Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Shaw's Turn Down Rate (/thread-23492.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Shaw's Turn Down Rate (/thread-23492.html)
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - jacket3ree - 09-28-2022
(09-27-2022, 07:53 AM)msqueri Wrote: * Also the 40 year decision has become less and less salient as players realize that being a football player at Oklahoma rather than Stanford is not necessarily an unwise decision from a life-time perspective monetarily or in other dimensions (as a case in point, in the NIL world don't you think Dylan Lonergan will make more money in his life having gone to Alabama than he would have going to Stanford?).
* I suspect but can't prove (especially because the academics of Stanford football recruits/nature of the application process has become so opaque, which I think bolsters my theory) that it is WAAAAAAAAAAY easier to be admitted to Stanford as a coveted scholarship football player than many of our fans assume. I don't think the admissions office is very tough on football applicants these days and with the continuity of Lance Anderson's role helping shepherding recruits through the process coupled with continuity in Mike Eubanks' operation, we are better equipped than ever before to hold recruits' hands through the application process. Sure, recruits have to ask for a few letters of recommendation and write a few short personal statements/essays. But it's not a herculean effort for a recruit to apply and be accepted to Stanford.
* There may have even been a philosophical change where we give/solicit applications from more recruits than before, a calculation (I would support) to give ourselves a shot rather than just treating admissions as the last wicket in the process for guys definitely coming.
I can't agree with this enough. As someone one year beyond the 40-year decision, I can tell you there is no 40-year decision. I get it, one order of magnitude more than 4 years of eligibility. I first heard the term when Lou Holtz said that some kid who picked FSU over Notre Dame didn't just make a 4-year mistake, he made a 40-year mistake. What a horrific thing to say. Don't say anything, or wish the kid luck.
The 40-year decision is really a 4-, or 5-, or maybe just 1-year decision. People recover from decisions every day. And if Stanford recruits on the whole are making their decisions based on academic prestige rather than football, we're done. The glory years (2009-2015 more or less) happened because the football was so strong. Yes, any player interested in also partaking in the academic environment (some good professors, not all; and some bright classmates, not all) received those benefits, but football has to be the draw.
The 4-year (plus or minus) decision also includes the type of effort an athlete will put into his/her non-athletic life. Leaving aside lifetime earnings in MSqueri's examples (a function of talent, opportunity, and a bunch of luck, more than alma mater), most serious athletes at an Oklahoma or Alabama can, if they so chose, get a great education and find like-minded classmates. I said most, because there are the Chase Beelers and the new guy and Glyn Milburns and (no one from Bama yet, right?) who do see something special here. That's fantastic, although maybe those were not purely academic plays.
To be fair, I've attended a grand total of two universities in my life, plus that one for-credit class in Berkeley that for a world-class institution, honestly, sucked eggs, so I don't really know. At each place were great classes, good classes, great professors, good professors, and dreck. Probably directly proportional to the time spent at each. At least Stanford didn't have The Shaft. One degree is 2.7 times the size of the other (by area), but other than that, it is all pretty immeasurable. Particularly 41 years out - a lot has happened between then and now. We have a lot of smart, successful people working here and only three of us went to Stanford, all for graduate school.
Long post to say we need to stay focused on football in recruiting, with academic side benefits they can consider unique (maybe), or it falls apart.
In my opinion.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Softball Fan - 09-28-2022
(09-27-2022, 07:53 AM)msqueri Wrote: * I suspect but can't prove (especially because the academics of Stanford football recruits/nature of the application process has become so opaque, which I think bolsters my theory) that it is WAAAAAAAAAAY easier to be admitted to Stanford as a coveted scholarship football player than many of our fans assume. I don't think the admissions office is very tough on football applicants these days and with the continuity of Lance Anderson's role helping shepherding recruits through the process coupled with continuity in Mike Eubanks' operation, we are better equipped than ever before to hold recruits' hands through the application process. Sure, recruits have to ask for a few letters of recommendation and write a few short personal statements/essays. But it's not a herculean effort for a recruit to apply and be accepted to Stanford.
