It's going to get worse before it gets 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: It's going to get worse before it gets better (/thread-16574.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: It's going to get worse before it gets better (/thread-16574.html)
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - d4cohn - 10-10-2018
(10-10-2018, 11:13 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What would be the reason to keep people on football scholarships if they aren't providing the value expected of those on scholarship. If players aren't good enough or are injured, why can't they be put on some other scholarship, but not a football one?
For a couple of reasons. One, depending on whether the financial aid is the general financial aid provided through the financial aid office, that financial aid likely wouldn't be as extensive as the aid provided through their scholarship (full scholarship + stipend). Two, if we are making determinations based on performance on the football field only, how can we separate a player's "performance" from the coaching he is receiving. More specifically, if a player is struggling, how do we know it is due to the player's struggles, rather than just poor coaching.
I would say softball under Coach Hanson is a perfect illustrator of this. If you just looked at on-field performance, you could say almost the entire team wasn't performing up to expectations. However, when you have a completely overmatched coach and staff that isn't providing anything really in coaching/adjustments at the plate etc., and the players are having to largely coach themselves, what do you do? Do you assign two classes worth of players to non-athletic scholarships before you realize the coach might be the problem, as opposed to the players themselves?
For all we know, our struggles on the OL and DL could be due to coaching, rather than the players themselves. The fact is we don't know for sure, and making a consequential move as assigning someone to a non-athletic scholarship, one should be certain at least.
Even still, it still feels icky to me.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - stupac2 - 10-10-2018
(10-10-2018, 10:57 AM)d4cohn Wrote: Respectfully, are we seriously proposing this?
Uh, no? Upthread I specifically said that I don't think it's a tradeoff much of our fanbase would be willing to accept. But it's worth talking about the downside of being ethical, which is that we don't get as many lottery tickets as other programs. (Part of that is that we have reduced attrition across the board, except perhaps medical, but "we don't run off underperformers" definitely hurts you if you want to compete with Saban and Meyer who definitely do.)
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - CTcard - 10-10-2018
(10-10-2018, 11:13 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What would be the reason to keep people on football scholarships if they aren't providing the value expected of those on scholarship. If players aren't good enough or are injured, why can't they be put on some other scholarship, but not a football one?
The reason is that we make a pact with these kids: if you commit to devoting your time to the sport, we'll pay for your college.
If they turn out to not be good enough, that doesn't mean they broke any commitment.
As far as I know, Stanford has not generally "encouraged" lesser performing athletes to discover reasons they want to transfer or find different pursuits. I am sure it has happened from time to time individually, and have heard of some possible iffy cases, but that appears to be the exception. I believe that for the head-count sports Stanford now officially offers four year scholarships (though I don't remember that ever being publicly stated). This was a big issue nationally a few years back.
If players are injured such that they can no longer play, they can medically retire; Stanford can still pay their education costs and it does not count against the scholarship limit. As far as I know, Stanford always does so.
The rules do not allow for Stanford to give players full scholarships (or at least scholarships not available to all students) to athletes leaving the team and have that not count against scholarship limits.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - BostonCard - 10-10-2018
(10-10-2018, 10:14 AM)CTcard Wrote:(10-10-2018, 09:43 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something? I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen. We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.
Well, at least in our base packages, 8 of the starting 22 are OL or DL. That's 36% of the lineup.
So, I guess we could have 1/3 of our class every year be offensive or defensive linemen.
We need kickers too. And you have to account for different packages. We never use more than 3 DL, but we sometimes use 5 and even 6 DB, so you are going to need more DB's than is accounted for at the base. We sometimes use a fullback, use two and even three tight end sets, and three wide receiver sets (and also six OL).
The other thing is that one tackle can back-up both tackle spots, and one guard can typically back-up both guard spots, and you can sometimes move players between guard and tackle (Hamilton, for example).
BC
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - Beeg_Dawg - 10-10-2018
(10-10-2018, 12:05 PM)CTcard Wrote:(10-10-2018, 11:13 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What would be the reason to keep people on football scholarships if they aren't providing the value expected of those on scholarship. If players aren't good enough or are injured, why can't they be put on some other scholarship, but not a football one?
The reason is that we make a pact with these kids: if you commit to devoting your time to the sport, we'll pay for your college.
If they turn out to not be good enough, that doesn't mean they broke any commitment.
As far as I know, Stanford has not generally "encouraged" lesser performing athletes to discover reasons they want to transfer or find different pursuits. I am sure it has happened from time to time individually, and have heard of some possible iffy cases, but that appears to be the exception. I believe that for the head-count sports Stanford now officially offers four year scholarships (though I don't remember that ever being publicly stated). This was a big issue nationally a few years back.
