth (or especially fifth!) year OL when that time comes (assuming he is still around). I think Taylor said all the right things about welcoming Yamauchi back, honoring the commitment, and valuing LDS players but I don't know, parts of that answer sounded to me like lurking behind the talking points was an old school coach with mixed views on guys going on missions. Quite possibly may be mishearing that.

* Worth noting the explicit goal to go to a bowl game next year. Not that audacious considering how many teams go to bowls but if accomplished would validate sticking with Taylor after this miserable past season (though other considerations surely played a bigger role in him remaining than actual confidence we were on the right track).

* Taylor talked about the front seven guys in the context of guys we're looking at to make a difference a few years down the line. Makes sense. Thought he had a pretty good way of juxtaposing the need for mid-year transfers who can immediately help with the need to keep building a pipeline of younger guys for the future. You do have to do both and hopefully our high school recruiting next year, with Luck's help, will be much better than we've had in recent years.

* It's good that Taylor made a point of saying we need to improve at every position. Clearly there is an immediate focus on OL and DB but the north star needs to remain relentless improvement across the board. Hopefully General Luck gets us there.

[msqueri]

* Pump the talk on needing to bring in older guys for the offensive line STRAIGHT INTO MY VEINS. This is the #1 thing I need to see from Taylor to think he has a clue about eventually turning this around. The offensive line will not compete predominated by second and third year players. Will not. We need a short-term mindset at the OL, supplemented by high school recruits we really like and develop - I am supportive of slotting in Maikkula and Pale as pieces for next year for instance - and then need to repeat a short-term mindset every year. Every year we need to think about multiple proven old guys from other schools we bring in. Just the way this position works and what is necessitated by the landscape, biology, and our own recruiting. Must do. Thrilling to hear Taylor finally stop talking about getting players to stay four years and instead tack on a reference to fifth years, to harp on post-baccs, to say we have to bring in older OL via transfers, to dismiss a question on Williams and Ugorji's relevance in the near-term because we don't want to be throwing true freshmen OL into trial by fire like we did with House (and Taylor didn't mention but we also did it the previous year with Pale and Baklenko). I have been wanting to hear this from Shaw and now Taylor for years. Our decline into a crater has so obviously been impacted by the complete shitshow our OL has been ever since Dalman and Sarell played their last game four years ago and I have been screaming on these boards for the university to realize it and do something about it. Looking forward to news breaking on who these incoming OL are...

* Along similar lines, eye-opening to hear the candor (bluntness really) on OL and DB being the areas we need to improve "dramatically" and get competition. We all know this, of course, but Taylor saying it like this is not the kind of thing he said before the season ended. I imagine the lack of bedside manner - which I imagine is even harsher in private - may not be producing the most happy OL and DB rooms right now. But we do need to improve these groups and in both cases salvation, if it exists, clearly lies on the transfer path rather than in recruiting.

* It's a little hard to tell but I think when Taylor was talking about the OL and DB priority when he said "improve each position as well" he was referring to non-OL and DB positions. If so, I take this as being open to one transfer at pretty much every position and then to load up more at the two priorities. So, notionally, maybe something like one QB, one RB, one WR/TE, three OL, 1 DL, 1 OLB/ILB, and three DB is the ideal next month for us ("mid-year transfer" means we're expecting this to all happen before the next academic quarter, right?). That would be awesome.

* Shout out for the string of questions from Kyle diving deep on the incoming transfer thinking and process. Really a super insightful press conference and very helpful - and encouraging to hear some clear-eyed answers about timelines and academic standards and how we need to be postured. I do have to say it just to put it out in the universe and ward off bad karma from overconfidence: fingers and toes all crossed this doesn't fizzle or end up being over-promised. A lot still has to happen in the next month and then every December as long as college football is like this for us to pull this off. I sensed a smidgeon of Taylor wishing all of this into existence and I really, really hope we don't end up disappointed. Again, fingers and toes crossed.

* While I liked all the questions on incoming transfer dynamics, I would have liked to hear more about how Taylor is thinking about the names entering the transfer portal. I know it's awkward but I would have liked to get more of a window into his thinking on Daniels, Baklenko, and McLaughlin in particular but also just the overall dynamic.

* Coaches always answer enthusiastically when asked questions about specific incoming recruits so it's hard to know whether Taylor's inflections on the answer on Hall indicated excitement or super excitement or SUPER excitement. But for what it's worth, I love Hall as a recruit and can't wait to see him next year. I think he is going to immediately over-recruit people to play like Mosley did this year once healthy.

