Assistant Coaches - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Assistant Coaches (/thread-23862.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Assistant Coaches (/thread-23862.html)
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 04:23 PM)msqueri Wrote: Where you're off is thinking the staff used the same processes and level of effort and just experienced less success. That's not the case. We recruited OL dramatically less often, less vigorously, and in less volume for a nearly three year stretch.
I am not is a position to know that to be true or false. Presumably you are. I just want to be extra sure that you know these facts based on direct observation of less often, less vigorously, and less volume, not inference from poor results.
Quote:The Trey Stratford OL class was not a class in which we had a plan for five OL but could only get one but rather a class in which we recruited all year like we were going after one OL. We whiffed on a couple swinging for the fences longshot mega whale possibilities (Nicholas Petit-Frere, Jamaree Salyer) and when we missed settled late for Stratford. [It's actually even worse than that as we offered offensively and negligently late]
We had the insane idea of only offering low single digit OL in an entire year one year after we brought in only three OL, two of whom were mega whales unlikely to complete eligibility. This is not the processes and level of effort that built the Tunnel Workers Union. It's dereliction. We were not recruiting. Whoever was responsible for OL recruiting was not doing their job. Period. As it happens, we now know in retrospect that Shaw was dealing with his brother's health during much of this period and that Bloomgren had a foot out the door for his next job. Whatever the reason, four OL in 2.8 years is not normal processes and level of effort. It's much more accurately described as not working.
I totally agree that only offering low single digit OL in a year after a small class is probably a real bad plan. However, I must admit that I worry about your "Whatever the reason" comment. Presumably, you are saying you don't know the reason but in any case doing so is a bad idea. It does however appear you are again inferring the level of effort based on results, not based on independently observing people were just not putting in the effort. Reassure me that is not the case.
Stratford was a freshman in 2018, was he not? That would be a 2017 recruitment, the year Bloomgren left. The "mega whales" would be Sarell and Little. I don't think it was clear back in 2016 when they were recruited that not lasting 4 years in the program was going to become common for OL. We had yet to see that become "obvious". That really doesn't matter though, as clearly after a small class we needed a large one.
Quote:By the way, finding three or more OL in a class is not difficult. It's not like we have a handful of admissible OL recruits in a year and if luck doesn't go our way we might whiff. There are 150+ OL among the top 1000 players in the country, which would conservatively mean dozens who can get into Stanford and help the football program. Many of those would be recruits along the lines of the OL we got this year - plausibly Power Five but not exactly having their doors knocked down by top programs - and thus pretty low hanging fruit. It takes either a conscious decision or abject neglect to recruit fewer than three in a year.
I agree with the statement that getting fewer than three OL a year is either a conscious decision or abject neglect to recruit fewer than three in a year. I would agree that many of the OL might be "plausibly Power Five" but not exactly "sure things" and that by the law of averages some would be steak eaters. I do question your numbers given above however. If the "pool" is nominally 150 OL who are in the top 1K, if you use the Stanford admissions percentage of 0.04, that is 6 guys. Even if you allow for the OL being "more cerebral" :-) and a bit of a boost from being an athlete that comes out as maybe 10 guys, a dozen at most. Not "dozens". Of those 10, how many actually want to attend Stanford? I am pretty sure not all of them. Characterizing them as "low hanging fruit" is IMO a mistake. The extra work to be admitted is a deterrent. Anyway, there is a big enough pool to get 5 most years, but only that.
Quote:I have a lot of trouble with the argument that "the departure of Bloomgren did not yield a significantly more effective offensive line." Why would it when we weren't recruiting OL? OL is a position dominated by fourth or fifth year (or at other schools older) guys, with some ability for younger guys to contribute but usually not dominate. That means that:
* 2018 (first year without Bloomgren) was dependent on the recruits of the 2014 (Fanaika, Hall, Burkett the players Bloomgren bequest Carberry) and 2015 (Wilson, Chaffin.....YIKES!) classes.....Tunnel Workers Union of old this was not.
* 2019 was dependent on 2015 (so crappy it was all gone by then) and 2016 (Hamilton, Hattis, and Powell).....even worse than the previous year.
* 2020 was dependent on 2016 (so eager to hit the transfer portal that none remained) and 2017 (Little, Sarell, and Dalman)....thanks to FINALLY being able to get NFL linemen in the fourth year, especially Dalman, this line actually performed well.
* 2021 was dependent on 2017 (literally all gone, which wasn't a shock after recruiting a very small class with two mega whales, although I also blame our culture for guys leaving to be mid-round picks or worse) and 2018 (nobody in this class because Stratford was already retired)......the true coming home to roost for our period of neglect of OL recruiting.
* 2022 was dependent on 2018 (nobody at home) and 2019 (Rouse, Miller, Hornibrook, Bragg, Nugent)......a legitimate data point for your argument that post-Bloomgren coaches deserve blame for inefficacy.
This past season was the one year in which on-paper talent should have been able to lead to really good OL performance. Something happened with evaluation, strength and conditioning, and/or coaching of these players for the 2022 OL to not be good. But literally every other line you're talking about was a result of Stanford just not recruiting this position.
I mostly agree with this, but if recruiting was "fixed" by Bloomgren's departure I would expect a year over year improvement, which I don't think we saw. I think the idea that an OL is determined solely by it's seniors just isn't supportable. Yes, the "old men" can help a lot if they are present, but failing that the other guys can play. As I said, Michigan in 2021 started two sophomores. Of course, you need to have the "right" guys, and possibly we weren't getting them. The "something happened" explanation for 2022 is possible, but equally possible IMO, especially given the lack of year over year improvement under different coaches is that we just lacked the correct "Jesse and Joe" in too many cases. Even when we had (marginally) enough bodies, it wasn't sufficient.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-04-2023
Post Overflow
(01-04-2023, 04:23 PM)msqueri Wrote: I don't know if I'll be able to convince you, but my time leading football recruiting coverage for TOS and my many years obsessively following recruiting leads me to believe that indeed you are wrong that there aren't facts in evidence that "there are always the guys and we just have to find them." Some years are much harder sledding than others, but in any 2.8 year span there are certainly double digit guys who can help our OL, rather than four.