If players are injured such that they can no longer play, they can medically retire; Stanford can still pay their education costs and it does not count against the scholarship limit. As far as I know, Stanford always does so.
The rules do not allow for Stanford to give players full scholarships (or at least scholarships not available to all students) to athletes leaving the team and have that not count against scholarship limits.
A small caveat on medical retirement- Stanford honors the scholarship as long as the student athlete is in good academic standing AND stays on track to graduate on schedule.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - slide - 10-10-2018
iirc the power 5 honor 4 year football scholarships as long as the student-athlete stays in good standing academically. this has been the practice at Stanford before the power 5 adopted the practice.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - qwerty49 - 10-10-2018
(10-10-2018, 01:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-10-2018, 10:14 AM)CTcard Wrote:(10-10-2018, 09:43 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something? I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen. We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.
Well, at least in our base packages, 8 of the starting 22 are OL or DL. That's 36% of the lineup.
So, I guess we could have 1/3 of our class every year be offensive or defensive linemen.
We need kickers too. And you have to account for different packages. We never use more than 3 DL, but we sometimes use 5 and even 6 DB, so you are going to need more DB's than is accounted for at the base. We sometimes use a fullback, use two and even three tight end sets, and three wide receiver sets (and also six OL).
The other thing is that one tackle can back-up both tackle spots, and one guard can typically back-up both guard spots, and you can sometimes move players between guard and tackle (Hamilton, for example).
BC
Gosh, you're in a quibbling mood. I would simply observe that we rotate our entire 2-deep DL every game. Not so for the DBs. And if you think one tackle can effectively back up both spots, feel free -- but AT Hall has started at both LT and RT, and how has that worked out?
I would stand with the point both CTCard and I made that 1/3 of our recruits can be linemen and we would not be missing anywhere else.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - BostonCard - 10-10-2018
I take it back. Over the last 10 years, we have recruited 35 defensive linemen and 34 offensive linemen (based on scout's stated position, which means that some DL were actually recruited to play OLB), an average of 3.5 DL/yr (range 2 - 6) and 3.4 OL/yr (range 1 - 7), with an average class size of 19.7. That means that 17.8% of our recruits are defensive lineman (including some outside linebackers), and 17.3% of our recruits were offensive linemen, which of course does mean that slightly over 1/3 of our recruiting classes were recruited for the two lines. I still think the idea that you need 4-5 OL per class may be a bit fanciful given that we've recruited an average of 3.5 over the last decade; then again, that recruitment rate has left us with a couple of dry patches, so perhaps increasing the average to closer to 4/yr may be warranted.
BC
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - Langdude - 10-10-2018
(10-10-2018, 03:41 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(10-10-2018, 01:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-10-2018, 10:14 AM)CTcard Wrote:(10-10-2018, 09:43 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something? I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen. We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.
Well, at least in our base packages, 8 of the starting 22 are OL or DL. That's 36% of the lineup.
So, I guess we could have 1/3 of our class every year be offensive or defensive linemen.
We need kickers too. And you have to account for different packages. We never use more than 3 DL, but we sometimes use 5 and even 6 DB, so you are going to need more DB's than is accounted for at the base. We sometimes use a fullback, use two and even three tight end sets, and three wide receiver sets (and also six OL).
The other thing is that one tackle can back-up both tackle spots, and one guard can typically back-up both guard spots, and you can sometimes move players between guard and tackle (Hamilton, for example).
BC
Gosh, you're in a quibbling mood. I would simply observe that we rotate our entire 2-deep DL every game. Not so for the DBs. And if you think one tackle can effectively back up both spots, feel free -- but AT Hall has started at both LT and RT, and how has that worked out?
I would stand with the point both CTCard and I made that 1/3 of our recruits can be linemen and we would not be missing anywhere else.
I remain, apparently, the only A.T. Hall defender on this board. I don't know where some folks' seemingly rote disapproval of him comes from. Though the entire line has been sordidly inconsistent, as has been quite noted, Hall has been better than Little this year when both have been healthy. And he was all-conference honorable mention last year. Not sure what people are expecting from the guy.
-m.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - BostonCard - 10-10-2018
(10-10-2018, 03:41 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Gosh, you're in a quibbling mood. I would simply observe that we rotate our entire 2-deep DL every game. Not so for the DBs. And if you think one tackle can effectively back up both spots, feel free -- but AT Hall has started at both LT and RT, and how has that worked out?
I would stand with the point both CTCard and I made that 1/3 of our recruits can be linemen and we would not be missing anywhere else.