As I previously noted I know nothing about football recruiting. However I do know something about WVB recruiting and admissions. I've had countless discussions online with parents of WVB recruits' parents over the past two decades plus about Stanford admissions because it's a subject of interest to me. The unanimous opinion of WVB parents is there exists a day and night difference in the admission criteria between Stanford and other top WVB programs.
I can only make limited conclusions based on the relatively small sample size of data I have in talking to parents. Maybe admissions for football players is much different than other sports. It would be interesting to hear directly from an admissions staff member that football players have much less rigorous acceptance criteria than the 96% of outstanding applicants who get rejected.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - JeffInCorvallis - 09-28-2022
Here's where Rivals rated our most recent recruiting classes along with some Pac-12 north opponents. There's all kind of problems with these rating services. You may get a bunch of talented athletes but if you have a specific need for defensive linemen or fast cornerbacks and you whiff in one year you have a problem. At Stanford you can't easily solve that problem with transfers. On average USC, Oregon, and Utah out-recruit us, Washington and UCLA are roughly equivalent to us. There's talent on this team, recruiting overall didn't fall off a cliff, although we haven't landed another Andrew Luck or Christian McCaffrey.
Stanford 2019-2022 class ranking: 24, 23, 46, 25
Cal class ranking: 37, 34, 40, 55
Oregon State: 65, 52, 93, 53
Washington State: 62, 57, 52, 65
Last season we lost to these teams by a combined 54 points. To be fair WSU was somewhat close.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Spiny_Norman - 09-28-2022
(09-28-2022, 02:08 PM)JeffInCorvallis Wrote: Stanford 2019-2022 class ranking: 24, 23, 46, 25
Cal class ranking: 37, 34, 40, 55
Oregon State: 65, 52, 93, 53
Washington State: 62, 57, 52, 65
Do any of the services produce a separate recruiting rating for offense and defense? Stanford's recruiting seems to have often been unbalanced the last few years. The more highly regarded offensive recruits have propped up the rating.
Also, do any of the services produce a rating that combines transfers and high school recruits? Stanford would surely be much lower in a consolidated ranking.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - BostonCard - 09-28-2022
Speaking of turn downs, TIL that Harbaugh offered Aron Judge (yes, *that* Aron Judge) a TE scholarship in 2010, but he elected to play baseball at Fresno State. Not sure if it was a true “turn down”, but hard to argue that he didn’t make the right “40 year” decision.
BC
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - MV72018 - 09-28-2022
(09-28-2022, 02:08 PM)JeffInCorvallis Wrote: Here's where Rivals rated our most recent recruiting classes along with some Pac-12 north opponents. There's all kind of problems with these rating services. You may get a bunch of talented athletes but if you have a specific need for defensive linemen or fast cornerbacks and you whiff in one year you have a problem. At Stanford you can't easily solve that problem with transfers. On average USC, Oregon, and Utah out-recruit us, Washington and UCLA are roughly equivalent to us. There's talent on this team, recruiting overall didn't fall off a cliff, although we haven't landed another Andrew Luck or Christian McCaffrey.
Stanford 2019-2022 class ranking: 24, 23, 46, 25
Cal class ranking: 37, 34, 40, 55
Oregon State: 65, 52, 93, 53
Washington State: 62, 57, 52, 65
Last season we lost to these teams by a combined 54 points. To be fair WSU was somewhat close.
Good info. Why did you decline to draw the unflattering conclusion about our coaching staff?
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - JohnR34231 - 09-29-2022
(09-28-2022, 11:41 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(09-28-2022, 02:08 PM)JeffInCorvallis Wrote: Here's where Rivals rated our most recent recruiting classes along with some Pac-12 north opponents. There's all kind of problems with these rating services. You may get a bunch of talented athletes but if you have a specific need for defensive linemen or fast cornerbacks and you whiff in one year you have a problem. At Stanford you can't easily solve that problem with transfers. On average USC, Oregon, and Utah out-recruit us, Washington and UCLA are roughly equivalent to us. There's talent on this team, recruiting overall didn't fall off a cliff, although we haven't landed another Andrew Luck or Christian McCaffrey.
Stanford 2019-2022 class ranking: 24, 23, 46, 25
Cal class ranking: 37, 34, 40, 55
Oregon State: 65, 52, 93, 53
Washington State: 62, 57, 52, 65
Last season we lost to these teams by a combined 54 points. To be fair WSU was somewhat close.