The numbers above indicate you should be able to get 5 a year. If half of them are "busts", in 2.8 years you end up with 7 guys who can play. That is enough, and more than we have had. You have to get all 14 to commit to do the "experiment" however, and that may not be easy.
Quote:P.S. For what it's worth, I think every national award in sight is on the table potentially for Nugent at Michigan. I would be surprised if he's not an All-American according to one of the main deciders of such things. Hinton strikes me as somebody who may or may not be good enough to start at Michigan and, if he stayed at Stanford, I would have expected him to finally be an average Pac-12 OL in 2023.
With this assessment I totally agree. Nugent may have some challenges because the guy he is replacing set a pretty high standard, but he has shown potential. It will be interesting to watch. I agree with you exactly on Hinton.
RE: Assistant Coaches - SamuelMcF - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 05:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-04-2023, 04:23 PM)msqueri Wrote: I have a lot of trouble with the argument that "the departure of Bloomgren did not yield a significantly more effective offensive line." Why would it when we weren't recruiting OL? OL is a position dominated by fourth or fifth year (or at other schools older) guys, with some ability for younger guys to contribute but usually not dominate. That means that:
While it is generally true, it is worth noting that guys like David DeCastro, Jonathan Martin, Cameron Fleming, David Yankey, Andrew Peat, and Joshua Garnett (and others) were multi-year starters well before their fourth years in the program. If I had the time and the data sources available, I would be interested in what distribution of the starts between 2007 and 2017 were between true freshmen, redshirt freshmen/sophomores, redshirt sophomore/juniors, redshirt junior/seniors, and redshirt seniors, and then how that changed once we hit 2018 and beyond. Because of the larger number of transfers/early NFL entries, we know that there were many fewer starts that went to redshirt seniors, and I think the data would show there was a marked shift to earlier years, but how big of a shift has it been.
BC
I don't have the time or bandwidth to do a deep dive into every depth chart (it's a brobdingnagian PITA to find them), so this won't be a perfect analysis a la what BC really wants by any means, but a good starting point at least. Here are the starters for the majority of each year as best I could find.
All the following are ACADEMIC YEARS. For example, 3 = true jr or RS soph.
2011: Martin, Yankey, Schwartzstein, DeCastro, (4, 3, 4, 4, 2)
2012: Yankey, Wilkes, Schwartzstein, Danser, Fleming (3, 4, 5, 4, 3)
2013: Peat, Yankey, Wilkes, Danser, Fleming (2, 4, 5, 5, 4)
2014: Peat, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Murphy (3, 3, 3, 3, 3) - an ineffective offense wasted one of Stanford's best defenses ever.
2015: Murphy, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Tucker (4, 4, 4, 4, 2)
2016: Bright, Caspers, Burkett, Herbig, Hall (4, 5, 3, 1, 3)
2017: Little, Bright/Fanaika, Burkett, Herbig, Hall (1, 5/4, 4, 2, 4)
2018: Little, Fanaika, Burkett, Hamilton/Herbig, Hall (2, 5, 5, 3/3, 5)
2019: Rouse, Miller, Dalman, Hornibrook, Sarell (1,1,3,1,3). The injury nightmare.
2020: Rouse, Miller/Hornibrook, Dalman, Bragg, Sarell (2, 2/2, 4, 2, 4)
2021: Rouse, Miller/Hornibrook, Nugent, Bragg, Hinton (3, 3/3, 3, 3, 2)
2022: Rouse, Hornibrook, Nugent, Rogers, Hinton (4, 4, 4, 3, 3). Most of these guys missed a few starts. Lots of injuries this season.
A couple quick observations:
- The 2012 OL recruiting class of Peat, Murphy, Garnett, Shuler, and Caspers should go down as one of Stanford's greatest ever. 2 5*s, a borderline 5*, a 4*, and Caspers the diamond in the rough. AND EVEN THEN...recall the 2014 season where all five of them were juniors and 4 were first-year starters. After this class matriculated, the cracks began to show.
- Comparing 2022 to 2014 or 2011, it's clear that even though our guys were just as old this season, they weren't developed nearly as well. A blemish on Heffernan and our S&C.
EDIT: Just saw msqueri's way better post on this, whoops!
RE: Assistant Coaches - old spanish trail - 01-04-2023
Fwiw, Sarrell started at rt for four games for the Chargers when the starter went down this year. Watched as much as I could of those games. In the first, he was beaten two or three times for a sack or hurry. In the second game he improved, and by the fourth game I don't think he allowed a sack, maybe one hurry. He was fine on run blocking, getting up the field faster than the others.
Little, who didn't start much last year and was second team this year, came in after the starter went down, I think in the Niner game. He was really good at run blocking as was noted several times. Pass blocking not as good, but not terrible either
And, of course, Cameron Fleming has started all year for the Broncos. Not sure if he moved from right to left after left was injured, But, in any event, he's now at LT and is holding his own for that terrible offense. It must be his 5th or 6th teams. Pretty good for an aeronautical engineering (??) student.
Herbig was an ufa signee with the Eagles after his forty time was among the worst at the combine. He now is a starter, I think, for the Jets.
RE: Assistant Coaches - SamuelMcF - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 06:54 PM)Goose Wrote:I can vouch that this is true, especially on less often and in less volume. From direct observation.(01-04-2023, 04:23 PM)msqueri Wrote: Where you're off is thinking the staff used the same processes and level of effort and just experienced less success. That's not the case. We recruited OL dramatically less often, less vigorously, and in less volume for a nearly three year stretch.
I am not is a position to know that to be true or false. Presumably you are. I just want to be extra sure that you know these facts based on direct observation of less often, less vigorously, and less volume, not inference from poor results.