We rotate our entire 2-deep DL because there isn't much of a drop-off between the starters and the backups. Last year and the year before, we pretty much didn't (and we spent much of our time in a 2-DL formation).
I'm not sure what your point is about AT Hall. The fact that he has played both LT and RT, if anything, support the idea that in a pinch one guy can back up multiple positions on th eline. Hell, Devery Hamilton is currently backing up Fanaika at LG as well as both tackle positions. And whatever you may think of Hall, we have had guys move between positions on the offensive line successfully in the past: Kyle Murphy moved from RT to LT. David Bright moved from LT to LG. David Yankey also moved between tackle and guard. The point is that even though the ratio of back-ups to starters is the same, 5 decent back-up offensive linemen gives you more depth than 1 decent back-up QB.
BC
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - CTcard - 10-10-2018
(10-10-2018, 03:31 PM)slide Wrote: iirc the power 5 honor 4 year football scholarships as long as the student-athlete stays in good standing academically. this has been the practice at Stanford before the power 5 adopted the practice.
[EDIT - Retrying as my entire post disappeared the first time appeared on the page as a quotation with no further text. ]
I don't think that is quite the situation.
A few years ago it was ruled that the Power 5 would be allowed to offer four year scholarships. Given the realities of Title IX, I assume they would have to do so for women as well as men.
Some schools made big announcements that they would now offer 4 year scholarships. Most never said anything explicit.
At Stanford, my understanding is that for some time the policy was that scholarships would be renewed each year subject to some contingencies - but they couldn't put this in writing per NCAA rules. Once they were "allowed" to do so, I never noticed any public announcement from Stanford on the matter. It could be I missed it, could be Stanford never saw the point to a public statement, or other.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - qwerty49 - 10-11-2018
Are we agreed that LT requires more than RT? My point is that as an example, Hall may be serviceable at RT but he wasn’t the answer at LT. And comparing him to Murphy, Yankey and Bright is not fair; he’s not at their level. But he’s one of the two most experienced guys we have right now, and not even he can handle both T positions.
We may actually be in violent agreement about this. I think BeegDawg provided good context as far as “yield” for incoming OL, ie that those 5 recruited linemen may produce 3 real contributors. And if those are the 3 functional newbies you think are the bare minimum depth, then the 5 guys do indeed provide the equivalent depth of 1 good backup QB.
(10-10-2018, 07:06 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-10-2018, 03:41 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Gosh, you're in a quibbling mood. I would simply observe that we rotate our entire 2-deep DL every game. Not so for the DBs. And if you think one tackle can effectively back up both spots, feel free -- but AT Hall has started at both LT and RT, and how has that worked out?
I would stand with the point both CTCard and I made that 1/3 of our recruits can be linemen and we would not be missing anywhere else.
We rotate our entire 2-deep DL because there isn't much of a drop-off between the starters and the backups. Last year and the year before, we pretty much didn't (and we spent much of our time in a 2-DL formation).
I'm not sure what your point is about AT Hall. The fact that he has played both LT and RT, if anything, support the idea that in a pinch one guy can back up multiple positions on th eline. Hell, Devery Hamilton is currently backing up Fanaika at LG as well as both tackle positions. And whatever you may think of Hall, we have had guys move between positions on the offensive line successfully in the past: Kyle Murphy moved from RT to LT. David Bright moved from LT to LG. David Yankey also moved between tackle and guard. The point is that even though the ratio of back-ups to starters is the same, 5 decent back-up offensive linemen gives you more depth than 1 decent back-up QB.
BC
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - Hurlburt88 - 10-11-2018
My sense has been that we normally have room in terms of # of scholarships, with the larger challenge being to find the "right" players who fit the Farm both academically and athletically.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - Mick - 10-11-2018
(10-11-2018, 05:35 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote: My sense has been that we normally have room in terms of # of scholarships, with the larger challenge being to find the "right" players who fit the Farm both academically and athletically.
I seem to recall a study which indicated that OLs were generally more intelligent than at other positions. Shouldn't we have a surplus of OL recruits?
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - qwerty49 - 10-11-2018
Just a point of information ---
On the gostanford.com roster, I counted 102 names, obviously including walk-ons and some who may not be on the team at this point.
There are 25 guys listed as either OL or DL. There are also 3 long snappers.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - McKenwood - 10-15-2018
Good discussion here about some of the recruiting shortcomings for Stanford in the past few years. It especially hurts when Ben Burr Kirven is a midseason AA and Stanford failed to offer him in a timely manner despite pleas from a local high school staff with plenty of ties to Stanford.