* It was really interesting to hear Taylor contextualize how highly they think of Bironas in terms of justifying carrying two scholarship kickers in one season (a rarity of course). I did not realize we were going to get a fifth year of Kenney and welcome it.

* I am so happy Levin is our president. End of thought.

* Good reminder on Yamauchi being in the class following his LDS mission. Considering my obsession with OL age, it may be nice to have Yamauchi be older than a normal third or fourth (or especially fifth!) year OL when that time comes (assuming he is still around). I think Taylor said all the right things about welcoming Yamauchi back, honoring the commitment, and valuing LDS players but I don't know, parts of that answer sounded to me like lurking behind the talking points was an old school coach with mixed views on guys going on missions. Quite possibly may be mishearing that.

* Worth noting the explicit goal to go to a bowl game next year. Not that audacious considering how many teams go to bowls but if accomplished would validate sticking with Taylor after this miserable past season (though other considerations surely played a bigger role in him remaining than actual confidence we were on the right track).

* Taylor talked about the front seven guys in the context of guys we're looking at to make a difference a few years down the line. Makes sense. Thought he had a pretty good way of juxtaposing the need for mid-year transfers who can immediately help with the need to keep building a pipeline of younger guys for the future. You do have to do both and hopefully our high school recruiting next year, with Luck's help, will be much better than we've had in recent years.

* It's good that Taylor made a point of saying we need to improve at every position. Clearly there is an immediate focus on OL and DB but the north star needs to remain relentless improvement across the board. Hopefully General Luck gets us there.

[newguy]

Good reminder on Yamauchi being in the class following his LDS mission. 

i forgot all about Zak Yamauchi.  high 3-star IOL.
https://247sports.com/player/zak-yamauchi-46118623/

[newguy]

Good reminder on Yamauchi being in the class following his LDS mission. 

i forgot all about Zak Yamauchi.  high 3-star IOL.
https://247sports.com/player/zak-yamauchi-46118623/

[needle]

 Looking forward to news breaking on who these incoming OL are...  

Mainly seeing Ivy and G5 guys announcing Stanford offers. Not necessarily a reason to panic, imo. In this year's NFL draft, four offensive linemen at FCS schools were drafted, including a guy from Yale taken in the third round. But, as Goose posted, it just isn't a sure thing that OL transfers are going to work out.

FWIW, both Stanford OL coaches are getting tagged in these social media announcements, so I consider it unlikely at this point that they would get fired.

[needle]

 Looking forward to news breaking on who these incoming OL are...  

Mainly seeing Ivy and G5 guys announcing Stanford offers. Not necessarily a reason to panic, imo. In this year's NFL draft, four offensive linemen at FCS schools were drafted, including a guy from Yale taken in the third round. But, as Goose posted, it just isn't a sure thing that OL transfers are going to work out.

FWIW, both Stanford OL coaches are getting tagged in these social media announcements, so I consider it unlikely at this point that they would get fired.

[msqueri]

The transfer portal isn’t open until Monday so the only players officially on the market right now are  Ivy League types and grad transfers. Floodgates open next week.

I noticed same on OL coaches. One cutthroat thing to do would be to get through the recruiting cycle and then fire one or both OL coaches. Not going to make a prediction one way or the other on what will happen, though I think it would be disturbing to act like all is well on the offensive coaching staff.

[msqueri]

The transfer portal isn’t open until Monday so the only players officially on the market right now are  Ivy League types and grad transfers. Floodgates open next week.

I noticed same on OL coaches. One cutthroat thing to do would be to get through the recruiting cycle and then fire one or both OL coaches. Not going to make a prediction one way or the other on what will happen, though I think it would be disturbing to act like all is well on the offensive coaching staff.

[paloalto]

Quote:  "Stanford has had to speed up its process so it can turn around the recruiting of transfers in less than 48 hours (he didn't specify where admissions fit into the process)"

If this comes to fruition for undergrads it is being driven by Stanford administration at the highest level.   There is no way the admissions department culture would willingly volunteer to this type of turn-around. 

I don't see how the athletic department can have any control over the admissions of grad students.  Most of admissions for grad students is done by department professors and administrators.  They do not give any extra admissions merit for being able to carry an oblong ball on a grass field. 

Based on what I'm reading on this board, changes are happening at lightning speed.

