The CardBoard
Will next year be better? - 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: Will next year be better? (/thread-24442.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: Will next year be better? - gailtate - 09-25-2023

(09-24-2023, 04:28 PM)Mick Wrote:  I think we'll be much better.

1) COVID no longer a factor.
2) Departing Shaw no longer a factor.
3) Tighter portal rules.
4) The players are a year older/better/faster/stronger.
5) The coaches are a year further into their big boy jobs, and will have worked out the kinks by then.
6) The ACC is a weaker football league. Had to say it.

I'm thinking 4-5 wins next year.  8-9 the year after.

Hope springs eternal...

Hope Springs, Arkansas  is a fictional city  and the main setting for the "God's Not Dead" series of Christian drama films, which have been produced since 2014. It's also where I would put the chances of an 8-9 win season in 2025

RE: Will next year be better? - JohnR34231 - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 11:14 AM)gailtate Wrote:  
(09-24-2023, 04:28 PM)Mick Wrote:  I think we'll be much better.

1) COVID no longer a factor.
2) Departing Shaw no longer a factor.
3) Tighter portal rules.
4) The players are a year older/better/faster/stronger.
5) The coaches are a year further into their big boy jobs, and will have worked out the kinks by then.
6) The ACC is a weaker football league. Had to say it.

I'm thinking 4-5 wins next year.  8-9 the year after.

Hope springs eternal...

Hope Springs, Arkansas  is a fictional city  and the main setting for the "God's Not Dead" series of Christian drama films, which have been produced since 2014. It's also where I would put the chances of an 8-9 win season in 2025

I remember posting on the old Bootleg circa 2007-2008 that under the new coach (Harbaugh) we would have a chance to get to 8-9 wins by 2010.
I was met by peals of derisive laughter.
Yes, I know that the rules of college football have changed to Stanford's detriment since then, but I thought I would just throw this in.

RE: Will next year be better? - Goose - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 08:40 AM)msqueri Wrote:  The elephant in the room for me is whether we can move on from fifth years becoming so rare. That's not the way to run a football team. Anybody who talks about college being four years or business being complete when your degree is complete or it being rational for players to move on is not serious about football.
Obviously, I do not agree. The analog would be to say that anybody who acknowledges the law of gravity can't be serious about building airplanes. The concepts you decry exist and in many cases following those concepts may be the "right choice" for some football players. Denying that fact (like denying the law of gravity) will greatly interfere with one's ability to cope with said facts. It is also counter-productive for the program to deprecate these choices, because the players will very quickly realize the coaching staff does not have the player's best interests at heart, only the needs of the program. That  results in an instant loss of respect.

Quote:This is a disease Taylor needs to eradicate.

Eradicating this "disease" is impossible. It isn't a "disease". It is a set of facts, and "facts are persistent things".

Quote:You can't develop the Tobin Phillips and Connor McLaughlins of the world for four years and then just shrug as they move on before reaching their potential. 

In order to minimize the attrition of certain "key" players, the staff is going to need to establish a relationship with them that acknowledges the other forces operating in the player's choice set. In some cases, the coach can explain the benefits of remaining another year and be convincing. It is easier to do this when the team is clearly on the "upswing" and when their is a significant bond among the position group. Creating a bond among the players is not something that is formulaic. The Tunnel Workers Union was not created by the coaches. They embraced it, but they did not create it. It is also easier to retain players if the NIL money is significant enough to be attractive. In other cases, the player will not be convinced and chose to move on. In that case all the coaches can do is wish bonne chance. It will happen. That is part of coaching at Stanford (and really everywhere else too, just more so at Stanford).

Even more importantly, the idea of remaining for a fifth year needs to be possible. The coaches need to identify players they may want to keep early on and inform them of the potential benefits of staying. The players then need to establish an academic path that gives them a chance at going to graduate school/co-terminal at Stanford. IMO postponing graduation by not pursuing a path to graduate in 4 years will be very unpopular with the players (who need to keep their options open) and even more unpopular (to the point of forbidding it) with the administration. Possibly some kind of double major situation may work for both groups, but the coaches (and players) can't ignore this issue.

This is just "how it is" at Stanford. You can develop programs to keep the players, but even best case, it won't always work. One can talk about the idea that the players themselves aren't "serious" about football if the chose to leave. However, even that idea is difficult to defend. Many players leaving after year 4 are going elsewhere because it allows them to play football in what they believe is a better situation for them. They may be correct in many cases. Doesn't mean they don't care about football (but often does mean they didn't get into graduate school at Stanford :-). It is also possible to be "serious" about football and also "serious" about other things. At Stanford, that probably is more of a problem than elsewhere. The coaches ignore this at their peril. They need to keep recruiting their players all 4 years. That is just a fact.

RE: Will next year be better? - 82lsju - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 11:54 AM)Goose Wrote:  Even more importantly, the idea of remaining for a fifth year needs to be possible. The coaches need to identify players they may want to keep early on and inform them of the potential benefits of staying. The players then need to establish an academic path that gives them a chance at going to graduate school/co-terminal at Stanford. IMO postponing graduation by not pursuing a path to graduate in 4 years will be very unpopular with the players (who need to keep their options open) and even more unpopular (to the point of forbidding it) with the administration. Possibly some kind of double major situation may work for both groups, but the coaches (and players) can't ignore this issue.

