Shaw's Turn Down Rate - 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: Shaw's Turn Down Rate (/thread-23492.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: Shaw's Turn Down Rate (/thread-23492.html)
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Row80Critic - 09-25-2022
The same announcers were talking about EJ Smith like he was Nevers/Nelson/Muster/Gerhart/Love/McCaffery all rolled into one, after his big 'break-out' year in '21. EJ might have something, but 133 yards does not a break-out season make. Petros Papadakis has the voice of a cartoon character and is paid to fill air time, but he's probably not a credible authority on much of what he says, least of which being Stanford admissions.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - 81alum - 09-25-2022
(09-25-2022, 06:02 PM)BobK Wrote: Yes Rice and Katie lou so that’s up to 4Yes, I was thinking of Katie Lou, Diggins, and Pivic. So with Rice that makes 4. What that means is that all four of them were still wavering and thinking of coming to Stanford pretty late in the process. They sat on their positive admission letters for some period of time before saying "no thanks." I think that is very rare which is why we can count those cases on one hand. Most who figure out they don't want to be at Stanford will communicate that before they are accepted--just getting the materials together for admissions is a very big job that demands a far greater commitment than any other major university--and recruits are not apt to do all that work unless they are pretty sure it will be worth it to them.
And thanks Bob, for confirming that coaches control the first stage of admissions for these athletes. That makes it possible for coaches to control those numbers.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - PersonalLegend - 09-26-2022
I’m gonna go out on a limb on this one and say “who cares?”
Why is it even a discussion about how many turn downs we have had. No turndowns=not enough offers, not enough options.
Put another way, if we had 40 guys in the top 300 turn us down every year but that allowed us to sign another 2 of that caliber of player, we would be a different program.
The sophistry around whether the app was submitted or not is just a stupid game that has nothing to do with winning at football.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - 81alum - 09-26-2022
(09-26-2022, 03:30 AM)PersonalLegend Wrote: I’m gonna go out on a limb on this one and say “who cares?”
Why is it even a discussion about how many turn downs we have had. No turndowns=not enough offers, not enough options.
Put another way, if we had 40 guys in the top 300 turn us down every year but that allowed us to sign another 2 of that caliber of player, we would be a different program.
The sophistry around whether the app was submitted or not is just a stupid game that has nothing to do with winning at football.
I'd agree it is sophistry, and I'd agree it can't conceal the overall decline in our football recruiting that we have experienced in recent years.
However, it is sophistry with a kernel of truth, and any good recruiting coach ought to use that kernel of truth to improve our recruiting. The kernel of truth is that a Stanford degree is far more valuable to many people than a degree from some other competitors, and as a result recruits often choose to come here not only for our athletic success but equally for the academic opportunities. That HAS to be our #1 recruiting advantage, and it has become even more important than it used to be now that other universities are engaged in now-legal bribery and a de facto free agent market. It remains the one potential advantage we have that no one else has.
That does not change the fact that there is another side of recruiting--the promise of competitive success--at which our football program seems to be increasingly failing. But I say use the sophistry as a recruiting tool, given that it is one way to point out the advantage of a Stanford degree. If Shaw is replaced, the next coach will have to understand this.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - winflop - 09-26-2022
True or not, this is a classic case of how to lie with statistics. Could be factually true, although I take anything Petros says with a grain of salt and a heavy dose of skepticism. It all depends on what your definition of the word is, is.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Phogge - 09-26-2022
Ok so Stanford admits something like 7% of kids who go through the agonizing process of meeting the requirements for admission. Perhaps a bit higher for athletics.
So a kid, let’s say somebody like Sawchuck or Shipley, comes on an unofficial in mid June. The campus is beautiful, the weather is great, he meets world famous people on the faculty. He might go to Santa Cruz for an afternoon.
He takes an official on a game day during his high school bye week. Weather is great and there are 12,000 “fans” tailgating and then sitting on their hands during the game. Stanford gets smoked.
Near the end of the season he attends a game in Domerland. There are 75,000 maniacs, Touchdown Jesus and Joe Montana at halftime. There are 32 NFL scouts. There is NIL from The Grotto to the Golden Dome.
He’s not thinking of the 40 Year Decision written on stone tablets. He’s thinking about the next 40 seconds.