(01-04-2023, 06:54 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-04-2023, 04:23 PM)msqueri Wrote: The Trey Stratford OL class was not a class in which we had a plan for five OL but could only get one but rather a class in which we recruited all year like we were going after one OL. We whiffed on a couple swinging for the fences longshot mega whale possibilities (Nicholas Petit-Frere, Jamaree Salyer) and when we missed settled late for Stratford. [It's actually even worse than that as we offered offensively and negligently late]
We had the insane idea of only offering low single digit OL in an entire year one year after we brought in only three OL, two of whom were mega whales unlikely to complete eligibility. This is not the processes and level of effort that built the Tunnel Workers Union. It's dereliction. We were not recruiting. Whoever was responsible for OL recruiting was not doing their job. Period. As it happens, we now know in retrospect that Shaw was dealing with his brother's health during much of this period and that Bloomgren had a foot out the door for his next job. Whatever the reason, four OL in 2.8 years is not normal processes and level of effort. It's much more accurately described as not working.
I totally agree that only offering low single digit OL in a year after a small class is probably a real bad plan. However, I must admit that I worry about your "Whatever the reason" comment. Presumably, you are saying you don't know the reason but in any case doing so is a bad idea. It does however appear you are again inferring the level of effort based on results, not based on independently observing people were just not putting in the effort. Reassure me that is not the case.
Stratford was a freshman in 2018, was he not? That would be a 2017 recruitment, the year Bloomgren left. The "mega whales" would be Sarell and Little. I don't think it was clear back in 2016 when they were recruited that not lasting 4 years in the program was going to become common for OL. We had yet to see that become "obvious". That really doesn't matter though, as clearly after a small class we needed a large one.
I once again can vouch that Bloomgren was "just not putting in the effort." This is not an inference based on the results. It is a direct observation.
Stratford was a freshman in 2019, after being signed in the 2018 recruiting class. He was the only one.
(The non-"mega whale" in 2017 was Drew Dalman, who by the way Bloomgren was very close to not offering.)
(01-04-2023, 06:54 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-04-2023, 04:23 PM)msqueri Wrote: By the way, finding three or more OL in a class is not difficult. It's not like we have a handful of admissible OL recruits in a year and if luck doesn't go our way we might whiff. There are 150+ OL among the top 1000 players in the country, which would conservatively mean dozens who can get into Stanford and help the football program. Many of those would be recruits along the lines of the OL we got this year - plausibly Power Five but not exactly having their doors knocked down by top programs - and thus pretty low hanging fruit. It takes either a conscious decision or abject neglect to recruit fewer than three in a year.
I agree with the statement that getting fewer than three OL a year is either a conscious decision or abject neglect to recruit fewer than three in a year. I would agree that many of the OL might be "plausibly Power Five" but not exactly "sure things" and that by the law of averages some would be steak eaters. I do question your numbers given above however. If the "pool" is nominally 150 OL who are in the top 1K, if you use the Stanford admissions percentage of 0.04, that is 6 guys. Even if you allow for the OL being "more cerebral" :-) and a bit of a boost from being an athlete that comes out as maybe 10 guys, a dozen at most. Not "dozens". Of those 10, how many actually want to attend Stanford? I am pretty sure not all of them. Characterizing them as "low hanging fruit" is IMO a mistake. The extra work to be admitted is a deterrent. Anyway, there is a big enough pool to get 5 most years, but only that.
There really are dozens of "plausibly Power Five" OL a year with very good GPAs, plenty with 4.0s. I know this because I have seen them with my own two eyes (and so have guys like Carberry, Heff, and OL GA Dorian Keller) on Twitter, and we usually offer a bunch of them. (And sometimes we don't, much to my chagrin.)
Not "maybe 10 guys, a dozen at most." Dozens.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 07:53 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: I can vouch that this is true, especially on less often and in less volume. From direct observation.
Good to know! First hand is the best data on something like this.
Quote:I once again can vouch that Bloomgren was "just not putting in the effort." This is not an inference based on the results. It is a direct observation.
Ditto.
Quote:(The non-"mega whale" in 2017 was Drew Dalman, who by the way Bloomgren was very close to not offering.)That I knew. It was surprising given he was also a "legacy". I had heard his High School career wasn't stellar, but not offering him seemed hard to believe. Glad it didn't work out that way, though he did have a bit of a "rough" start.
Quote:There really are dozens of "plausibly Power Five" OL a year with very good GPAs, plenty with 4.0s. I know this because I have seen them with my own two eyes (and so have guys like Carberry, Heff, and OL GA Dorian Keller) on Twitter, and we usually offer a bunch of them. (And sometimes we don't, much to my chagrin.)
Not "maybe 10 guys, a dozen at most." Dozens.
OK, so where is the error in the OP numbers? Is it that there are more than 150 OL in the top 1K High School prospects? Assuming an even distribution of all positions there should be (on average) 1000 / 22 * 5 or 227 OL in that group. That is probably an over-estimate because specialists like kickers aren't included and other specializations probably reduce the number. If we say 227, that says 227 * 0.047 (2021) or 10.5 guys would (on average) be admitted to Stanford. Allow some "preference" for athletes and you get maybe double that. That still isn't "dozens".
It is true that being admissible isn't as restrictive as actually being admitted. It is also equally true that many guys who are admissible will not want to attend Stanford. These two factors complicate identifying possible candidates. Is it possible some of the "dozens" you are looking at are not in the top 1K? Seems that is a probable explanation. Since there are 65 "Power 5" schools and each starts 5 OL, that means there are 325 "starters" in P5 schools that have to be replaced every year (on average). With only 227 candidates, that pretty much says they don't all come from the top 1K high school guys I guess. Of course, one could say many of the 325 aren't "P5 Starter" quality, but that is another issue :-)
When you say there are "dozens" of "qualified" candidates, it makes it appear you say recruiting OL should be "easy". As I am sure you know, there are plenty of guys with a 4.0 grade point that can't get into Stanford. They have to have good test scores (at least in the past) and they have to have done/will do the AP work. They also have to want what Stanford offers. For some reason I think finding the "right" guys to play at Stanford is a bit harder than you make it sound. We do seem to have at least our share of "misses".