This is just "how it is" at Stanford. You can develop programs to keep the players, but even best case, it won't always work. One can talk about the idea that the players themselves aren't "serious" about football if the chose to leave. However, even that idea is difficult to defend. Many players leaving after year 4 are going elsewhere because it allows them to play football in what they believe is a better situation for them. They may be correct in many cases. Doesn't mean they don't care about football (but often does mean they didn't get into graduate school at Stanford :-). It is also possible to be "serious" about football and also "serious" about other things. At Stanford, that probably is more of a problem than elsewhere. The coaches ignore this at their peril. They need to keep recruiting their players all 4 years. That is just a fact.

after four years a player will likely have completed 16 academic quarters (assuming summer before their frosh class enrolls and summers each year), to stay under 180 units they would need to average 11.25 or fewer units a quarter (even if they take only one five units class each summer they would still need to average 13.3 or fewer units a quarter in the other quarters).  If they enroll the Jan before their frosh year then they could have 18 academic quarters after four years, to stay under 180 units they would need to average 10 units or fewer per quarter (even if they took only one five unit class each summer they would still need to average 11.4 units or fewer units per quarter in the other quarters) .  Either of these paths is probably going to end up putting players on and off of academic notice which is not going to go over well with the University.

see more on academic progress, notice and suspensions here

https://advising.stanford.edu/current-students/academic-policy/academic-progress

RE: Will next year be better? - gailtate - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 11:33 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:  
(09-25-2023, 11:14 AM)gailtate Wrote:  
(09-24-2023, 04:28 PM)Mick Wrote:  I think we'll be much better.

1) COVID no longer a factor.
2) Departing Shaw no longer a factor.
3) Tighter portal rules.
4) The players are a year older/better/faster/stronger.
5) The coaches are a year further into their big boy jobs, and will have worked out the kinks by then.
6) The ACC is a weaker football league. Had to say it.

I'm thinking 4-5 wins next year.  8-9 the year after.

Hope springs eternal...

Hope Springs, Arkansas  is a fictional city  and the main setting for the "God's Not Dead" series of Christian drama films, which have been produced since 2014. It's also where I would put the chances of an 8-9 win season in 2025

I remember posting on the old Bootleg circa 2007-2008 that under the new coach (Harbaugh) we would have a chance to get to 8-9 wins by 2010.
I was met by peals of derisive laughter.
Yes, I know that the rules of college football have changed to Stanford's detriment since then, but I thought I would just throw this in.

This was the moment when (1) Harbaugh rolled out "EUTM" and "We bow to no program" and (2) there was a football friendly president who listened to his football-savvy A.D., Bob Bowlsby. None of this exists today, above and beyond the new landscape.
(09-25-2023, 11:54 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(09-25-2023, 08:40 AM)msqueri Wrote:  The elephant in the room for me is whether we can move on from fifth years becoming so rare. That's not the way to run a football team. Anybody who talks about college being four years or business being complete when your degree is complete or it being rational for players to move on is not serious about football.
Obviously, I do not agree. The analog would be to say that anybody who acknowledges the law of gravity can't be serious about building airplanes. The concepts you decry exist and in many cases following those concepts may be the "right choice" for some football players. Denying that fact (like denying the law of gravity) will greatly interfere with one's ability to cope with said facts. It is also counter-productive for the program to deprecate these choices, because the players will very quickly realize the coaching staff does not have the player's best interests at heart, only the needs of the program. That  results in an instant loss of respect.

Quote:This is a disease Taylor needs to eradicate.

Eradicating this "disease" is impossible. It isn't a "disease". It is a set of facts, and "facts are persistent things".

Quote:You can't develop the Tobin Phillips and Connor McLaughlins of the world for four years and then just shrug as they move on before reaching their potential. 

In order to minimize the attrition of certain "key" players, the staff is going to need to establish a relationship with them that acknowledges the other forces operating in the player's choice set. In some cases, the coach can explain the benefits of remaining another year and be convincing. It is easier to do this when the team is clearly on the "upswing" and when their is a significant bond among the position group. Creating a bond among the players is not something that is formulaic. The Tunnel Workers Union was not created by the coaches. They embraced it, but they did not create it. It is also easier to retain players if the NIL money is significant enough to be attractive. In other cases, the player will not be convinced and chose to move on. In that case all the coaches can do is wish bonne chance. It will happen. That is part of coaching at Stanford (and really everywhere else too, just more so at Stanford).

Even more importantly, the idea of remaining for a fifth year needs to be possible. The coaches need to identify players they may want to keep early on and inform them of the potential benefits of staying. The players then need to establish an academic path that gives them a chance at going to graduate school/co-terminal at Stanford. IMO postponing graduation by not pursuing a path to graduate in 4 years will be very unpopular with the players (who need to keep their options open) and even more unpopular (to the point of forbidding it) with the administration. Possibly some kind of double major situation may work for both groups, but the coaches (and players) can't ignore this issue.

This is just "how it is" at Stanford. You can develop programs to keep the players, but even best case, it won't always work. One can talk about the idea that the players themselves aren't "serious" about football if the chose to leave. However, even that idea is difficult to defend. Many players leaving after year 4 are going elsewhere because it allows them to play football in what they believe is a better situation for them. They may be correct in many cases. Doesn't mean they don't care about football (but often does mean they didn't get into graduate school at Stanford :-). It is also possible to be "serious" about football and also "serious" about other things. At Stanford, that probably is more of a problem than elsewhere. The coaches ignore this at their peril. They need to keep recruiting their players all 4 years. That is just a fact.

