Football Recruiting Class of 2022 - 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: Football Recruiting Class of 2022 (/thread-19080.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: Football Recruiting Class of 2022 (/thread-19080.html)
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 07-16-2021
(07-16-2021, 01:27 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(07-16-2021, 01:22 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: I'm pleased with the DB depth. The lack of any top 400 DB recruits since the 2019 class is a little concerning. Some of the guys in the middle range will need to exceed their rating, but it seems like a decent bet that'll happen due to the depth in recent classes.
That drought has a good shot of ending in this class.
Thanks for the tidbit. I hope you’re right.
RE: Class of 2022 - Hurlburt88 - 07-16-2021
Etch-a-sketch
RE: Class of 2022 - old spanish trail - 07-16-2021
(07-16-2021, 02:22 PM)slide Wrote:(07-16-2021, 01:20 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: Cornerback all the way.
agree with you (especially if his technique holds up). he moves a bit like the big CBs from Oregon State a few years ago.
Hope you guys are right. He can tackle but looks a little slow twitch to me. LJ mark is impressive.
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 07-17-2021
(07-16-2021, 03:45 PM)Hurlburt88 Wrote: Etch-a-sketch
It would be cool for a CB to be able to move like an etch-a-sketch.
Looks like Stanford is in the thick of some recruiting battles for the very top defensive recruits in So Cal. I hope Stanford’s program and Shaw still have enough gravitational pull to land those recruits.
RE: Class of 2022 - SamuelMcF - 07-18-2021
[tweet]https://twitter.com/TevaruaT/status/1416993909587070976[/tweet]
Tafiti is a BIG recruiting win.
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 07-19-2021
Wow, brobdingnagian win for Shaw and Stanford. Keep ‘em coming.
RE: Class of 2022 - BostonCard - 07-19-2021
Highest ranked verbal for us so far, in a position of need. Propels us all the way to eighth in the PAC-12.
BC
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 07-19-2021
Recruiting is still not where it needs to be for Stanford to contend, but I think it’s a little misleading to say Stanford has the 8th ranked class in the conference (even though that’s the current ranking on 247). Looking at the commitment lists and rankings of individual players, U$C and Oregon are way out front, but Stanford is in the next group with UCLA and ASU (though probably a bit behind both). The rest of the conference looks to be behind Stanford as of now. Of course, lots will change between now and December, but I wouldn’t say things are as dire as they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
RE: Class of 2022 - CardinalSagehen - 07-19-2021
I'm concerned that 2022 could be the last wave of recruits that won't significantly factor potential NIL earnings into their decision. It seems like many players at large football schools will earn thousands of dollars per year, some will earn tens of thousands, and a handful will take home hundreds of thousands - but definitely not at Stanford.
My buddy sent me a link to Kayvon Thibodeaux's NFT deal with Phil Knight. If Phil Knight can sign you up and funnel you to his best shoe designers to produce an NFT that monetizes your NIL, then college football as we knew it is truly dead. We might as well throw all the booster rules out the window.
Most students' NIL earnings could be small next to the value of the "40-year decision," but this will be a harder sell than before, especially to guys that don't already come from wealthy families. My sense is that recruiting 4-star and 5-star athletes to Stanford is going to become increasingly difficult. I still think we can compete, in certain years, but it's going to be even more of an uphill battle...
To be clear, I have no issue with student-athletes earning money, but I will probably enjoy college football less as a result of this.
RE: Class of 2022 - DenverCard - 07-19-2021
Sagehen,
I share your concerns about college sports in general -- at least the revenue sports -- and how my feelings toward college sports are likely to change as we move forward. I could see a wealthy booster paying $50K to each of 20 recruits per year in lieu of, say, a donation toward facilities. Putting aside tax benefit considerations, if a T. Boone Pickens type decided to spend such money on a historically low-performing football school (e.g., Illinois), thereby vaulting them into the top ten, that $1,000,000 stands to be of much greater value to the school than a new weight room, via television appearances and the leverage it would have on other alumni donations. Heretofore college football has been a financial arms race, but advantages that the major football schools have from a strictly financial standpoint have been able to be somewhat offset by other attributes that a Stanford or Cal have that Alabama and Clemson do not. As you point out, Sagehen, the current situation exacerbates the gulf.