(01-04-2023, 07:45 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Fwiw, Sarrell started at rt for four games for the Chargers when the starter went down this year. Watched as much as I could of those games. In the first, he was beaten two or three times for a sack or hurry. In the second game he improved, and by the fourth game I don't think he allowed a sack, maybe one hurry. He was fine on run blocking, getting up the field faster than the others.This is interesting in that run blocking always seemed to be a problem for him at Stanford. He virtually never played in a 3 point stance, always being very upright. For that reason he couldn't drive block very well. He also didn't seem to engage quickly and guys would run around him. Does he still play upright?
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-04-2023
Goose, your error is twofold.
First, you are way off on how hard it is to get into Stanford as a football player. It’s possibly closer to 40 percent of elite football players can get in than it is to 4 percent. It’s not “some” preference for football players. It’s a completely different admissions standard that opens up the universe of possible admits dramatically. The football team has let people in with Cs or with test scores that nearly half the country has obtained or reclassifying high school years despite only being a self-professed B+ student.
Second, you’re acting like SamuelMcF and I are guessing at these characterizations but we’re not. We’ve both followed recruiting very closely over a span of years. At one time I was a recruiting reporter fed inside information on who Stanford was recruiting, who was admissible or not, and why for both. Additionally, the number of composite top 1000 players at a position is not guesswork. At OL in the just-signed 2023 cycle it was 156. In 2022 it was 140. In 2021 it was 149. This data is available going back many years. Similarly, we are not bloviating when we say “dozens.” We have each observed Stanford recruiting dozens of players annually for years. Not all rise to the level of meriting a football scholarship in the staff’s evaluation, but that’s a different screen than the admissibility one. And not all would have been admissible, but by the same token we’re probably not recruiting everybody who would be admissible either.
Lots of good thoughts in your posts but I think you have some erroneous assumptions about football recruiting at Stanford. Seeing you cite the 4 percent acceptance number was jaw dropping for me. Jonathan Martin, Michael Thomas, Tyler Gaffney, Ben Edwards, Wilfredo Aybar, etc. got into Stanford. Some of our football players would be lucky to get into UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara.
RE: Assistant Coaches - needle - 01-04-2023
Sarrell had some pretty serious injury/injuries. I speculate that the time out and then length of time to fully recover greatly diminished what we could see of his natural ability, which is clearly still there if you watched him with the Chargers.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-05-2023
(01-04-2023, 10:50 PM)msqueri Wrote: Goose, your error is twofold.You are clearly much closer to the issue than I am. I did of course know that Stanford had admitted football players that were well below the "mean" in several metrics. I had been under the impression that while they could walk a few such guys through each year, the "mean" football admit couldn't be well outside the profile of other admits. This was partially driven by the fact the football players I knew fairly well were academically pretty much like everybody else. Their SAT scores were in the 1200s, not the 1500s, but so were lots of other people's. They certainly didn't stand out as "different" academically. So to be clear, you are saying that of the top 1000 athletes, 400 of them could be admitted to Stanford and that in any given year the team could get admitted as many of these "B+" students as they wished?
First, you are way off on how hard it is to get into Stanford as a football player. It’s possibly closer to 40 percent of elite football players can get in than it is to 4 percent. It’s not “some” preference for football players. It’s a completely different admissions standard that opens up the universe of possible admits dramatically. The football team has let people in with Cs or with test scores that nearly half the country has obtained or reclassifying high school years despite only being a self-professed B+ student.
Quote:Second, you’re acting like SamuelMcF and I are guessing at these characterizations but we’re not. We’ve both followed recruiting very closely over a span of years. At one time I was a recruiting reporter fed inside information on who Stanford was recruiting, who was admissible or not, and why for both. Additionally, the number of composite top 1000 players at a position is not guesswork. At OL in the just-signed 2023 cycle it was 156. In 2022 it was 140. In 2021 it was 149. This data is available going back many years. Similarly, we are not bloviating when we say “dozens.” We have each observed Stanford recruiting dozens of players annually for years. Not all rise to the level of meriting a football scholarship in the staff’s evaluation, but that’s a different screen than the admissibility one. And not all would have been admissible, but by the same token we’re probably not recruiting everybody who would be admissible either.Again, you have been much closer to the action than I. Good to have access to your information and analysis. I would indeed hope that the staff would be considering and in contact with more than 10 or so OL prospects in any given "cycle". If there are about 150 such guys, and 40% of them can actually get admitted, that is 60 prospects. To be clear, you are saying that Stanford's "admissions penalty" is really 0.4. While it doesn't surprise me at all that "some" of our football players would be lucky to get into UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara, some is far from "most" or "all". My thought, which you say is far too conservative, was that the number is closer to 0.08. You are saying it is 0.4. Is that basically correct? I admit I don't really have any way to know what that number is, and it appears you do have that information. While it surprises me that 40% of the top 1000 football players would be admissible, I admit all I have to go on is "rumor" and some statements by Shaw indicating a much lower number.
Lots of good thoughts in your posts but I think you have some erroneous assumptions about football recruiting at Stanford. Seeing you cite the 4 percent acceptance number was jaw dropping for me. Jonathan Martin, Michael Thomas, Tyler Gaffney, Ben Edwards, Wilfredo Aybar, etc. got into Stanford. Some of our football players would be lucky to get into UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Mick - 01-05-2023
(01-04-2023, 07:45 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Fwiw, Sarrell started at rt for four games for the Chargers when the starter went down this year. Watched as much as I could of those games. In the first, he was beaten two or three times for a sack or hurry. In the second game he improved, and by the fourth game I don't think he allowed a sack, maybe one hurry. He was fine on run blocking, getting up the field faster than the others.
