"I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - 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: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." (/thread-23487.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: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." (/thread-23487.html)
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - lex24 - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 01:33 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: So many people only assume the portal goes one way for Stanford. Why not try to exploit it?
Say we love a particular recruit. Perhaps they didn't quite make the cut academically as a freshman, so dangle the carrot to work hard at their college and perhaps we can still get them in as a sophomore, junior or senior. Of course that would take some pre-work with admissions to expand the transfer opportunities, as it's a new landscape out there.
Our coach should also be shouting from the rooftops that we'll take all the Patrick Fields out there. "Let us know, and we'll work with you to help you find a new home and a new diploma from Stanford."
How many transfers get accepted to Stanford a year. I bet it’s a small number. Admittedly I don’t know. I suspect someone on the board does. Be interested in the number.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - 81alum - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 04:28 PM)lex24 Wrote:In 2019, one site indicates 2352 applied to transfer and 1.15% were accepted, making transfer about 3 times as selective as Stanford's already lowest-in-the-world 3.67% general acceptance rate. Other sites say that the number varies between 25-40.(09-29-2022, 01:33 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: So many people only assume the portal goes one way for Stanford. Why not try to exploit it?
Say we love a particular recruit. Perhaps they didn't quite make the cut academically as a freshman, so dangle the carrot to work hard at their college and perhaps we can still get them in as a sophomore, junior or senior. Of course that would take some pre-work with admissions to expand the transfer opportunities, as it's a new landscape out there.
Our coach should also be shouting from the rooftops that we'll take all the Patrick Fields out there. "Let us know, and we'll work with you to help you find a new home and a new diploma from Stanford."
How many transfers get accepted to Stanford a year. I bet it’s a small number. Admittedly I don’t know. I suspect someone on the board does. Be interested in the number.
Back in my day the number of transfers varied depending on how much attrition we had in a class, but 50 transfers out of 1500 was sometimes possible. That number appears to have gone down even as the size of the class has gone up. I'm guessing that it is because attrition rates have fallen.
Basically, USC had as many transfer students on its football team last year as Stanford probably had for the entire university.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - cardcrimson - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 05:05 PM)81alum Wrote: In 2019, one site indicates 2352 applied to transfer and 1.15% were accepted, making transfer about 3 times as selective as Stanford's already lowest-in-the-world 3.67% general acceptance rate. Other sites say that the number varies between 25-40.
Back in my day the number of transfers varied depending on how much attrition we had in a class, but 50 transfers out of 1500 was sometimes possible. That number appears to have gone down even as the size of the class has gone up. I'm guessing that it is because attrition rates have fallen.
Basically, USC had as many transfer students on its football team last year as Stanford probably had for the entire university.
Yes. That was the past, but it's a new era. Wouldn't be difficult for an energetic and persuasive coach to convince the powers that be in admissions (or their superiors) of that. Wish we had one. . . .
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Goose - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 06:09 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Wouldn't be difficult for an energetic and persuasive coach to convince the powers that be in admissions (or their superiors) of that.Why do you believe that is the case? Based on the fact the number of transfers has gone down over time, it would seem that reversing that trend for athletes would be a really, really hard sell. I give it basically zero chance, but maybe you know something I do not.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - pefloresjr - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 06:09 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-29-2022, 05:05 PM)81alum Wrote: In 2019, one site indicates 2352 applied to transfer and 1.15% were accepted, making transfer about 3 times as selective as Stanford's already lowest-in-the-world 3.67% general acceptance rate. Other sites say that the number varies between 25-40.
Back in my day the number of transfers varied depending on how much attrition we had in a class, but 50 transfers out of 1500 was sometimes possible. That number appears to have gone down even as the size of the class has gone up. I'm guessing that it is because attrition rates have fallen.
Basically, USC had as many transfer students on its football team last year as Stanford probably had for the entire university.
Yes. That was the past, but it's a new era. Wouldn't be difficult for an energetic and persuasive coach to convince the powers that be in admissions (or their superiors) of that. Wish we had one. . . .