"They need to keep recruiting their players all 4 years. That is just a fact."
Apparently, this is precisely what David Shaw grew weary of doing.

RE: Will next year be better? - msqueri - 09-25-2023

The comparison to the law of gravity rings hollow. There is nothing immutable about the notion that became popular under Shaw that a Stanford career was four years. I have compiled data sets on hundreds of Stanford football players going back decades and as recently as under Teevens, Harris, and Harbaugh 54 percent of OL stayed five years and 71 percent of DL stayed five years, compared to less than 30 percent at both positions under Shaw. Stanford cared about academics in the 2000s too and, in fact, almost certainly had higher standards for football players than it has today. But programs and administrations can make decisions about how to operate within their given landscape. The football team can recruit players who care more about team goals than individual goals. It can recruit players who care more about football than academics. It can have the conversations you talk about with regard to long-term academic plans and options to stay on campus for the years of maximum football impact. If the administration is going to insist that only people still completing degrees can stay on the team or that football players need to get into grad school on non-football merits, a coach who cares about what he's hired to do can and should push back at that and find a way to not be overseeing a football suicide cult.

It's glib of you to say that the statements I decried are "facts." No, they are normative. Me saying it's a problem to view it as acceptable that the norm would be for linemen to only stay four years and you saying it's just the way it is at Stanford are both opinions about the way football at Stanford should be. These things can change with changes in the landscape, changes in the program, and changes within the university. 

We come at this from different places, as exemplified by your statement "It is also counter-productive for the program to deprecate these choices, because the players will very quickly realize the coaching staff does not have the player's best interests at heart, only the needs of the program." It was a set of Shaw choices to populate a roster full of football-interested (rather than football-obsessed) Renaissance Men, operate with a closed door/aloof/imperialist mindset (rather than create a family-like atmosphere), and prize long-term individual career ambitions over the team experience. The players under Shaw realized he didn't have the team's best interests at heart, which made the experience for individuals less good too. They voted with their feet. In droves. For years. What I'm talking about isn't deprecating individual choices, it's attracting players who want to accomplish team goals and making them want to stay because the football-obsessed, competitive, team-focused, family-oriented, fun environment is one they want to be in. I don't think players will feel this has their best interests at heart less than Shaw did. 

You say that the way things have been is just the way Stanford is but that's bogus. Stanford was still Stanford when Bill Walsh, Denny Green, and Jim Harbaugh were there. We can have football coaches and still be Stanford. We can care about football and still be Stanford.

RE: Will next year be better? - Goose - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 01:34 PM)msqueri Wrote:  The comparison to the law of gravity rings hollow. There is nothing immutable about the notion that became popular under Shaw that a Stanford career was four years. 
It appears you didn't understand my point. My point was not directed at what football players should do. It was directed at what the can do and what options they may consider. The fact these options exist in the present indeed a fact. Pretending it isn't denies reality.
Quote:I have compiled data sets on hundreds of Stanford football players going back decades and as recently as under Teevens, Harris, and Harbaugh 54 percent of OL stayed five years and 71 percent of DL stayed five years, compared to less than 30 percent at both positions under Shaw. Stanford cared about academics in the 2000s too and, in fact, almost certainly had higher standards for football players than it has today.
Indeed. Back in the past grad transfers were almost unknown. Transferring before graduation was possible but virtually nobody did because you had to sit out a year. When you signed up to play football at Stanford, you were pretty much stuck at Stanford if you wanted to play. All those statistics describe a different world. Not relevant to today at all. I am also not certain where you get the belief that Stanford had higher standards  in the past than they do now. I am certainly familiar with Stanford's Rose Bowl teams in 1971 and 1972. There were several JC transfers on that team that were at best pretty marginal :-).
Quote:But programs and administrations can make decisions about how to operate within their given landscape. The football team can recruit players who care more about team goals than individual goals.
True, but identifying such players is far from an exact science. What coach would want players that explicitly said it was all about them? I think it is also not an either-or. Everybody has personal goals that the football program may not be meeting. Today, unlike in the past, you can just leave (as many people do). If you want to play, but aren't playing and the coach says you won't, leaving isn't deserting the team.
Quote:It can recruit players who care more about football than academics.
Good luck with that, especially at Stanford. First, you need to find somebody that can get in. A lot of people who care more about football than academics cannot. Even if you can get in, why would you go to Stanford instead of USC or even Indiana? You have to work harder on subjects you don't care about. You want to play football in a full stadium and be a Big Man On Campus. The "Stanford Hates Fun" issue is real. Also, you probably will find you don't fit in socially that well. On top of that, if you become dissatisfied with your situation, the transfer portal is a quick fix. The "40 year decision", such as it may be, doesn't mean squat to such players.
Quote:It can have the conversations you talk about with regard to long-term academic plans and options to stay on campus for the years of maximum football impact. If the administration is going to insist that only people still completing degrees can stay on the team or that football players need to get into grad school on non-football merits, a coach who cares about what he's hired to do can and should push back at that and find a way to not be overseeing a football suicide cult.
Indeed he should. However, I think "pushing back" isn't going to work. The coach is going to have to work with the administration to come up with something that "works". It may not be perfect, but stomping your foot and making demands isn't going to do it.