Little, who didn't start much last year and was second team this year, came in after the starter went down, I think in the Niner game. He was really good at run blocking as was noted several times. Pass blocking not as good, but not terrible either
And, of course, Cameron Fleming has started all year for the Broncos. Not sure if he moved from right to left after left was injured, But, in any event, he's now at LT and is holding his own for that terrible offense. It must be his 5th or 6th teams. Pretty good for an aeronautical engineering (??) student.
Herbig was an ufa signee with the Eagles after his forty time was among the worst at the combine. He now is a starter, I think, for the Jets.
Not a lot of OLs need to run 40 yards during a game. Except for Shanahan's OLs...
(01-05-2023, 09:44 AM)Goose Wrote:(01-04-2023, 10:50 PM)msqueri Wrote: Goose, your error is twofold.You are clearly much closer to the issue than I am. I did of course know that Stanford had admitted football players that were well below the "mean" in several metrics. I had been under the impression that while they could walk a few such guys through each year, the "mean" football admit couldn't be well outside the profile of other admits. This was partially driven by the fact the football players I knew fairly well were academically pretty much like everybody else. Their SAT scores were in the 1200s, not the 1500s, but so were lots of other people's. They certainly didn't stand out as "different" academically. So to be clear, you are saying that of the top 1000 athletes, 400 of them could be admitted to Stanford and that in any given year the team could get admitted as many of these "B+" students as they wished?
First, you are way off on how hard it is to get into Stanford as a football player. It’s possibly closer to 40 percent of elite football players can get in than it is to 4 percent. It’s not “some” preference for football players. It’s a completely different admissions standard that opens up the universe of possible admits dramatically. The football team has let people in with Cs or with test scores that nearly half the country has obtained or reclassifying high school years despite only being a self-professed B+ student.
Quote:Second, you’re acting like SamuelMcF and I are guessing at these characterizations but we’re not. We’ve both followed recruiting very closely over a span of years. At one time I was a recruiting reporter fed inside information on who Stanford was recruiting, who was admissible or not, and why for both. Additionally, the number of composite top 1000 players at a position is not guesswork. At OL in the just-signed 2023 cycle it was 156. In 2022 it was 140. In 2021 it was 149. This data is available going back many years. Similarly, we are not bloviating when we say “dozens.” We have each observed Stanford recruiting dozens of players annually for years. Not all rise to the level of meriting a football scholarship in the staff’s evaluation, but that’s a different screen than the admissibility one. And not all would have been admissible, but by the same token we’re probably not recruiting everybody who would be admissible either.Again, you have been much closer to the action than I. Good to have access to your information and analysis. I would indeed hope that the staff would be considering and in contact with more than 10 or so OL prospects in any given "cycle". If there are about 150 such guys, and 40% of them can actually get admitted, that is 60 prospects. To be clear, you are saying that Stanford's "admissions penalty" is really 0.4. While it doesn't surprise me at all that "some" of our football players would be lucky to get into UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara, some is far from "most" or "all". My thought, which you say is far too conservative, was that the number is closer to 0.08. You are saying it is 0.4. Is that basically correct? I admit I don't really have any way to know what that number is, and it appears you do have that information. While it surprises me that 40% of the top 1000 football players would be admissible, I admit all I have to go on is "rumor" and some statements by Shaw indicating a much lower number.
Lots of good thoughts in your posts but I think you have some erroneous assumptions about football recruiting at Stanford. Seeing you cite the 4 percent acceptance number was jaw dropping for me. Jonathan Martin, Michael Thomas, Tyler Gaffney, Ben Edwards, Wilfredo Aybar, etc. got into Stanford. Some of our football players would be lucky to get into UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara.
That would shock me. I know one non-revenue coach can recruit just four of the Top 50 recruits in his sport each year. Basically, he has to land at least two, better to have three and find 2-3 diamonds in the rough otherwise.
I'd be curious to know how the football recruit admissions characteristics have ebbed and flowed over the years.
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-05-2023
To be clear, not only do I not know the percentage of the elite football player pool that is admissible, I don't think anybody does and I don't even think it's knowable/possible to assign a number. Some thoughts on this:
This is a moving target in many respects. It depends on the decisions of Stanford admissions. It depends on the relationship/jockeying/massaging Stanford's football staff can muster vis-a-vis admissions review. It depends on the effort and results of individual recruits who come through the process. It depends on the academic profiles of the players the coaches decide pass the football screen. It depends on how early and effectively the football staff gets engaged with a recruit to shape his future academic efforts. It depends on luck. All of these are complex, can be influenced by the football staff in some ways but not others, and interact with one another in unpredictable ways.
It would be nonsensical to say X percent are admissible. X can go up or down based on effort or chance. It can be manipulated by increasing or lowering the football standards that are just as important of a screen as the academic standards. And what's "admissible?" Is it people who would have a shot of being admitted if Stanford engaged with them early enough in the process and they took all the necessary steps along the way, or is it the final group of players who by Signing Day could be admitted if they went through the rigors of the application process, or is it the players who literally get admitted to Stanford (no, it's not this one, much as some would like to advance that narrative of our uber-selectivity)? Which of those questions you answer has massive implications on how big the pool is. If you look at the pool as the players who could have gotten themselves in a position to be admitted to Stanford if they buckled down starting sophomore year of high school, that's massively bigger than if you look at it as the players who met our standards by Signing Day.