[paloalto]

Quote:  "Stanford has had to speed up its process so it can turn around the recruiting of transfers in less than 48 hours (he didn't specify where admissions fit into the process)"

If this comes to fruition for undergrads it is being driven by Stanford administration at the highest level.   There is no way the admissions department culture would willingly volunteer to this type of turn-around. 

I don't see how the athletic department can have any control over the admissions of grad students.  Most of admissions for grad students is done by department professors and administrators.  They do not give any extra admissions merit for being able to carry an oblong ball on a grass field. 

Based on what I'm reading on this board, changes are happening at lightning speed.

[Jamesy]

Quote:  "Stanford has had to speed up its process so it can turn around the recruiting of transfers in less than 48 hours (he didn't specify where admissions fit into the process)"

If this comes to fruition for undergrads it is being driven by Stanford administration at the highest level.   There is no way the admissions department culture would willingly volunteer to this type of turn-around. 

I don't see how the athletic department can have any control over the admissions of grad students.  Most of admissions for grad students is done by department professors and administrators.  They do not give any extra admissions merit for being able to carry an oblong ball on a grass field. 

Based on what I'm reading on this board, changes are happening at lightning speed.

The post-bacc program would be a way to get around grad school admissions and also turn around decisions quickly.

[Jamesy]

Quote:  "Stanford has had to speed up its process so it can turn around the recruiting of transfers in less than 48 hours (he didn't specify where admissions fit into the process)"

If this comes to fruition for undergrads it is being driven by Stanford administration at the highest level.   There is no way the admissions department culture would willingly volunteer to this type of turn-around. 

I don't see how the athletic department can have any control over the admissions of grad students.  Most of admissions for grad students is done by department professors and administrators.  They do not give any extra admissions merit for being able to carry an oblong ball on a grass field. 

Based on what I'm reading on this board, changes are happening at lightning speed.

The post-bacc program would be a way to get around grad school admissions and also turn around decisions quickly.

[SkiBum80]

Quote:  "Stanford has had to speed up its process so it can turn around the recruiting of transfers in less than 48 hours (he didn't specify where admissions fit into the process)"

If this comes to fruition for undergrads it is being driven by Stanford administration at the highest level.   There is no way the admissions department culture would willingly volunteer to this type of turn-around. 

I don't see how the athletic department can have any control over the admissions of grad students.  Most of admissions for grad students is done by department professors and administrators.  They do not give any extra admissions merit for being able to carry an oblong ball on a grass field. 

Based on what I'm reading on this board, changes are happening at lightning speed.

I found this very interesting too.
And from a great distance not having any inside knowledge, my guess is that these changes would not be happening without a big push of support from new Prez Levin.

[SkiBum80]

Quote:  "Stanford has had to speed up its process so it can turn around the recruiting of transfers in less than 48 hours (he didn't specify where admissions fit into the process)"

If this comes to fruition for undergrads it is being driven by Stanford administration at the highest level.   There is no way the admissions department culture would willingly volunteer to this type of turn-around. 

I don't see how the athletic department can have any control over the admissions of grad students.  Most of admissions for grad students is done by department professors and administrators.  They do not give any extra admissions merit for being able to carry an oblong ball on a grass field. 

Based on what I'm reading on this board, changes are happening at lightning speed.

I found this very interesting too.
And from a great distance not having any inside knowledge, my guess is that these changes would not be happening without a big push of support from new Prez Levin.

[BostonCard]

This sounds very much like "we must do this to keep up with the Joneses" which is a very bad reason to design admissions policy around.

BC

[BostonCard]

This sounds very much like "we must do this to keep up with the Joneses" which is a very bad reason to design admissions policy around.

BC

[StanUSwagU]

This sounds very much like "we must do this to keep up with the Joneses" which is a very bad reason to design admissions policy around.

BC

Hi BostonCard,

Hope all is well.

Or it could be that the StanU Administration has finally (albeit about 10years late) realized the 'traditional admissions criteria for undergrads & transfers & the slow process of processing these applications' is wrong & anachronistic, and is leading to 'losing quality people & graduating 1000s of 'professional nerds' ...something the world needs much less of imho.

[StanUSwagU]

This sounds very much like "we must do this to keep up with the Joneses" which is a very bad reason to design admissions policy around.

BC

Hi BostonCard,

Hope all is well.