Quote:It's glib of you to say that the statements I decried are "facts." No, they are normative. Me saying it's a problem to view it as acceptable that the norm would be for linemen to only stay four years and you saying it's just the way it is at Stanford are both opinions about the way football at Stanford should be.
Not at all. From the coaching point of view, he wants some players to stay and some players to go. It is by definition "acceptable" for a player to leave to play football elsewhere or to just get on with life.  That is "ok" and saying it isn't is silly, these guys are not slaves (which arguably they were pretty much in the past). The thing you decry is how many of the players are choosing that option. There are indeed ways to affect that, and both the coach and the administration need to be involved. However, it still true this is an option and probably more players will chose it than you would wish.
Quote:These things can change with changes in the landscape, changes in the program, and changes within the university. 

We come at this from different places, as exemplified by your statement "It is also counter-productive for the program to deprecate these choices, because the players will very quickly realize the coaching staff does not have the player's best interests at heart, only the needs of the program." It was a set of Shaw choices to populate a roster full of football-interested (rather than football-obsessed) Renaissance Men, operate with a closed door/aloof/imperialist mindset (rather than create a family-like atmosphere), and prize long-term individual career ambitions over the team experience. The players under Shaw realized he didn't have the team's best interests at heart, which made the experience for individuals less good too. They voted with their feet. In droves. For years.
Not sure I can say Shaw did all this. I do think he recruited "Renaissance Men" to a large extent, but one could argue that such men would be exactly the ones that should be altruistic team first guys. In any case, I don't think trying to BS your players will ever work. They know the situation pretty well.
Quote:What I'm talking about isn't deprecating individual choices, it's attracting players who want to accomplish team goals and making them want to stay because the football-obsessed, competitive, team-focused, family-oriented, fun environment is one they want to be in. I don't think players will feel this has their best interests at heart less than Shaw did.
Football obsessed guys will leave in a heartbeat if they view it as an advantage. They would be stupid not to. We see it all over NCAA football. If you can't convince them Stanford is their best option, they are gone, team or no team. I think the team oriented, family-oriented fun environment is indeed an attraction. It will make people want to stay, and if a reasonable way to do that can be created, more guys will stay for year 5. However, most NCAA football programs are not that. A few are. You might talk to Dabo Swinney about how that is working out for him right now, as well as the guys who have transferred out (Uiagalelei in particular).

Quote:You say that the way things have been is just the way Stanford is but that's bogus. Stanford was still Stanford when Bill Walsh, Denny Green, and Jim Harbaugh were there. We can have football coaches and still be Stanford. We can care about football and still be Stanford.
Indeed. Although it is pretty hard to classify any of those programs as "friendly" in any sense :-). No transfer portal then, few grad transfers. Different world.

RE: Will next year be better? - 81alum - 09-25-2023

I am not sure that long "rebuilding" efforts can work anymore, in the era of the transfer pandemic.  

I'm not even sure that most programs can be successful by primarily recruiting high school students, when their toughest competition recruits experienced and proven college-level winners.

I hope, for Stanford's sake, that the traditional approach can be made to work at this one unique university, even if it is no longer the norm elsewhere.

RE: Will next year be better? - msqueri - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 05:17 PM)81alum Wrote:  I am not sure that long "rebuilding" efforts can work anymore, in the era of the transfer pandemic.  

I'm not even sure that most programs can be successful by primarily recruiting high school students, when their toughest competition recruits experienced and proven college-level winners.

I hope, for Stanford's sake, that the traditional approach can be made to work at this one unique university, even if it is no longer the norm elsewhere.

To what extent does your prediction account for the change in transfer rules now supposedly only allowing players to transfer without penalty once, barring extreme circumstances? That seems like it could be a fundamental change. Part of why the "transfer pandemic" has been so revolutionary is how efficient it makes the talent market. Going from essentially unlimited transfers to one transfer seems like it could change all that big time.

My brain isn't big enough to game out what this could mean for Stanford. I could see it benefiting us by making high school recruiting more important than it was for the 2022 and 2023 seasons. I could see it hurting us by making our players, who mostly are at their first school, very attractive to poaching by others. I could see it having impacts I can't predict. I could see if affecting the landscape one way one year and another the next.

My hunch is that regardless of how it plays out there will still be a place for high school recruiting, good coaching, culture....in other words the various models that have traditionally allowed for winning will still succeed to some degree. The norm may become transfer shopping but it won't be the exclusive model. Further, I would hypothesize that the combination of high school and transfer recruiting will matter more than who wins the transfer portal. To look into this, I thought I might look at this year, when the transfer landscape was at its peak and not regulated in the way it supposedly will be going forward. Here are the top 25 teams in Sagarin at the moment with two numbers listed, the On3 transfer portal ranking (ranking net inflow/outflow of transfer talent) and the 247 talent composite ranking (ranking teams based on their full rosters inclusive of high school recruits and transfers):

1. Alabama - 66, 1
2. Ohio State - 37, 3
3. Georgia - 62, 2
4. Oklahoma - 24, 9
5. Penn State - 44, 13
6. Texas - 36, 6
7. Michigan - 23, 14
8. Oregon - 16, 10
9. Washington - 17, 26
10. USC - 3, 8
11. Notre Dame - 50, 11
12. Texas A&M - 68, 4
13. Ole Miss - 6, 23
14. Kansas State - 29, 68
15. Florida State - 10, 20
16. Tennessee - 27, 16
17. LSU - 9, 7
18. Utah - 31, 33
19. Wisconsin - 8, 30
20. TCU - 18, 19
21. North Carolina - 33, 17
22. Clemson - 65, 5
23. Miami - 12, 12
24. Oregon State - 34, 56
25. UCLA - 4, 24

[For perspective: 102. Stanford - 69, 37]

Only 13 of the top 25 teams were top 25 in the transfer portal, which compares to 20 being top 25 in the talent rankings (anybody still think it's not Jessies and Joes when 80 percent of the top 25 can be predicted by recruiting rankings?).