Thinking about this theoretically, if you take the top 1000 players and then roll the clock back 16+ years ago when they were babies/toddlers, essentially all 1000 of them theoretically could be admissible to Stanford football. As the years go on, environmental factors and other issues start culling the pool, but by the time they get to high school the overwhelming preponderance of them still could theoretically be Stanford football players. It's sophomore year when the pool starts to be culled more aggressively, and that process grinds on relentlessly every single semester of high school. Every semester there are more players getting Cs or worse in a class or electing not to take honors/AP classes or committing crimes (errr, I guess that didn't stop us from recruiting Ayden Hector) or otherwise doing something/having something happen that materially diminishes the chances of getting into Stanford. My guess is that we might have 80+ percent of the pool "admissible" when they're sophomores but then it keeps decreasing.
It would be really interesting to know what the number is on a given Signing Day, but I don't think that's knowable. We won't have perfect information and there will be players who our screen missed or who showed so little interest in Stanford that we stopped tracking their academics. There will also be a very large number of players - dozens if not hundreds - who Stanford does not pursue to the altar not because the player isn't willing or able but because we don't think they're good enough. This is an under-looked aspect to all this. In essence: how selective we are has (and should have) just as much to do with our football selectivity as it does with our academic selectivity. There are many thousands of high school football players in America who could be admitted to Stanford if they got the golden ticket from Stanford football to Stanford admissions saying we wanted to use one of our precious chits on them. Many, many thousands. But we don't want just some run of the mill honorable mention all league 4.8 40 safety. We don't want the plucky team leader option quarterback captain of three varsity sports teams. And on and on and on. We want guys who compete at the Pac-12 level.
In this sense, the size of our pool is inextricably linked not only with the efficacy of our recruiting staff in identifying players and working to get targets to keep their academics in order but also with the ambition of our recruiting staff. When I was graduating from Stanford we were bringing in guys like Xxavier Carter, Stephen Carr, Joe Dembesky, Tyler Porras, and Mark Mueller. If that's your football standard and your academic standard is where we were a half decade later under a more accommodating admissions regime, there are literally hundreds - maybe thousands - of football players a year who meet that standard. On the far opposite end of the spectrum, our 2017 recruiting class was almost exclusively comprised of prospects at least one major service deemed a 4-star and the lowest regarded prospect in the class was #651 in the class and eventually an NFL starter. That is such a high football standard for a class that our "pool" was indeed small. But that's because we were being picky (refusing to offer 4-star prospects who became big-time stars). Just another set of reasons it's kind of a fool's errand to try to pin down the size of our pool.
By the way, the "we" I am using here is in reference to Stanford football. Even those with the most perfect information possible (Lance Anderson, Mike Eubanks, et al under the ancien regime) have severe limits on how much they can know. As I outlined above, the target is always moving and there are many individual pieces moving and interacting with each other. But for outsiders like me and those on this board, it's an even more opaque information environment. We don't know the GPAs, SATs, and course loads of our prospects by and large. It's really hard for outsiders to know the minimum requirements for Stanford football admissions or the median qualifications of recruits, much less a lot of specifics. We used to know more, but it's gone out of style for Stanford football reporters to ask probing questions about players' unweighted GPAs, test scores, number of AP classes, and more. My hypothesis is Stanford football very much likes it that way. We're probably getting similar, if not even more aggressive, leeway than Harbaugh got, but by keeping it all out of the news it doesn't become a reputational liability. Win-win for football program and university to get some better players but have alumni blissfully ignorant that it's much easier to get into Stanford as a football player in 2023 than it was in 2006.
All that being said: I think it's a fool's errand to assign a specific number, but if we stipulate "admissibility" as the number of top 1000 players (i.e., forget about the football screen above, which in reality chops off dozens if not hundreds of these players because our staff evaluation differs from the recruiting services or we think we can do better) who by Signing Day could be admitted to Stanford IF they went through the rigors of the admissions process and had full backing from our football staff, I suspect the number would be in the 15-30 percent range (and could go up to 40 if you bake in my assumptions about how much the pool could expand with incredibly early and effective work to keep prospects on track academically earlier in their career). That's a big range and I mean it to be: this is an amorphous, dynamic, unpredictable target.
RE: Assistant Coaches - needle - 01-05-2023
Others know much better than I, but weren’t there once stories of Ivy League schools accepting athletes denied admission to Stanford?
RE: Assistant Coaches - BobK - 01-05-2023
Under Monty yes two players couldn’t get into Stanford did play in the Ivy League. At least one at Harvard
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-05-2023
(01-05-2023, 07:10 PM)needle Wrote: Others know much better than I, but weren’t there once stories of Ivy League schools accepting athletes denied admission to Stanford?
Yes, undoubtedly has happened across Stanford sports, including football. Ivy League schools make very significant concessions for athletes too. Additionally, Stanford has more and less stringent periods/philosophies around athlete admissions. My time in college (the Robin Mamlet years) were famously/infamously difficult for athletes and focused heavily on traditional academic credentials and prestige. Under Rick Shaw it seems admissions has been much more attuned to the benefits of bringing in athletes who are elite in their sport, as opposed to elite students who may be merely good in their sport.
By the way, I notice many on this board conflate football admissions with other athletic admissions at Stanford. Other sports get breaks too, but it strikes me as perilous to assume the number one revenue sport would have the same standards/arrangements as the other sports. I would strongly suspect that the median unweighted GPAs/test scores/etc. of scholarship football players are lower than they are for partial scholarship or non-scholarship players in much less prominent sports.
P.S. Would have to wrack my brain for specific examples of accepted at an Ivy after being denied admissions at Stanford, but I do recall that in one signing class alone there was Keith Simms (ended up at Oregon after not being able to get into Stanford and having Harvard and Yale offers), Beau Bisharat (ended up at Colorado after not being able to get into Stanford and having a Yale offer), and Nygel Edmonds (ended up at Cal after not being able to get into Stanford and having a Harvard offer); we also rejected Brandon Stephens that year, who flamed out at UCLA but then had a remarkable transfer success story switching sides of the ball entirely at SMU and becoming an NFL corner. We also had a decommit in the Harbaugh era who ended up at Harvard, Blake Barker, but given all the recruits Harbaugh jerked around as he upgraded to more enticing football players I wouldn't chalk that one up to admissions.