And at a much lower cost, similar tilting of a school's competitive advantage in a lesser sport can be achieved. Laird Q. Cagan gave what must have been a substantial donation to have the soccer field at Stanford named after him. Imagine an alumnus of another school who lives and dies with the team's performance. $100K used ostensibly for NIL purposes could help secure the top five recruits every year. Skip the yacht; take on the role of "owner" of your alma mater's soccer team. Heck, if parents are willing to give $500K to the sailing team to get their kid into a school, there is plenty of disposable income for vanity projects like this.
Of course, those from other schools would argue that someone like me is merely unhappy that the changes afoot stand to take away Stanford's inherent advantage with it's 27B endowment. And they probably aren't wrong.
RE: Class of 2022 - FarEastStanfan - 07-19-2021
(07-19-2021, 03:53 PM)DenverCard Wrote: Sagehen,
I share your concerns about college sports in general -- at least the revenue sports -- and how my feelings toward college sports are likely to change as we move forward. I could see a wealthy booster paying $50K to each of 20 recruits per year in lieu of, say, a donation toward facilities. Putting aside tax benefit considerations, if a T. Boone Pickens type decided to spend such money on a historically low-performing football school (e.g., Illinois), thereby vaulting them into the top ten, that $1,000,000 stands to be of much greater value to the school than a new weight room, via television appearances and the leverage it would have on other alumni donations. Heretofore college football has been a financial arms race, but advantages that the major football schools have from a strictly financial standpoint have been able to be somewhat offset by other attributes that a Stanford or Cal have that Alabama and Clemson do not. As you point out, Sagehen, the current situation exacerbates the gulf.
And at a much lower cost, similar tilting of a school's competitive advantage in a lesser sport can be achieved. Laird Q. Cagan gave what must have been a substantial donation to have the soccer field at Stanford named after him. Imagine an alumnus of another school who lives and dies with the team's performance. $100K used ostensibly for NIL purposes could help secure the top five recruits every year. Skip the yacht; take on the role of "owner" of your alma mater's soccer team. Heck, if parents are willing to give $500K to the sailing team to get their kid into a school, there is plenty of disposable income for vanity projects like this.
Of course, those from other schools would argue that someone like me is merely unhappy that the changes afoot stand to take away Stanford's inherent advantage with it's 27B endowment. And they probably aren't wrong.
If the concern is that deep-pocketed donors will pony up money to bring in top recruits, does anyone have more deep-pocketed donors than Stanford? I don't know the details if such direct donations to players are even really possible under the new rules, but if they are, and Stanford really wants to compete on this level, I'm sure it will find a way. The ethics of going this route, at any school? That's another issue altogether.
RE: Class of 2022 - CardinalSagehen - 07-19-2021
(07-19-2021, 05:12 PM)FarEastStanfan Wrote: If the concern is that deep-pocketed donors will pony up money to bring in top recruits, does anyone have more deep-pocketed donors than Stanford? I don't know the details if such direct donations to players are even really possible under the new rules, but if they are, and Stanford really wants to compete on this level, I'm sure it will find a way. The ethics of going this route, at any school? That's another issue altogether.
Stanford donors have deep pockets, but as you've probably noticed, they are not engaged to the level of donors at other large football schools. In addition, not all the money will come from wealthy boosters. Most students will make a few thousand dollars here and there from local businesses, in communities where their endorsements actually make good business sense. That won't be the case in the Bay Area, where college football and basketball are distant afterthoughts. It's a far cry from South Bend, Tuscaloosa, or State College, where college football is Everything.