The top 25 includes 8 teams that were below average in the transfer portal, all of whom were elite overall talent composite teams. The closest thing to an outlier in that respect is Oregon State, totally mediocre in the transfer portal and well below average in total on paper talent.

The Beavers are instructive outliers here. It is still possible to have a very good team based on Xs and Os and culture. Jonathan Smith is a hell of a coach. As you can see above, this model is also succeeding at Kansas State....and that's it. Smith and Chris Klieman are excellent coaches that should have a lot of suitors. But they're outliers. Only two of the top 25 programs don't belong in terms of on paper composite talent. RIP Xs and Os as the major explanation for success.

When I look at this - again, a year at the apex of transfer portal salience and chaos - it seems clear to me that the overriding factor in college football competitiveness is not the transfer portal at all but rather the blue bloods that always compete at the top are continuing to compete at the top, transfer portal be damned. Because it's extremely hard to break into that group if you're not already one of those programs, some look to inspired coaching hires to overcome talent deficits. But it's hard to identify the next Smith or Klieman, and even if you do it's tough to hold on to a coach like that.

To me the model to aspire to is something like what Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin are accomplishing. Be ambitious enough to demand good coaching and then pair it with good enough recruiting. If you can recruit in the upper half of Power Five football - even if just barely - and have enough pride in the program not to accept results worse than that, you can be a relevant program. Stanford had that going on for almost a decade but when the results slipped we didn't have any pride to demand better. I think we can and should do more to put ourselves in position to be like the Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin types of the world. But we don't act with that level of ambition. When Washington had an opening, they got a supernova Group of Five coach who had also won three NAIA national championships. When Wisconsin had an opening, they got one of the most proven and long-coveted coaches in the nation. When it was out turn, we went with a guy with three years of FCS coaching experience. We choose to roll the dice and hope to strike gold like the Oregon States and Kansas States of the world. Much lower probability of success, and I think that should be beneath the Home of Champions.

RE: Will next year be better? - Goose - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 06:22 PM)msqueri Wrote:  Only 13 of the top 25 teams were top 25 in the transfer portal, which compares to 20 being top 25 in the talent rankings (anybody still think it's not Jessies and Joes when 80 percent of the top 25 can be predicted by recruiting rankings?).
Certainly not me. I never thought that even before there was a transfer portal.
Quote:The top 25 includes 8 teams that were below average in the transfer portal, all of whom were elite overall talent composite teams. The closest thing to an outlier in that respect is Oregon State, totally mediocre in the transfer portal and well below average in total on paper talent.

The Beavers are instructive outliers here. It is still possible to have a very good team based on Xs and Os and culture. Jonathan Smith is a hell of a coach. As you can see above, this model is also succeeding at Kansas State....and that's it. Smith and Chris Klieman are excellent coaches that should have a lot of suitors. But they're outliers. Only two of the top 25 programs don't belong in terms of on paper composite talent. RIP Xs and Os as the major explanation for success.

When I look at this - again, a year at the apex of transfer portal salience and chaos - it seems clear to me that the overriding factor in college football competitiveness is not the transfer portal at all but rather the blue bloods that always compete at the top are continuing to compete at the top, transfer portal be damned.
This I do not at all agree with. Your definition of "success" in the portal is based on total numbers. That isn't a good metric IMO. Many of the "blue blood" programs don't get many transfers, BUT the ones they do get are often key to their future success. The have mostly good players and don't need many, but they may have serious deficiencies. They fix that in the portal. Look how many QBs in the top tier of the PAC-12 are transfers. That really matters and helps continue the "blue blood" success.
Quote: Because it's extremely hard to break into that group if you're not already one of those programs, some look to inspired coaching hires to overcome talent deficits. But it's hard to identify the next Smith or Klieman, and even if you do it's tough to hold on to a coach like that.

To me the model to aspire to is something like what Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin are accomplishing. Be ambitious enough to demand good coaching and then pair it with good enough recruiting. If you can recruit in the upper half of Power Five football - even if just barely - and have enough pride in the program not to accept results worse than that, you can be a relevant program. Stanford had that going on for almost a decade but when the results slipped we didn't have any pride to demand better. I think we can and should do more to put ourselves in position to be like the Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin types of the world. But we don't act with that level of ambition. When Washington had an opening, they got a supernova Group of Five coach who had also won three NAIA national championships. When Wisconsin had an opening, they got one of the most proven and long-coveted coaches in the nation. When it was out turn, we went with a guy with three years of FCS coaching experience. We choose to roll the dice and hope to strike gold like the Oregon States and Kansas States of the world. Much lower probability of success, and I think that should be beneath the Home of Champions.
Can't say I disagree. However, I don't know what options Stanford explored. IMO many ambitious up and coming coaches do not want to come to Stanford because recruiting is much harder than say Kansas State. Winning is hard enough without having an additional handicap. That may have tipped the scales to where we are now.