RE: Assistant Coaches - BostonCard - 01-05-2023
Quote:I would strongly suspect that the median unweighted GPAs/test scores/etc. of scholarship football players are lower than they are for partial scholarship or non-scholarship players in much less prominent sports.
That's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, because the demographics of a lot of other sports cater to upper middle class or wealthy families, who, on average, are going to have children with higher conventional academic achievement (grades/test scores), so a comparison of average GPAs/scores would not be appropriate. You are probably still correct, however, that the lower bound (let's call it the threshold of grades/scores where, on average 50% of the athletes will be accepted) is probably higher for the "Sears Cup" sports than for football and men's basketball. But even then, how much of that is due to football itself and how much of it is due to bias. If you are an admissions officer, and you see that in the women's golf team there are a bunch of women who have 3.9 GPAs and 1400+ SATs, and you are looking at a more borderline candidate, it is hard not to compare and note that compared to the women who are already on the team that the applicant falls short.
BC
I would guess that out of the universe of recruits who are good enough from a strictly football perspective (for argument sake, let's say mid-3* or higher), than somewhere between 10 to 20% would be admissible if the staff approached them at a typical time (junior year) and informed them of what they would need to do in order to get admission. Of the 80 - 90% who are not admissible, some of them could but elect not to put in the work (taking AP classes, re-taking SAT, if necessary, etc.), and some (most) of them would not be admissible even if they tried (grades already too low, no matter how many times they retook the SAT they wouldn't be able to score high enough, etc.).
The numbers are clearly there. There are 1367 recruits with a 247 rating of 0.85 or higher (0.85 is the midpoint of 3* ratings, which range from ≥0.8 to <0.9), so even 10% would give you 136 recruits to work with, including about 35 4* + (generally the top 350) . The key is a) identifying the recruits who have high enough academic and football potential, b) letting them know what they need to do to gain admission and, if necessary, convincing the ones who are on the fence to do it, c) ensure you close on the ones who are admitted and d) drink your coffee. The key is starting the process early enough and managing the recruits so you get the right numbers and position distribution.
BC
RE: Assistant Coaches - Mick - 01-06-2023
(01-05-2023, 07:15 PM)BobK Wrote: Under Monty yes two players couldn’t get into Stanford did play in the Ivy League. At least one at Harvard
The Ivies can admit up to 35 football recruits a year and because they don't offer football scholarships (though they offer need-based aid similar to what Stanford offers) their rosters tend to be large -- 118 at Harvard, 123 at Princeton. They evaluate recruits based upon the Academic Index (AI), a three-part evaluation of SAT/ACT scores, SAT Subject scores (if the school requires them) and GPA/class rank or standing. Each element operates on a sliding scale from 20 to 80 points for a possible total maximum score of 240 points. So a 4.0 unweighted GPA/#1 class rank, 1600 on SAT and 800 on subject test would be a 240.
The average student AI is thought to be 220 at Harv/Yal/Princ, 216 at Dart/Brown/Pen and 210 at Colum/Cornell. The average AI of any team must be within one standard deviation (15 points) of the campus AI for that institution. Any recruited athlete has to have a minimum AI of 171 in order to be admitted to an Ivy (think 600 on the SAT). There have been hardship exceptions. Every athlete admitted with a low AI must be offset by an athlete with a high AI. Of the 30 football recruits, only 2-3 will be on the low end. The low is typically a 1220 SAT/27 ACT and top 25% class rank, while the high will be a 1460 SAT and top 5% class rank.
When my son and the other two recruits entered Princeton, their collective AI average was 224. It was high, in part, because the previous coach had gone overboard on recruiting lower AI players the prior year and balance was demanded. During that same year, Stanford recruited an All-American from my son's club whose AI would have been 189. But he was a truly exceptional player and Stanford plays at a substantially higher level than Princeton.
More information on the Ivy's AI here: What Athletes Need to Know About the Ivy League Academic Index - Do It Yourself College Rankings (diycollegerankings.com) and here: Ivy AI Final (mka.org)
RE: Assistant Coaches - CompSci87 - 01-06-2023
(01-06-2023, 08:42 AM)Mick Wrote:(01-05-2023, 07:15 PM)BobK Wrote: Under Monty yes two players couldn’t get into Stanford did play in the Ivy League. At least one at Harvard
The Ivies can admit up to 35 football recruits a year and because they don't offer football scholarships (though they offer need-based aid similar to what Stanford offers) their rosters tend to be large -- 118 at Harvard, 123 at Princeton. They evaluate recruits based upon the Academic Index (AI), a three-part evaluation of SAT/ACT scores, SAT Subject scores (if the school requires them) and GPA/class rank or standing. Each element operates on a sliding scale from 20 to 80 points for a possible total maximum score of 240 points. So a 4.0 unweighted GPA/#1 class rank, 1600 on SAT and 800 on subject test would be a 240.
The average student AI is thought to be 220 at Harv/Yal/Princ, 216 at Dart/Brown/Pen and 210 at Colum/Cornell. The average AI of any team must be within one standard deviation (15 points) of the campus AI for that institution. Any recruited athlete has to have a minimum AI of 171 in order to be admitted to an Ivy (think 600 on the SAT). There have been hardship exceptions. Every athlete admitted with a low AI must be offset by an athlete with a high AI. Of the 30 football recruits, only 2-3 will be on the low end. The low is typically a 1220 SAT/27 ACT and top 25% class rank, while the high will be a 1460 SAT and top 5% class rank.
When my son and the other two recruits entered Princeton, their collective AI average was 224. It was high, in part, because the previous coach had gone overboard on recruiting lower AI players the prior year and balance was demanded. During that same year, Stanford recruited an All-American from my son's club whose AI would have been 189. But he was a truly exceptional player and Stanford plays at a substantially higher level than Princeton.