Or it could be that the StanU Administration has finally (albeit about 10years late) realized the 'traditional admissions criteria for undergrads & transfers & the slow process of processing these applications' is wrong & anachronistic, and is leading to 'losing quality people & graduating 1000s of 'professional nerds' ...something the world needs much less of imho.

[paloalto]

The transfer portal isn’t open until Monday so the only players officially on the market right now are  Ivy League types and grad transfers. Floodgates open next week.

I could be totally missing something in the timeline.  Transfer portal opens December 9.  Goal is to have some transfers admitted and registered for winter quarter.

Admissions will be closed from Christmas through New Year.   That basically gives two weeks for communication with players to reach a verbal commitment.  Then they submit applications including grade/course transcripts along with an essay.     Sometimes grade transcripts take a week or more to be processed and sent out.

Admissions has a policy of two employees reading every essay and grading them.  If there is too much separation in the evaluation the essay is read by a third person.  Then the applicants considered for admission are reviewed by a committee. 

I don't understand how there is time for a legitimate evaluation of these transfer applicants.  While I would like to see Stanford football improve, I don't want the school to become a mini football factory.   And I sure don't want Stanford football admissions to become the USC of NorCal.

[paloalto]

The transfer portal isn’t open until Monday so the only players officially on the market right now are  Ivy League types and grad transfers. Floodgates open next week.

I could be totally missing something in the timeline.  Transfer portal opens December 9.  Goal is to have some transfers admitted and registered for winter quarter.

Admissions will be closed from Christmas through New Year.   That basically gives two weeks for communication with players to reach a verbal commitment.  Then they submit applications including grade/course transcripts along with an essay.     Sometimes grade transcripts take a week or more to be processed and sent out.

Admissions has a policy of two employees reading every essay and grading them.  If there is too much separation in the evaluation the essay is read by a third person.  Then the applicants considered for admission are reviewed by a committee. 

I don't understand how there is time for a legitimate evaluation of these transfer applicants.  While I would like to see Stanford football improve, I don't want the school to become a mini football factory.   And I sure don't want Stanford football admissions to become the USC of NorCal.

[BostonCard]

This sounds very much like "we must do this to keep up with the Joneses" which is a very bad reason to design admissions policy around.

BC

Hi BostonCard,

Hope all is well.

Or it could be that the StanU Administration has finally (albeit about 10years late) realized the 'traditional admissions criteria for undergrads & transfers & the slow process of processing these applications' is wrong & anachronistic, and is leading to 'losing quality people & graduating 1000s of 'professional nerds' ...something the world needs much less of imho.

To me, this is the wrong solution to the problem.  In fact, I think a two-track system would exacerbate the gap between athletes and students.  The great thing about athletics when I was a student (30 years ago, now) is that the athletes had to be admitted like the rest of us, had to take the same classes, lived in the same dorms, and were basically students who competed in NCAA athletics.  I buy that we may be graduating 1000s nerds (though I was probably one of them back in my day), but I don't think you fix that by introducing a second tier of semi-professional athlete into the mix.

BC

[BostonCard]

This sounds very much like "we must do this to keep up with the Joneses" which is a very bad reason to design admissions policy around.

BC

Hi BostonCard,

Hope all is well.

Or it could be that the StanU Administration has finally (albeit about 10years late) realized the 'traditional admissions criteria for undergrads & transfers & the slow process of processing these applications' is wrong & anachronistic, and is leading to 'losing quality people & graduating 1000s of 'professional nerds' ...something the world needs much less of imho.

To me, this is the wrong solution to the problem.  In fact, I think a two-track system would exacerbate the gap between athletes and students.  The great thing about athletics when I was a student (30 years ago, now) is that the athletes had to be admitted like the rest of us, had to take the same classes, lived in the same dorms, and were basically students who competed in NCAA athletics.  I buy that we may be graduating 1000s nerds (though I was probably one of them back in my day), but I don't think you fix that by introducing a second tier of semi-professional athlete into the mix.

BC

[82lsju]

This sounds very much like "we must do this to keep up with the Joneses" which is a very bad reason to design admissions policy around.

BC

Hi BostonCard,

Hope all is well.

Or it could be that the StanU Administration has finally (albeit about 10years late) realized the 'traditional admissions criteria for undergrads & transfers & the slow process of processing these applications' is wrong & anachronistic, and is leading to 'losing quality people & graduating 1000s of 'professional nerds' ...something the world needs much less of imho.