RE: Will next year be better? - washingtonismoney - 09-25-2023

Is recruiting harder at Stanford than K-State? I would strenuously disagree. Shaw and Harbaugh routinely brought in mega-whales. Even Taylor -- a total non-entity, coaching at a disaster zone, as far as big-league college football is concerned -- has brought in a surprisingly good class. By contrast K-State's all-time best recruit, per 247sports, is way back in the class of 2001. I don't think there's any excuse for poo-pooing what can be done recruiting-wise at Stanford, or for unfavorably comping it to the Wildcats. The question is less "can you recruit well" but more "can you optimize recruiting to be a consistent national contender."

RE: Will next year be better? - Goose - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 07:12 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote:  Is recruiting harder at Stanford than K-State? I would strenuously disagree. Shaw and Harbaugh routinely brought in mega-whales. Even Taylor -- a total non-entity, coaching at a disaster zone, as far as big-league college football is concerned -- has brought in a surprisingly good class. By contrast K-State's all-time best recruit, per 247sports, is way back in the class of 2001. I don't think there's any excuse for poo-pooing what can be done recruiting-wise at Stanford, or for unfavorably comping it to the Wildcats. The question is less "can you recruit well" but more "can you optimize recruiting to be a consistent national contender."
Unfortunately, It isn't what you or I think, it is what the coaches you are trying to hire think. Shaw and Harbaugh's success may not translate well to the candidate's recruiting style. It is a different situation than they are used to, and they may not want to chance it.

RE: Will next year be better? - msqueri - 09-25-2023

Goose, you've mischaracterized my view of success in the transfer portal. I was merely going off of the best industry rating of transfer impacts, which is both qualitative and quantitative and which accounts for both incoming transfers and outgoing transfers. Mischaracterization to say I'm just going off of numbers. The fact is that there isn't as much of a relationship between the transfer portal and the national landscape as many assume and there is a much clearer relationship between high school recruiting rankings and the national landscape. Too many miss that fact.

I do think your mention of the transfer QBs in the Pac-12 is an important point. Looking at the data I shared above it appears that the Pac-12 is unusually impacted by transfers. The transfer portal is a much bigger deal in the Pac-12 in 2023 than it is elsewhere. That's interesting for now, but I'm not sure it tells us anything about the future. The Pac-12 won't exist anymore in a few months. The transfer QBs currently dominating our league will be scattered across the pro and college landscape next year. And the 2023 Pac-12 QB cohort is a known outlier/phenomenon in college football this year. I think if we want to think systematically about this it's far more relevant that, as I showed, in general in college football there is more of a relationship between overall talent and performance than there is between the transfer portal and performance.

You have a lot of good points/arguments but occasionally say things that make me wonder what fact base you're operating from. Extremely odd comment that it's easier to recruit at Kansas State than Stanford. That hasn't been the case pretty much ever and is very, very far from being the truth. Stanford historically has been able to recruit top 40 classes consistently. Kansas State not so much. Right now, the 247 talent composite has Stanford #37 and Kansas State #68. Right now, rebuilding, awful Stanford has a top 30 class and ascendant, bona fide good Kansas State has a top 90 class. Massively easier to recruit at Stanford than Kansas State.
(09-25-2023, 07:18 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(09-25-2023, 07:12 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote:  Is recruiting harder at Stanford than K-State? I would strenuously disagree. Shaw and Harbaugh routinely brought in mega-whales. Even Taylor -- a total non-entity, coaching at a disaster zone, as far as big-league college football is concerned -- has brought in a surprisingly good class. By contrast K-State's all-time best recruit, per 247sports, is way back in the class of 2001. I don't think there's any excuse for poo-pooing what can be done recruiting-wise at Stanford, or for unfavorably comping it to the Wildcats. The question is less "can you recruit well" but more "can you optimize recruiting to be a consistent national contender."
Unfortunately, It isn't what you or I think, it is what the coaches you are trying to hire think. Shaw and Harbaugh's success may not translate well to the candidate's recruiting style. It is a different situation than they are used to, and they may not want to chance it.

There is literally not a single person on the planet who knows anything about recruiting who thinks Kansas State is easier to recruit at than Stanford. Kansas State was able to attract Klieman because....he was an FCS coach. A Power Five program doesn't need to convince an FCS coach of anything to take the job. Harbaugh, Klieman, and Taylor were thanking their lucky stars to have programs on a budget pluck them from obscurity rather than go the much more tried and true route of picking a proven major coach. There is no skill in getting somebody like Klieman or Taylor to accept your offer. The skill is in picking the right guy so it's not a Paul Wulff or Mike London.

RE: Will next year be better? - 81alum - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 06:22 PM)msqueri Wrote:  
(09-25-2023, 05:17 PM)81alum Wrote:  I am not sure that long "rebuilding" efforts can work anymore, in the era of the transfer pandemic.  

I'm not even sure that most programs can be successful by primarily recruiting high school students, when their toughest competition recruits experienced and proven college-level winners.

I hope, for Stanford's sake, that the traditional approach can be made to work at this one unique university, even if it is no longer the norm elsewhere.
To what extent does your prediction account for the change in transfer rules now supposedly only allowing players to transfer without penalty once, barring extreme circumstances? That seems like it could be a fundamental change. Part of why the "transfer pandemic" has been so revolutionary is how efficient it makes the talent market. Going from essentially unlimited transfers to one transfer seems like it could change all that big time.

This is the change that Tara referenced in an interview last year (then just a potential change) as being necessary to tamp down the chaos.  We can hope that this will be enough to restore some hope to academically inclined 4 year institutions.  Perhaps this new rule and the expiration of the COVID year will return ICA to something a little more stable and traditional.