You guys are shit out of luck with football.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - msqueri - 09-26-2022
81alum, honest question: do you follow Stanford football recruiting closely and subscribe to the sites that report on it? Your read strikes me as uninformed to be honest, unless you're calling liars the dozen to a couple dozen recruits who have privately reported to insiders and/or reporters that they were formally accepted during the Shaw era. This is more than just sophistry. Petros repeated an old talking point and if Shaw relayed that this week (possible it's an old module in Petros' brain he unthinkingly repeated on this broadcast) then that was a lie. The fact is we now lose 3-7 admitted recruits annually these days. It's a shocking and disorienting development but it's happening. These applications aren't being "pulled." We shepherd recruits through the process, they fill out the whole application, Stanford Admissions accepts them, and then the recruits pocket the prestige/sense of pride and go elsewhere. That's what's happening.
I don't think it's the end of the world this is happening by the way. I have said for years that we need to a) see some admissions rejections of coveted football players and b) see some admitted players spurn us to know that we are pushing the envelope on admissible players and on non-self selector football first players. I give Shaw credit for getting Jacobe Johnson and Jordan Mathews as far in the recruiting process as he did. That's a good thing. Better to have a long shot than no shot. But if we're going to repeat the old trope that nobody turns Stanford football down, that's a lie.
As for our recruiting pitch, I think the standard (standard an important word as there are some recruits I'd like us to pitch like a factory and, of course, the self-selector Stanford Men for whom Shaw is perfect) recruiting playbook for Stanford should be that you don't have to choose between football and academics, and it should have a negative recruiting component that Stanford is the only school for which that's true (unless we're too embarrassed to say that with a straight face for recruits considering Notre Dame). I do not think it is a winning strategy for us to make academics and the Stanford degree our main pitch. For one, that's not something we actually need to sell that aggressively. Moreover, we won't get enough good football players that way. Those who prioritize academics have been coming to Stanford for decades. That's merely a baseline. You need players who have legitimate NFL aspirations as those are the players who will matter on Saturdays.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - old spanish trail - 09-26-2022
Yep, Square.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - McKenwood - 09-26-2022
This alleged Shaw comment as passed along by Petros smacks of Shaw's hubris and self-delusion. This mindset may Shaw's biggest challenge to turning things around. This type of comments underminses everything else Shaw has to say.
I have personal knowledge of one recruit's situation in the 2021 class. This OLineman was admitted to Stanford, had two siblings who went to Harvard and passed on Stanford's offer of admission and a scholarship spot. His school was shocked by teh decision but it stood.
So the number may have been six for the 2021 recruiting class. Certainly not for Shaw's entire tenure.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Softball Fan - 09-26-2022
(09-26-2022, 08:54 AM)msqueri Wrote: Your read strikes me as uninformed to be honest, unless you're calling liars the dozen to a couple dozen recruits who have privately reported to insiders and/or reporters that they were formally accepted during the Shaw era.
I'll readily admit I'm completely uninformed about Stanford football recruiting. I only have common sense to fall back on. Why would they only privately report their admission to insiders? Why wouldn't they yell from their rooftop they were admitted by Stanford even if they choose to attend another school? Maybe there is a reason but it's not readily apparent to me.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - msqueri - 09-26-2022
(09-26-2022, 12:50 PM)paloalto Wrote:(09-26-2022, 08:54 AM)msqueri Wrote: Your read strikes me as uninformed to be honest, unless you're calling liars the dozen to a couple dozen recruits who have privately reported to insiders and/or reporters that they were formally accepted during the Shaw era.
I'll readily admit I'm completely uninformed about Stanford football recruiting. I only have common sense to fall back on. Why would they only privately report their admission to insiders? Why wouldn't they yell from their rooftop they were admitted by Stanford even if they choose to attend another school? Maybe there is a reason but it's not readily apparent to me.
Well when it's conveyed to a reporter that's not so private and maybe the recruits are looking to make it widely known. There have been cases of that. Given how little coverage there is of Stanford football and all the ways in which a recruit could break the news on social media and such without me necessarily tracking it, the names I listed are probably more likely to be an undercount than an overcount.