To me, this is the wrong solution to the problem.  In fact, I think a two-track system would exacerbate the gap between athletes and students.  The great thing about athletics when I was a student (30 years ago, now) is that the athletes had to be admitted like the rest of us, had to take the same classes, lived in the same dorms, and were basically students who competed in NCAA athletics.  I buy that we may be graduating 1000s nerds (though I was probably one of them back in my day), but I don't think you fix that by introducing a second tier of semi-professional athlete into the mix.

BC

one thing that has changed is way back when almost all (maybe all) students started fall quarter.  Over time there has been forward creep for football players (and more recently other athletes) to enroll for summer quarter and most recently for football players to enroll in winter quarter.  

Football players (and probably other athletes) have been on an accelerated admissions cycle for a long time as they get notified of admission well before regular applicants (early restrictive notification is mid-Dec (so before the football signing date) and regular decisions are in April)

[82lsju]

This sounds very much like "we must do this to keep up with the Joneses" which is a very bad reason to design admissions policy around.

BC

Hi BostonCard,

Hope all is well.

Or it could be that the StanU Administration has finally (albeit about 10years late) realized the 'traditional admissions criteria for undergrads & transfers & the slow process of processing these applications' is wrong & anachronistic, and is leading to 'losing quality people & graduating 1000s of 'professional nerds' ...something the world needs much less of imho.

To me, this is the wrong solution to the problem.  In fact, I think a two-track system would exacerbate the gap between athletes and students.  The great thing about athletics when I was a student (30 years ago, now) is that the athletes had to be admitted like the rest of us, had to take the same classes, lived in the same dorms, and were basically students who competed in NCAA athletics.  I buy that we may be graduating 1000s nerds (though I was probably one of them back in my day), but I don't think you fix that by introducing a second tier of semi-professional athlete into the mix.

BC

one thing that has changed is way back when almost all (maybe all) students started fall quarter.  Over time there has been forward creep for football players (and more recently other athletes) to enroll for summer quarter and most recently for football players to enroll in winter quarter.  

Football players (and probably other athletes) have been on an accelerated admissions cycle for a long time as they get notified of admission well before regular applicants (early restrictive notification is mid-Dec (so before the football signing date) and regular decisions are in April)

[VB Card]

The transfer portal isn’t open until Monday so the only players officially on the market right now are  Ivy League types and grad transfers. Floodgates open next week.

I could be totally missing something in the timeline.  Transfer portal opens December 9.  Goal is to have some transfers admitted and registered for winter quarter.

Admissions will be closed from Christmas through New Year.   That basically gives two weeks for communication with players to reach a verbal commitment.  Then they submit applications including grade/course transcripts along with an essay.     Sometimes grade transcripts take a week or more to be processed and sent out.

Admissions has a policy of two employees reading every essay and grading them.  If there is too much separation in the evaluation  the essay is read by a third person.  Then the applicants considered for admission are reviewed by a committee. 

I don't understand how there is time for a legitimate evaluation of these transfer applicants.  While I would like to see Stanford football improve, I don't want the school to become a mini football factory.   And I sure don't want Stanford football admissions to become the USC of NorCal.

I hate to break it to you, but football and basketball transfer applicants (could be all sports, but these ones are confirmed) don't write essays... Only their grades are reviewed by admissions.

[VB Card]

The transfer portal isn’t open until Monday so the only players officially on the market right now are  Ivy League types and grad transfers. Floodgates open next week.

I could be totally missing something in the timeline.  Transfer portal opens December 9.  Goal is to have some transfers admitted and registered for winter quarter.

Admissions will be closed from Christmas through New Year.   That basically gives two weeks for communication with players to reach a verbal commitment.  Then they submit applications including grade/course transcripts along with an essay.     Sometimes grade transcripts take a week or more to be processed and sent out.

Admissions has a policy of two employees reading every essay and grading them.  If there is too much separation in the evaluation  the essay is read by a third person.  Then the applicants considered for admission are reviewed by a committee. 

I don't understand how there is time for a legitimate evaluation of these transfer applicants.  While I would like to see Stanford football improve, I don't want the school to become a mini football factory.   And I sure don't want Stanford football admissions to become the USC of NorCal.

I hate to break it to you, but football and basketball transfer applicants (could be all sports, but these ones are confirmed) don't write essays... Only their grades are reviewed by admissions.

[paloalto]

Only grades?  Doesn’t seem fair to other transfer applicants. 