More information on the Ivy's AI here: What Athletes Need to Know About the Ivy League Academic Index - Do It Yourself College Rankings (diycollegerankings.com) and here: Ivy AI Final (mka.org)
Hmm, so it sounds like a strategy to balance things out and raise the average AI is to ask the top incoming students to be nominally on the football team. They don't have to actually play. Of course no one would ever really do that....... would they?
RE: Assistant Coaches - Mick - 01-06-2023
(01-06-2023, 12:18 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(01-06-2023, 08:42 AM)Mick Wrote:(01-05-2023, 07:15 PM)BobK Wrote: Under Monty yes two players couldn’t get into Stanford did play in the Ivy League. At least one at Harvard
The Ivies can admit up to 35 football recruits a year and because they don't offer football scholarships (though they offer need-based aid similar to what Stanford offers) their rosters tend to be large -- 118 at Harvard, 123 at Princeton. They evaluate recruits based upon the Academic Index (AI), a three-part evaluation of SAT/ACT scores, SAT Subject scores (if the school requires them) and GPA/class rank or standing. Each element operates on a sliding scale from 20 to 80 points for a possible total maximum score of 240 points. So a 4.0 unweighted GPA/#1 class rank, 1600 on SAT and 800 on subject test would be a 240.
The average student AI is thought to be 220 at Harv/Yal/Princ, 216 at Dart/Brown/Pen and 210 at Colum/Cornell. The average AI of any team must be within one standard deviation (15 points) of the campus AI for that institution. Any recruited athlete has to have a minimum AI of 171 in order to be admitted to an Ivy (think 600 on the SAT). There have been hardship exceptions. Every athlete admitted with a low AI must be offset by an athlete with a high AI. Of the 30 football recruits, only 2-3 will be on the low end. The low is typically a 1220 SAT/27 ACT and top 25% class rank, while the high will be a 1460 SAT and top 5% class rank.
When my son and the other two recruits entered Princeton, their collective AI average was 224. It was high, in part, because the previous coach had gone overboard on recruiting lower AI players the prior year and balance was demanded. During that same year, Stanford recruited an All-American from my son's club whose AI would have been 189. But he was a truly exceptional player and Stanford plays at a substantially higher level than Princeton.
More information on the Ivy's AI here: What Athletes Need to Know About the Ivy League Academic Index - Do It Yourself College Rankings (diycollegerankings.com) and here: Ivy AI Final (mka.org)
Hmm, so it sounds like a strategy to balance things out and raise the average AI is to ask the top incoming students to be nominally on the football team. They don't have to actually play. Of course no one would ever really do that....... would they?
No, I don't believe they would. Admissions is very careful about who they allow to matriculate.
But I'll bite. Why don't you point out who, on the roster below, you think fits that description?
2022 Football Roster - Harvard University (gocrimson.com)
RE: Assistant Coaches - CompSci87 - 01-06-2023
(01-06-2023, 12:48 PM)Mick Wrote:(01-06-2023, 12:18 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(01-06-2023, 08:42 AM)Mick Wrote:(01-05-2023, 07:15 PM)BobK Wrote: Under Monty yes two players couldn’t get into Stanford did play in the Ivy League. At least one at Harvard
The Ivies can admit up to 35 football recruits a year and because they don't offer football scholarships (though they offer need-based aid similar to what Stanford offers) their rosters tend to be large -- 118 at Harvard, 123 at Princeton. They evaluate recruits based upon the Academic Index (AI), a three-part evaluation of SAT/ACT scores, SAT Subject scores (if the school requires them) and GPA/class rank or standing. Each element operates on a sliding scale from 20 to 80 points for a possible total maximum score of 240 points. So a 4.0 unweighted GPA/#1 class rank, 1600 on SAT and 800 on subject test would be a 240.
The average student AI is thought to be 220 at Harv/Yal/Princ, 216 at Dart/Brown/Pen and 210 at Colum/Cornell. The average AI of any team must be within one standard deviation (15 points) of the campus AI for that institution. Any recruited athlete has to have a minimum AI of 171 in order to be admitted to an Ivy (think 600 on the SAT). There have been hardship exceptions. Every athlete admitted with a low AI must be offset by an athlete with a high AI. Of the 30 football recruits, only 2-3 will be on the low end. The low is typically a 1220 SAT/27 ACT and top 25% class rank, while the high will be a 1460 SAT and top 5% class rank.
When my son and the other two recruits entered Princeton, their collective AI average was 224. It was high, in part, because the previous coach had gone overboard on recruiting lower AI players the prior year and balance was demanded. During that same year, Stanford recruited an All-American from my son's club whose AI would have been 189. But he was a truly exceptional player and Stanford plays at a substantially higher level than Princeton.
More information on the Ivy's AI here: What Athletes Need to Know About the Ivy League Academic Index - Do It Yourself College Rankings (diycollegerankings.com) and here: Ivy AI Final (mka.org)
Hmm, so it sounds like a strategy to balance things out and raise the average AI is to ask the top incoming students to be nominally on the football team. They don't have to actually play. Of course no one would ever really do that....... would they?
No, I don't believe they would. Admissions is very careful about who they allow to matriculate.
But I'll bite. Why don't you point out who, on the roster below, you think fits that description?
2022 Football Roster - Harvard University (gocrimson.com)
I don't think they are really doing anything wrong; I was just joking. But I don't see how admissions would stop the football team from asking a top academic student who was admitted anyway from walking onto the football team as the 5th string punter, in order to raise the team's average. It's just not likely the student would say yes, or really that the football staff would even try that.
RE: Assistant Coaches - BostonCard - 01-06-2023
No, but I do wonder how many within those 35 possible admits a year are “steak eaters” with above average AIs and marginal football skills who enable the school to admit a player with a below-average AI but much higher football skills. For someone who might be, say, a half SD below the overall school’s average (so, a half SD above the required football average), that can be a good deal, as they might not get in otherwise.
BC