2018 may be the year where Shaw’s hubris finally catches up to him.
On the playcalling front he clearly does not have any semblance of an effective run blocking O-line. Yet he cannot adapt and move back to the Walsh short pass ball control offense in lieu of his beloved power run game. Watching the NE Patriots use James White out of the backfield as both a safe route and blitz breaker reminds me that we never see Stanford’s RBs used effectively in the running game. And don’t get me started on the emasculation of the FB in Shaw’s offense. Blitzes should be welcomed as a chance to against man coverage and create a big play. Watching Stanford this year makes me think back to Buddy Teevens and his lack of “hot” routes.
I am also befuddled by Stanford’s injury woes. Spring practice was more about who was missing and even this fall Stanford doesn’t have enough linemen to fill out the scout teams. It seems like there is some sort of reverse karma going on for Stanford’s relative health in the 2012-2016 seasons. Is something going on with St. Turley or is Stanford’s unwillingness to pay market for a lead trainer catching up with them?
While recruiting cannot cover for misguided play calling, it can allow for a full roster. By my count Stanford was down 7 scholarship players when fall camp opened. Sure there were feel good stories about Richardson, Beecher and Williams getting scholarships but none of these players are starters. Basically Shaw has been underestimating the attrition on his roster for several years and has not revamped his recruiting accordingly. More Stanford players are opting to transfer for their senior year or simply stop playing, often for medical reasons. Casey Tucker would look pretty good at left guard right about now. The attrition has meant certain position groups have severe depth issues including OL, DL, ILB and even safety. Bloomgren, Hart, Hansen and Akina all bear some responsibility here. Hansen should have been banging the table for Burr-Kirven but will now be coaching a patchwork group both this year and next. Stanford needs a QB or two every year. Hillinski was just offered for 2019 but he should have been offered months ago. Stanford has a competitive edge at the TE spot but Henry should not have been the sole offeree until last week.
Shaw needs to rethink how he allocates his time. He needs to spend more time on roster management, recruiting and developing leaders with less time on his beloved play sheet. He had the opportunity to bring a strong OC but opted to go with someone who has never played or coached anywhere but Stanford.
Shaw is the right coach for Stanford and has bought a tremendous reservoir of good will. If 2019 turns out like this one, he starts moving into the Jack Christiansen realm.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - slide - 10-15-2018
nice post McKenwood.
not sure if BBK was ever offered by Stanford.
on "banging on the table," the position coach may be part of the problem -- kind of like the 6 ILB rotation witnessed last year.
agreed about time allocation. if our head coach is on the road, I'd much rather read about him recruiting visits to prospective prospects (not just verbals) rather than reading about his NFL promotional gigs.
on a few recruiting suggestions, no more self-sanctions. fill the 85 scholarships. utilize close to/all of the 56 official visits allocated each year to D-1 football starting in the Spring. be early on offers, especially to recruiting whales. avoid the all-eggs-in-one-basket whale recruiting approaches (like Henry or Salyer or JT Daniels etc). name a recruiting coordinator. demand more resources staff-wise for recruiting. coaches pulling transcripts is not ideal time allocation -- support staff should be doing this work.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - BostonCard - 10-15-2018
We’ll get to see how much Casey Tucker would have helped us close up in a couple days... I believe he is starting at LT for ASU.
BC
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - d4cohn - 10-15-2018
(10-15-2018, 04:12 PM)McKenwood Wrote: If 2019 turns out like this one, he starts moving into the Jack Christiansen realm.
I am not necessarily saying we are likely to beat UW, but can we at least wait to see what happens the rest of the season? We have two losses (one out of conference to a CFP contender on the road, and the other to a Pac-12 South team, which matters less in terms of determining division champ; furthermore, that Pac-12 South team, if they beat USC at home this week, will likely be the favorites to win the Pac-12 South). We own the tie-breaker head-to-head over Oregon. We get Washington State at home.
You act like we are out of the Pac-12 Championship hunt, and we have absolutely nothing to play for. Our CFP hopes might be over (however realistic they ever were), but there is still plenty to play for this season. Let's see what happens.
Christiansen also didn't go to 3 Rose Bowls, winning two (in fact, he never went to even one). Christiansen finished second in Pac once, third three times, and sixth once. Christiansen's best year was 7-4, which is comparable to Coach Shaw's worst season in eight years.
RE: It's going to get worse before it gets better - BobK - 10-15-2018
Too many Debbie Downers. Thanks D 4
Let’s play ASU first before throwing in the towel.
Too many Debbie Downers. Thanks D 4
Let’s play ASU first before throwing in the towel.