I didn't mention the guys who were admitted but had admission rescinded subsequently, like Ayden Hector and Marvin Mims, because that's not what we're talking about here.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - 81alum - 09-27-2022
(09-26-2022, 08:54 AM)msqueri Wrote: 81alum, honest question: do you follow Stanford football recruiting closely and subscribe to the sites that report on it? Your read strikes me as uninformed to be honest, unless you're calling liars the dozen to a couple dozen recruits who have privately reported to insiders and/or reporters that they were formally accepted during the Shaw era. This is more than just sophistry. Petros repeated an old talking point and if Shaw relayed that this week (possible it's an old module in Petros' brain he unthinkingly repeated on this broadcast) then that was a lie. The fact is we now lose 3-7 admitted recruits annually these days. It's a shocking and disorienting development but it's happening. These applications aren't being "pulled." We shepherd recruits through the process, they fill out the whole application, Stanford Admissions accepts them, and then the recruits pocket the prestige/sense of pride and go elsewhere. That's what's happening.msqueri, I will defer to your judgment here since you seem to have spoken directly to some of the people involved. Given what you know about recent turn-downs, I think the most plausible explanation is that Papadakis--who has always been in awe of Stanford academics--was reaching back to a conversation he had years ago with Shaw. I've heard him say similar things in the past.
I don't think it's the end of the world this is happening by the way. I have said for years that we need to a) see some admissions rejections of coveted football players and b) see some admitted players spurn us to know that we are pushing the envelope on admissible players and on non-self selector football first players. I give Shaw credit for getting Jacobe Johnson and Jordan Mathews as far in the recruiting process as he did. That's a good thing. Better to have a long shot than no shot. But if we're going to repeat the old trope that nobody turns Stanford football down, that's a lie.
As for our recruiting pitch, I think the standard (standard an important word as there are some recruits I'd like us to pitch like a factory and, of course, the self-selector Stanford Men for whom Shaw is perfect) recruiting playbook for Stanford should be that you don't have to choose between football and academics, and it should have a negative recruiting component that Stanford is the only school for which that's true (unless we're too embarrassed to say that with a straight face for recruits considering Notre Dame). I do not think it is a winning strategy for us to make academics and the Stanford degree our main pitch. For one, that's not something we actually need to sell that aggressively. Moreover, we won't get enough good football players that way. Those who prioritize academics have been coming to Stanford for decades. That's merely a baseline. You need players who have legitimate NFL aspirations as those are the players who will matter on Saturdays.
I agree with you about the recruiting pitch. Every top athlete who comes here (in any sport) invariably cites BOTH the quality of athletics AND the academics. We need to be the "best of both worlds" University, since it is obvious that neither the football factories nor the Ivies have a chance do do likewise. Sadly, football needs much more success on the athletic side to be able to hold up that half of the pitch. At the same time, whoever is recruiting needs to be able to articulate to recruits who are still in high school--and their families--the full weight and significance of a Stanford degree--something that is surprisingly not obvious to the less academically inclined recruits, particularly first-gen college families. Neither half of the pitch can succeed, in the Stanford context, without the other.
I do hope that we all keep the well being of the kids who are the subject of our speculation in mind. I worked (briefly) in Stanford admissions decades ago, so I had some insight at the time, but the psychological pressures of the admissions process on applicants is now legendary and has led to various reform efforts. How much worse to have this life decision aired in front of strangers like us. Under those circumstances I would hardly blame a recruit for misleading us about the final outcome.
However, I also know in the case of one WBB recruit that my skepticism was wrong--because she read this board and sent one of our members her admissions letter. That certainly woke me up and taught me, among other things, that things that are said here are not without the potential to be hurtful to individuals. I also learned that young people might have a multitude of personal reasons for saying "no" to Stanford.
I remain mystified as to why the half dozen turn-downs a year bother to go all the way to the bitter end of the admissions process, but my WBB example did so, too. There may be a bit of "trophy collecting" going on, I guess, or maybe they were genuinely undecided and keeping their options open. Was Stanford a "back-up" to their first choice who did not give them an offer until after they got the Stanford letter? That would be a new way of thinking for us.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - msqueri - 09-27-2022
Good post.
I think a few things are going on with the startling increase in turn downs:
* Yes, trophy collecting.