Good info. Why did you decline to draw the unflattering conclusion about our coaching staff?
Possibly because it has been done. Many times.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - 81alum - 09-29-2022
(09-28-2022, 01:20 PM)jacket3ree Wrote:We are both 41 years out, as my handle might have hinted ;)(09-27-2022, 07:53 AM)msqueri Wrote: * Also the 40 year decision has become less and less salient as players realize that being a football player at Oklahoma rather than Stanford is not necessarily an unwise decision from a life-time perspective monetarily or in other dimensions (as a case in point, in the NIL world don't you think Dylan Lonergan will make more money in his life having gone to Alabama than he would have going to Stanford?).
* I suspect but can't prove (especially because the academics of Stanford football recruits/nature of the application process has become so opaque, which I think bolsters my theory) that it is WAAAAAAAAAAY easier to be admitted to Stanford as a coveted scholarship football player than many of our fans assume. I don't think the admissions office is very tough on football applicants these days and with the continuity of Lance Anderson's role helping shepherding recruits through the process coupled with continuity in Mike Eubanks' operation, we are better equipped than ever before to hold recruits' hands through the application process. Sure, recruits have to ask for a few letters of recommendation and write a few short personal statements/essays. But it's not a herculean effort for a recruit to apply and be accepted to Stanford.
* There may have even been a philosophical change where we give/solicit applications from more recruits than before, a calculation (I would support) to give ourselves a shot rather than just treating admissions as the last wicket in the process for guys definitely coming.
I can't agree with this enough. As someone one year beyond the 40-year decision, I can tell you there is no 40-year decision. I get it, one order of magnitude more than 4 years of eligibility. I first heard the term when Lou Holtz said that some kid who picked FSU over Notre Dame didn't just make a 4-year mistake, he made a 40-year mistake. What a horrific thing to say. Don't say anything, or wish the kid luck.
The 40-year decision is really a 4-, or 5-, or maybe just 1-year decision. People recover from decisions every day. And if Stanford recruits on the whole are making their decisions based on academic prestige rather than football, we're done. The glory years (2009-2015 more or less) happened because the football was so strong. Yes, any player interested in also partaking in the academic environment (some good professors, not all; and some bright classmates, not all) received those benefits, but football has to be the draw.
The 4-year (plus or minus) decision also includes the type of effort an athlete will put into his/her non-athletic life. Leaving aside lifetime earnings in MSqueri's examples (a function of talent, opportunity, and a bunch of luck, more than alma mater), most serious athletes at an Oklahoma or Alabama can, if they so chose, get a great education and find like-minded classmates. I said most, because there are the Chase Beelers and the new guy and Glyn Milburns and (no one from Bama yet, right?) who do see something special here. That's fantastic, although maybe those were not purely academic plays.
To be fair, I've attended a grand total of two universities in my life, plus that one for-credit class in Berkeley that for a world-class institution, honestly, sucked eggs, so I don't really know. At each place were great classes, good classes, great professors, good professors, and dreck. Probably directly proportional to the time spent at each. At least Stanford didn't have The Shaft. One degree is 2.7 times the size of the other (by area), but other than that, it is all pretty immeasurable. Particularly 41 years out - a lot has happened between then and now. We have a lot of smart, successful people working here and only three of us went to Stanford, all for graduate school.
Long post to say we need to stay focused on football in recruiting, with academic side benefits they can consider unique (maybe), or it falls apart.
In my opinion.
In one sense I agree with you. It is possible to obtain a first class education at many universities. Having spent my career teaching at a state university, I genuinely do believe that some of my students obtain a better education than some Stanford students. In fact, since teaching is taken more seriously in the retention, tenure and promotion system at such universities than at R-1 universities like Stanford, it perhaps is not that uncommon. But the biggest determinant of the quality of an undergraduate education is--the undergraduate. Is it a student who takes the effort to find the most challenging and inspiring faculty? Who takes advantage of all the resources a university has to offer? Or is it a student who does the minimum to get the degree? Stanford has vastly more resources and opportunities for its students than my current university has for ours--but a student at a state university who takes advantage of every opportunity is going to wind up with a superior education to a Stanford student who skates. Of course, the admissions requirements make those two types of students rare. Few of my students do take advantage of every opportunity my university offers them. Few Stanford students go through four years in which they ignore all the myriad of extracurriculars and academic add-ons available to them.