But do we know that a one-transfer rule will survive court challenge?  How loosely will "extreme circumstances" be interpreted?  Is a change of coaches an "extreme circumstance"?  Homesickness?  I have my doubts that this genie will go back in the bottle.  I worry that we have seen a paradigm-shift in intercollegiate athletics.  And, for that matter, does it matter if all the best talent transfers once rather than twice?  One free transfer is quite enough for the rich programs to lure top talent away from "rebuilding" programs.

RE: Will next year be better? - Goose - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 07:18 PM)msqueri Wrote:  Goose, you've mischaracterized my view of success in the transfer portal. I was merely going off of the best industry rating of transfer impacts, which is both qualitative and quantitative and which accounts for both incoming transfers and outgoing transfers. Mischaracterization to say I'm just going off of numbers. The fact is that there isn't as much of a relationship between the transfer portal and the national landscape as many assume and there is a much clearer relationship between high school recruiting rankings and the national landscape. Too many miss that fact.
I agree that high school recruiting is more important, but I think the "impact" evaluation is questionable. The "blue bloods" can and do fix their problems. Oregon without Bo Nix is another situation entirely. Hard to minimize the impact there. A "weak" team getting one great player may matter a little, but a very strong team getting one to fill their main deficiency is a whole other case.
Quote:I do think your mention of the transfer QBs in the Pac-12 is an important point. Looking at the data I shared above it appears that the Pac-12 is unusually impacted by transfers. The transfer portal is a much bigger deal in the Pac-12 in 2023 than it is elsewhere. That's interesting for now, but I'm not sure it tells us anything about the future. The Pac-12 won't exist anymore in a few months. The transfer QBs currently dominating our league will be scattered across the pro and college landscape next year. And the 2023 Pac-12 QB cohort is a known outlier/phenomenon in college football this year. I think if we want to think systematically about this it's far more relevant that, as I showed, in general in college football there is more of a relationship between overall talent and performance than there is between the transfer portal and performance.

You have a lot of good points/arguments but occasionally say things that make me wonder what fact base you're operating from. Extremely odd comment that it's easier to recruit at Kansas State than Stanford. That hasn't been the case pretty much ever and is very, very far from being the truth. Stanford historically has been able to recruit top 40 classes consistently. Kansas State not so much. Right now, the 247 talent composite has Stanford #37 and Kansas State #68. Right now, rebuilding, awful Stanford has a top 30 class and ascendant, bona fide good Kansas State has a top 90 class. Massively easier to recruit at Stanford than Kansas State.
Again, as I say above, it isn't what you or I think, it is what the coaches you are trying to hire think. Shaw and Harbaugh's success may not translate well to the candidate's recruiting style. It is a different situation than they are used to, and they may not want to chance it. Indeed, they may be wrong, but it is what they believe and they act that way.

RE: Will next year be better? - msqueri - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 07:24 PM)81alum Wrote:  
(09-25-2023, 06:22 PM)msqueri Wrote:  
(09-25-2023, 05:17 PM)81alum Wrote:  I am not sure that long "rebuilding" efforts can work anymore, in the era of the transfer pandemic.  

I'm not even sure that most programs can be successful by primarily recruiting high school students, when their toughest competition recruits experienced and proven college-level winners.

I hope, for Stanford's sake, that the traditional approach can be made to work at this one unique university, even if it is no longer the norm elsewhere.
To what extent does your prediction account for the change in transfer rules now supposedly only allowing players to transfer without penalty once, barring extreme circumstances? That seems like it could be a fundamental change. Part of why the "transfer pandemic" has been so revolutionary is how efficient it makes the talent market. Going from essentially unlimited transfers to one transfer seems like it could change all that big time.

This is the change that Tara referenced in an interview last year (then just a potential change) as being necessary to tamp down the chaos.  We can hope that this will be enough to restore some hope to academically inclined 4 year institutions.  Perhaps this new rule and the expiration of the COVID year to return ICA to something a little more stable and traditional.

But do we know that a one-transfer rule will survive court challenge?  How loosely will "extreme circumstances" be interpreted?  Is a change of coaches an "extreme circumstance"?  Homesickness?  I have my doubts that this genie will go back in the bottle.  I worry that we have seen a paradigm-shift in intercollegiate athletics.  And, for that matter, does it matter if all the best talent transfers once rather than twice?  One free transfer is quite enough for the rich programs to lure top talent away from "rebuilding" programs.

"Extreme circumstance" was just my shorthand. There are actual criteria spelled out:

  1. For reasons related to the student-athletes' physical or mental well-being;
  2. Due to exigent circumstances outside the student-athlete's control (e.g. physical or sexual assault or discrimination based on a protected class); or
  3. Assertions involving diagnosed education impacting disabilities

Like you, I wonder how this will be interpreted and/or litigated, but on paper it's pretty strict. The FAQs I've seen have generally said that unless a sport gets discontinued or something, players who have already transferred will have to sit out a second year if they transfer again.

RE: Will next year be better? - washingtonismoney - 09-25-2023

To circle back to an original point -- the transfer portal and how important it'll be -- I project it'll be a big factor, and the early stats from msqueri are just that, early, and don't reflect what'll happen in the future. 