Here are some of the requirements listed for transfer applicants on Stanford’s admission website: 

Required Application Components

Official high school transcript…
Official transcript(s) from every college/university attended…
College Report (a form completed by a school official that provides information about your standing at your current or most recent institution)
Letters of recommendation from two academic instructors
We ask applicants to write a personal statement that addresses their reasons for transferring and the objectives they hope to achieve (250-650 words).
Applicants will also answer several short questions (limit 50 words each) and write a short essay on each of the topics below. Applicants can complete these essays in the Stanford Questions section of the Transfer Common Application.

[paloalto]

Only grades?  Doesn’t seem fair to other transfer applicants. 

Here are some of the requirements listed for transfer applicants on Stanford’s admission website: 

Required Application Components

Official high school transcript…
Official transcript(s) from every college/university attended…
College Report (a form completed by a school official that provides information about your standing at your current or most recent institution)
Letters of recommendation from two academic instructors
We ask applicants to write a personal statement that addresses their reasons for transferring and the objectives they hope to achieve (250-650 words).
Applicants will also answer several short questions (limit 50 words each) and write a short essay on each of the topics below. Applicants can complete these essays in the Stanford Questions section of the Transfer Common Application.

[Goose]

I hate to break it to you, but football and basketball transfer applicants (could be all sports, but these ones are confirmed) don't write essays... Only their grades are reviewed by admissions.

I am OK with that. IMO essays are a poor way to evaluate much about a student beyond their ability to use the English language. What the essay actually says is undoubtedly the student's best guess at what will get them admitted. How much of it is "true" in any sense is questionable. It is a polite way to roll the dice that can be justified as an "objective" process when it definitely is not. IMO essays should be removed from the admissions process. Of course, I am an engineer. The again, I have written more proposals than I care to count. Kind of the same idea. Convince the "customer" that you are the only possible choice :-).

[Goose]

I hate to break it to you, but football and basketball transfer applicants (could be all sports, but these ones are confirmed) don't write essays... Only their grades are reviewed by admissions.

I am OK with that. IMO essays are a poor way to evaluate much about a student beyond their ability to use the English language. What the essay actually says is undoubtedly the student's best guess at what will get them admitted. How much of it is "true" in any sense is questionable. It is a polite way to roll the dice that can be justified as an "objective" process when it definitely is not. IMO essays should be removed from the admissions process. Of course, I am an engineer. The again, I have written more proposals than I care to count. Kind of the same idea. Convince the "customer" that you are the only possible choice :-).

[paloalto]

I hate to break it to you, but football and basketball transfer applicants (could be all sports, but these ones are confirmed) don't write essays... Only their grades are reviewed by admissions.

I am OK with that. IMO essays are a poor way to evaluate much about a student beyond their ability to use the English language. What the essay actually says is undoubtedly the student's best guess at what will get them admitted. How much of it is "true" in any sense is questionable. It is a polite way to roll the dice that can be justified as an "objective" process when it definitely is not. IMO essays should be removed from the admissions process. Of course, I am an engineer. The again, I have written more proposals than I care to count. Kind of the same idea. Convince the "customer" that you are the only possible choice :-).

When you have thousands and thousands of applicants (talking in general about all applications; not just transfers) all with essentially the same GPA and similar extracurricular activities, how do you differentiate?

I have read articles that say the essay is absolutely critical for admission to Stanford and can separate one from the masses. College prep companies stress the importance of the essay for Stanford and the Ivy League schools.

[paloalto]

I hate to break it to you, but football and basketball transfer applicants (could be all sports, but these ones are confirmed) don't write essays... Only their grades are reviewed by admissions.

I am OK with that. IMO essays are a poor way to evaluate much about a student beyond their ability to use the English language. What the essay actually says is undoubtedly the student's best guess at what will get them admitted. How much of it is "true" in any sense is questionable. It is a polite way to roll the dice that can be justified as an "objective" process when it definitely is not. IMO essays should be removed from the admissions process. Of course, I am an engineer. The again, I have written more proposals than I care to count. Kind of the same idea. Convince the "customer" that you are the only possible choice :-).

When you have thousands and thousands of applicants (talking in general about all applications; not just transfers) all with essentially the same GPA and similar extracurricular activities, how do you differentiate?

I have read articles that say the essay is absolutely critical for admission to Stanford and can separate one from the masses. College prep companies stress the importance of the essay for Stanford and the Ivy League schools.