And so I've always thought the "40 year decision" really refers to the reputation of the university rather than to the absolute quality of the education. In my own case the Stanford name made a large difference and opened doors to graduate programs I would not otherwise have had access to. But if I wanted to be a social worker, or go home to the family business, then I might not need to go through any of the doors that the Stanford degree helped to open.
Now, in terms of recruiting, there was a major shift in strategy after Mamlet left. I still think her departure was the main reason for the resurgence of Stanford football. Harbaugh had a much larger talent pool to recruit from than did his predecessors. Before, the only athletes we could recruit were those who were academic high achievers and who knew the value of a Stanford degree--except for the rare "special admits." After Mamlet's departure, we were free to widely recruit students who had academic potential but who had not prioritized it so much in their high school years. A different pitch is needed for such students, and with the Harbaugh/Shaw years the recruiting pitch did change. They made a deliberate effort to turn Stanford's academic reputation from a liability into a strength--from the standpoint of the less academically inclined recruits. Frankly, I think it was a brilliant move and was largely responsible for our success, "intellectual brutality," "NerdNation," etc. Funny, poking fun at our academics while celebrating them, and making recruits realize that the student-athletes here are unique and different and have a sense of pride in BOTH sides of what they do. But this pitch is only sustainable if the program can show that our athletes really do have the best of both worlds. Too steep and long lasting a decline in athletic success cannot be overcome by the academic pitch alone.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Goose - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 05:35 AM)81alum Wrote: They made a deliberate effort to turn Stanford's academic reputation from a liability into a strength--from the standpoint of the less academically inclined recruits. Frankly, I think it was a brilliant move and was largely responsible for our success, "intellectual brutality," "NerdNation," etc. Funny, poking fun at our academics while celebrating them, and making recruits realize that the student-athletes here are unique and different and have a sense of pride in BOTH sides of what they do. But this pitch is only sustainable if the program can show that our athletes really do have the best of both worlds. Too steep and long lasting a decline in athletic success cannot be overcome by the academic pitch alone.I largely agree with your analysis. There are a couple of areas where I think other forces were/are at work. When JH started out he didn't have a record of athletic success at Stanford. IMHO he was "lucky" in having Toby to build around, but he and his staff were infused with EUTM that can, for a while, create a reality distortion field. They truly believed they were going to succeed so they could convince some recruits that they actually would. Subsequently, during the "early Shaw" days there actually was athletic success to validate the idea and recruits could buy into that. NerdNation existed, but it wasn't "real". Everything had to go just perfect to make it sustainable. As coaches left for better jobs, the "new guys" weren't as much true believers. Shaw also had some good fortune. What if CMac wasn't as all world as he turned out to be? He was a double legacy, so recruiting him wasn't a "typical" operation. The situation by then was unstable.
You may be in a better position to speak to the validity of my second point than I am. Feel free to do so :-). IMHO the "status" of the "renaissance man", particularly merging athletic ability and academic ability, has dropped precipitously in the last 10 years. Specialization both in sports and academics has been made "mandatory". Even two sport athletes are discouraged and thus rare. On the academic side, students are now driven at an early age to concentrate on getting good grades, pad their resume with as many academic achievements as possible, and waste no time "just being". From what I have seen this often produces very accomplished students that actually hate what they end up doing. It is no longer "cool" to be a good student and a good athlete, and trying to do both is discouraged to the point it is almost impossible. Social media doesn't help, as it tends to call attention to extremes. Being good at lots of things is hard to tweet about. As a result, Stanford's already small pool of potential recruits has become even smaller.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - needle - 09-29-2022
In the social media era, I wonder if a half-empty stadium is more a liability now than in the past when it comes to recruiting.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Goose - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 08:55 AM)needle Wrote: In the social media era, I wonder if a half-empty stadium is more a liability now than in the past when it comes to recruiting.Pretty sure it is. However, from a social media point of view I think the fact that the student body doesn't care much about football is a much bigger problem. Yes, it's great to play before thousands of screaming fans. However, Stanford has always been a bit "Chardonnay" and that didn't kill recruiting. I think the fact the student body today doesn't care is much more of a problem. Back "in the day" even Nerds cared about beating USC. Today, they don't even know there's a game and social media highlights that fact. Athletics just isn't a "big deal". It isn't hostility. It is just total ambivalence. This creates an atmosphere that is not attractive to student athletes. It is OK if the old folks don't show up, but if your peers don't, that is unacceptable.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - BobK - 09-29-2022
I’m lost here Goose. Granted before school starts the attending students are athletes of fall sports not on the road.