Let me give an example. There's a sports consultancy, Statsbomb, which got its start selling analytics packages for another kind of transfers -- for the soccer market. They're now trying to expand into America, for our kind of football. As part of their expansion, they've been promoting their services for scouting guys for our kind of transfers. Even without considering the Deion effect, a lot of guys are going to try and get paid by promoting trends. I'm sure this board has enough consultants (or knows enough) to know that sometimes an ambitious consultant creates trends even when they might not exist otherwise. 

You can imagine, for example, opportunistic coaches doing "second draft" type stuff and picking off players from bad teams. Sure most of the Stanford football team isn't great...but might Collin Wright be a useful player for a corner-starved team? Or what if you have a weak wideout room...might you see if you could entice Tiger Bachmeier to develop in your system for a year? Anyone familiar with the soccer transfer market knows the talent wars, in a truly free market featuring really rare human capital, reach a level of aggression most can barely contemplate. Ultimately it's Taylor's job to basically re-recruit the roster every year.

RE: Will next year be better? - fullmetal - 09-25-2023

Yes, Taylor does have to re-recruit the roster.  Coaches from other teams are not allowed to make contact with potential transfers unless that student-athlete has already entered the transfer portal.  If a player is talking with another team, they've already decided to enter the portal and roll the dice...

RE: Will next year be better? - GK3 - 09-26-2023

(09-25-2023, 11:54 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(09-25-2023, 08:40 AM)msqueri Wrote:  The elephant in the room for me is whether we can move on from fifth years becoming so rare. That's not the way to run a football team. Anybody who talks about college being four years or business being complete when your degree is complete or it being rational for players to move on is not serious about football.
Obviously, I do not agree. The analog would be to say that anybody who acknowledges the law of gravity can't be serious about building airplanes. The concepts you decry exist and in many cases following those concepts may be the "right choice" for some football players. Denying that fact (like denying the law of gravity) will greatly interfere with one's ability to cope with said facts. It is also counter-productive for the program to deprecate these choices, because the players will very quickly realize the coaching staff does not have the player's best interests at heart, only the needs of the program. That  results in an instant loss of respect.

Quote:This is a disease Taylor needs to eradicate.

Eradicating this "disease" is impossible. It isn't a "disease". It is a set of facts, and "facts are persistent things".

Quote:You can't develop the Tobin Phillips and Connor McLaughlins of the world for four years and then just shrug as they move on before reaching their potential. 

In order to minimize the attrition of certain "key" players, the staff is going to need to establish a relationship with them that acknowledges the other forces operating in the player's choice set. In some cases, the coach can explain the benefits of remaining another year and be convincing. It is easier to do this when the team is clearly on the "upswing" and when their is a significant bond among the position group. Creating a bond among the players is not something that is formulaic. The Tunnel Workers Union was not created by the coaches. They embraced it, but they did not create it. It is also easier to retain players if the NIL money is significant enough to be attractive. In other cases, the player will not be convinced and chose to move on. In that case all the coaches can do is wish bonne chance. It will happen. That is part of coaching at Stanford (and really everywhere else too, just more so at Stanford).

Even more importantly, the idea of remaining for a fifth year needs to be possible. The coaches need to identify players they may want to keep early on and inform them of the potential benefits of staying. The players then need to establish an academic path that gives them a chance at going to graduate school/co-terminal at Stanford. IMO postponing graduation by not pursuing a path to graduate in 4 years will be very unpopular with the players (who need to keep their options open) and even more unpopular (to the point of forbidding it) with the administration. Possibly some kind of double major situation may work for both groups, but the coaches (and players) can't ignore this issue.

This is just "how it is" at Stanford. You can develop programs to keep the players, but even best case, it won't always work. One can talk about the idea that the players themselves aren't "serious" about football if the chose to leave. However, even that idea is difficult to defend. Many players leaving after year 4 are going elsewhere because it allows them to play football in what they believe is a better situation for them. They may be correct in many cases. Doesn't mean they don't care about football (but often does mean they didn't get into graduate school at Stanford :-). It is also possible to be "serious" about football and also "serious" about other things. At Stanford, that probably is more of a problem than elsewhere. The coaches ignore this at their peril. They need to keep recruiting their players all 4 years. That is just a fact.

Well said Goose!  We aren't in the 20th Century any longer and the football landscape has changed a great deal.  Routinely we used to have guys redshirt and come back for a 5th year.  It just isn't going to happen now no matter how much you want it to happen, it ain't happening.  We have to find ways to do the best we can within the rules framework that exist both within the University and without.  A challenge regardless of how you approach it.  
I think the number of players who can comeback for a 5th year, most likely as a grad students is going to be very small.  I see little sense in redshirting someone who most likely is only going to be here for four years. I think we will be better served by assuming no one will be here more than four years, and accept the exceptions gratefully.  We also have to be on top of the Portal list at all times and know who is out there and who might make the grade at Stanford. We have to hope that our NIL program grows sufficiently to be competitive, but I don't see that happening. 
We have to do as you suggest work with out guys every day, all year to keep them committed to the program, but at the same time act in their best interest at all times.  That might pay dividends but you get the rep of not acting in the best interest of your players, you will pay the price.

RE: Will next year be better? - SamuelMcF - 09-26-2023

(09-25-2023, 08:45 PM)fullmetal Wrote:  Yes, Taylor does have to re-recruit the roster.  Coaches from other teams are not allowed to make contact with potential transfers unless that student-athlete has already entered the transfer portal.  If a player is talking with another team, they've already decided to enter the portal and roll the dice...

This assumes other teams actually follow those non-contact rules. They don't.