Here's a story about a U of Miami fan that owns a chain of MMA gyms: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31771563/dan-lambert-plans-500-month-endorsement-deal-every-miami-hurricanes-football-player-scholarship. He's offered to pay all 90 scholarship players $500/month for their endorsements. This could add up to over $500k/year. I'd guess that he's doing it in part for the positive PR and marketing impact in the area, not solely to funnel money to the players on the team that he wants to see winning. We have tech companies in Palo Alto, but they'd gain nothing from student-athlete endorsements.
So while I think a solution can be found, and there's certainly tons of wealth in the area to be tapped, I'm not sure it's going to be a level playing field in the eyes of recruits. To your point, maybe it's solvable, but who really wants to win that way? And will Stanford go all-in on the trend? I know they made a small announcement about their plans to provide NIL resources, but will they really lean into it, after opposing it for so long?
RE: Class of 2022 - Phogge - 07-19-2021
What's to stop Arriaga from hiring the "Next Andrew Luck" as his "assistant" for a million a year?
Seems like Big John could buy a helluva team and not make a dent in his finances.
RE: Class of 2022 - BostonCard - 07-19-2021
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mattrose5_/status/1417286627265744896?s=20[/tweet]
It's raining linebackers today.
BC
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 07-19-2021
Maybe the cognoscenti will correct me, but I’m guessing this happened because Robby Snelling (a LHP and BTW also a 4-star LB) decommitted from Stanford baseball (which seemed like it’s been coming for a while, but now it’s official).
RE: Class of 2022 - BobK - 07-19-2021
Smelling committed to LSU
RE: Class of 2022 - SamuelMcF - 07-19-2021
(07-19-2021, 06:38 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Maybe the cognoscenti will correct me, but I’m guessing this happened because Robby Snelling (a LHP and BTW also a 4-star LB) decommitted from Stanford baseball (which seemed like it’s been coming for a while, but now it’s official).
This decommitment happened months ago and was door #1 related. AND he was an OLB. AND he won't be playing football in college.
RE: Class of 2022 - SamuelMcF - 07-21-2021
(07-19-2021, 10:03 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Recruiting is still not where it needs to be for Stanford to contend, but I think it’s a little misleading to say Stanford has the 8th ranked class in the conference (even though that’s the current ranking on 247). Looking at the commitment lists and rankings of individual players, U$C and Oregon are way out front, but Stanford is in the next group with UCLA and ASU (though probably a bit behind both). The rest of the conference looks to be behind Stanford as of now. Of course, lots will change between now and December, but I wouldn’t say things are as dire as they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
I definitely agree with this, but wanted to mention to BC that 247 and ESPN did some ratings updates and we are now at 6th in the Pac-12.
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 07-21-2021
(07-21-2021, 10:55 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(07-19-2021, 10:03 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Recruiting is still not where it needs to be for Stanford to contend, but I think it’s a little misleading to say Stanford has the 8th ranked class in the conference (even though that’s the current ranking on 247). Looking at the commitment lists and rankings of individual players, U$C and Oregon are way out front, but Stanford is in the next group with UCLA and ASU (though probably a bit behind both). The rest of the conference looks to be behind Stanford as of now. Of course, lots will change between now and December, but I wouldn’t say things are as dire as they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
I definitely agree with this, but wanted to mention to BC that 247 and ESPN did some ratings updates and we are now at 6th in the Pac-12.
The ratings updates seem pretty minor. The potentially bigger recruiting news is that Steve Wiltfong submitted a crystal ball predicting Fisher Anderson to Stanford. Anderson has offers from a bunch of SEC schools including Auburn, Florida, and Georgia, so pulling him out of SEC country would be a nice win for Shaw and Stanford.
RE: Class of 2022 - BostonCard - 07-21-2021
Also worth noting that because of different accural rates of commits, over the course of a recruiting season, schools were wax and wane. I didn't mean to imply that I expected us to have the 8th best recruiting class when all was said and done. I just wanted to highlight that Tafiti's commitment was significant enough that we jumped 2 or 3 spots in the rankings.
BC