But since they moved the student section long ago, now it sure looks full to me
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Goose - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 09:53 AM)BobK Wrote: I’m lost here Goose. Granted before school starts the attending students are athletes of fall sports not on the road.Last year Stanford did a lot to encourage students to attend the games. This effort resulted in a lot of underclassmen attending that perhaps normally would not have. This was apparently in response to some (justified IMHO) complaints about lack of such attendance. It worked for the first two games. After that, it slid downhill. One could argue the game times and poor performance were involved but as I recall even the Washington game was not well attended. The student section seemed pretty empty, partly in contrast to the previous game. I vaguely recall looking across the field into the student section before the (Utah I think) game started and there was nobody there. It did fill in a bit but I am not sure the people sitting in it were students :-).
But since they moved the student section long ago, now it sure looks full to me
FWIW I think the more serious issue is that the games don't occupy the social position they once did. Saturdays were centered around the game and there were parties of various kinds afterwards. Even people who didn't go to the games and/or didn't like football knew they were being played and talked about them at least. Each dorm generally had several groups of people that sat together. It was just "something you did". With the start times widely variable and the PAC-12 after dark effect, students and student social groups do not build their day around the game. It just isn't the "big event" that it used to be.
The band also functioned as an adjunct to the popularity of the football game. The band was significantly larger than it is now. The band also had a "social group" that was larger still. Of necessity, the band was at the game. There were also events like the bonfire that brought people together. Many people worked on the bonfire that weren't football fans. For sure people followed the band through the City that weren't about football.
While one might say that Stanford has "moved on" from all this, that is the point. It just isn't as important any more. Yes, its nostalgia, but it also made the athletes who played the game well known and figures of some interest and appreciation. Today, not so much. I think that matters.
I recently attended the Cal-Arizona game. While memorial stadium was far from full, the student section was. They were somewhat late arriving but it did fill up. They were also mostly sober, which was a deviation from my last attendance there in 1972. They actually had card stunts. While the Cal students were much more robotic than Stanford students (i.e. they did precisely what the cheerleaders said to do), they stayed the whole game and remained after for the (apparently de regueur) Bear Territory cheer. Not my cup of tea, but it was kind of a throwback.
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - BobK - 09-29-2022
Interesting that for wbb they are opening up two more sections winning beats losing
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - gailtate - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 08:55 AM)needle Wrote: In the social media era, I wonder if a half-empty stadium is more a liability now than in the past when it comes to recruiting.
It's no asset, for sure. If it is not, then it's a liability. And I would imagine it's a non-trivial one right now, but not irreparable. The cure, as it is for most ailments in sports? WINNING. Just remember that bigger crowds always lag results on the field. But spectators do come back. What we see in the stadium today is the inner core of the hardcore. Scary small, isn't it? But the crowds are like the golden hills. Enough rain and they're grassy green again. Can't wait!
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - 82lsju - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 10:48 AM)Goose Wrote: I vaguely recall looking across the field into the student section before the (Utah I think) game started and there was nobody there. It did fill in a bit but I am not sure the people sitting in it were students :-).
well the Utah game was a Friday night game so even in our section of old alums the turnout was weak....and many who did attend in our section left at halftime....
RE: Shaw's Turn Down Rate - Goose - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 11:11 AM)82lsju Wrote:I think the reason for leaving at halftime wasn't the day of the week :-).(09-29-2022, 10:48 AM)Goose Wrote: I vaguely recall looking across the field into the student section before the (Utah I think) game started and there was nobody there. It did fill in a bit but I am not sure the people sitting in it were students :-).
well the Utah game was a Friday night game so even in our section of old alums the turnout was weak....and many who did attend in our section left at halftime....