* Also the 40 year decision has become less and less salient as players realize that being a football player at Oklahoma rather than Stanford is not necessarily an unwise decision from a life-time perspective monetarily or in other dimensions (as a case in point, in the NIL world don't you think Dylan Lonergan will make more money in his life having gone to Alabama than he would have going to Stanford?).
* I suspect but can't prove (especially because the academics of Stanford football recruits/nature of the application process has become so opaque, which I think bolsters my theory) that it is WAAAAAAAAAAY easier to be admitted to Stanford as a coveted scholarship football player than many of our fans assume. I don't think the admissions office is very tough on football applicants these days and with the continuity of Lance Anderson's role helping shepherding recruits through the process coupled with continuity in Mike Eubanks' operation, we are better equipped than ever before to hold recruits' hands through the application process. Sure, recruits have to ask for a few letters of recommendation and write a few short personal statements/essays. But it's not a herculean effort for a recruit to apply and be accepted to Stanford.
* There may have even been a philosophical change where we give/solicit applications from more recruits than before, a calculation (I would support) to give ourselves a shot rather than just treating admissions as the last wicket in the process for guys definitely coming.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - MarinCard - 09-27-2022
The turn-down rate is indeed very low, and so is the number of offers made. Shaw and the staff extend the fewest (or close as makes no difference) hard, committable offers in P5. They actually make that a point of emphasis in the offer packet - the hardest offer to get in football, something to that effect.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - ADPinWDC - 09-27-2022
(09-25-2022, 03:58 PM)Treebound Wrote: So what you're saying is we need Billy Beane to replace Shaw?! He almost came to Stanford once! Sabre metrics - at this point I'm open for some positive, data driven change. The Win/Loss data seems pretty obvious at this point.
Not Billy Beane... How about Derek Mason, now the DefCo at OKST making just $1.1M after being fired at Vandy.
Vandy is an EVEN WORSE purgatory than Stanford -- in the SEC. We need a Defense.
The best Defenses were had were the one year under Vic Fangio, who took Mason (2010-2013) on as protege
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Mick - 09-27-2022
(09-27-2022, 11:43 AM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(09-25-2022, 03:58 PM)Treebound Wrote: So what you're saying is we need Billy Beane to replace Shaw?! He almost came to Stanford once! Sabre metrics - at this point I'm open for some positive, data driven change. The Win/Loss data seems pretty obvious at this point.
Not Billy Beane... How about Derek Mason, now the DefCo at OKST making just $1.1M after being fired at Vandy.
Vandy is an EVEN WORSE purgatory than Stanford -- in the SEC. We need a Defense.
The best Defenses were had were the one year under Vic Fangio, who took Mason (2010-2013) on as protege
Always liked Lord Vader...
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - BostonCard - 09-27-2022
There is the matter of AP classes, and while it is much more common for students to take APs than ever before, since at this point they are table stakes for getting into many colleges, afaik, Stanford is the only school that has a de facto requirement for athletes to complete them.
BC
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - JohnR34231 - 09-28-2022
(09-27-2022, 07:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There is the matter of AP classes, and while it is much more common for students to take APs than ever before, since at this point they are table stakes for getting into many colleges, afaik, Stanford is the only school that has a de facto requirement for athletes to complete them.
BC
Now that the pandemic is winding down, Stanford is presumably going to start requiring the SAT/ACT again. A recruit once told me he was told he needed at 26 on the ACT to qualify, which I believe is around a 1200 on the SAT.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Stanfordindians1again - 09-28-2022
Program undoubtedly is way down. I hear it from recruits- aren't coming because of the play between the lines.
Think back to Luck, Skov, Hogan, McCaffery years. We never lost a player to a grad transfer or leaving the program early. No way. Tunnel Workers Union.
Commonplace to leave now. How many left the last few years. :(
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Goose - 09-28-2022
Many of you might recall that Shaw told a story from early in his tenure where a recruit told him "Frankly Coach, I just don't think your team is good enough to showcase my talents". Shaw goes on to say "I had to admit to myself that I agreed with him, and I didn't want to be in that position".
Unfortunately I think there is little doubt that Shaw is back in that position and needs to "fix it".