I don't disagree with your wish that we could expand the number of transfers in. However, I think it would be a big lift to notably change admissions other than differing timelines like they already do for first time applicants. That might help a little. The bigger problem is that there really are very few high performing football players who are doing great in school and also want to transfer to Stanford. If they are thriving athletically and academically at their current school, there is not much reason to leave. I think it is also very unlikely that a student who couldn't put together good enough grades in high school will be able to do that in college, where they face harder classes and more motivated classmates.
I think the key issue for Stanford related to the transfer portal is for the staff to work harder at retaining our existing players. Lowering the number of players leaving can mitigate the difficulty we have getting transfers in.
Cheers,
Pete F.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - BostonCard - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 10:09 AM)msqueri Wrote: 2. Less than the most pessimistic transfer portal naysayers think because there is an 85 scholarship limit for all teams and the more other team rely on the transfer portal the more that vacates the high school recruiting playing field to us. We could/should be able to dominate high school recruiting in the new landscape.
If you play the transfer portal game properly, as a coach you use it to attrition the deadweight while plugging in ready-to-play guys to patch up whatever your hole is. Look at our roster, from Langdude’s tally (https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=22759&pid=364052#pid364052), I count 5 DNP-CD juniors in the UW game. If you had full access to the transfer board, those guys are told “sorry, it doesn’t look like you have a path to any playing time at this school, why don’t you use the transfer portal to find a school that can showcase your talents better.” and then you go to the transfer portal to find guys that excelled at a G5 or D1AA school, or maybe is in an unhappy situation and bring them in to plug the resulting gaps. Now all of a sudden, recruiting “mistakes” aren’t four year mistakes.
Note, I’m not advocating for this, but it absolutely happens, and is why despite the 85 scholarship limit, a school like USC is able to turn over half of its starting roster and still have a decent sized (18 commits and counting) of recruits. It’s naive to think that the portal isn’t being abused to the detriment of student athletes, but here we are.
BC
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - cardcrimson - 09-30-2022
(09-29-2022, 09:27 PM)Goose Wrote:(09-29-2022, 06:09 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Wouldn't be difficult for an energetic and persuasive coach to convince the powers that be in admissions (or their superiors) of that.Why do you believe that is the case? Based on the fact the number of transfers has gone down over time, it would seem that reversing that trend for athletes would be a really, really hard sell. I give it basically zero chance, but maybe you know something I do not.
I'm clearly not in the know. That said, I remember around 15 years ago, an energetic young coach was able to push the players he wanted through the admissions office. Couldn't history repeat with the transfer admissions process?
For the kids that don't make it through the original admissions process, you give them the incentive that if they excel at wherever they start in college, the door will still be open in a couple of years.
Look, we can all whine about the portal and the NIL and our coaching staff can lament it and sit on their hands. What does that get us? More mediocrity or worse. Perhaps better would be to try something, anything, to take advantage of it. . . .
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Goose - 09-30-2022
(09-30-2022, 09:44 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: That said, I remember around 15 years ago, an energetic young coach was able to push the players he wanted through the admissions office. Couldn't history repeat with the transfer admissions process?I think it is orders of magnitude more difficult. The freshman class is a large number of people. You can swap applicant admissions without having the football players be a "statistically significant" component of the class (although when examined in detail even in this case questions have been asked). The transfer portal is too small to do that and not have it be "obvious". If even 20% of your transfers are athletes their are going to be questions raised about preferential admissions that would be impossible to refute. That simply won't fly in the "Stanford Community". There has to at least be a credible assertion that athletics is not a major "driver" in admissions.
Quote:Look, we can all whine about the portal and the NIL and our coaching staff can lament it and sit on their hands. What does that get us? More mediocrity or worse. Perhaps better would be to try something, anything, to take advantage of it. . . .Trying to solve the problem is a good idea. We are just discussing what that solution may be. I just don't think modifying the parameters of Stanford's incoming transfer process is feasible.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - gailtate - 09-30-2022
I have been and continue being an unabashed, hardcore and vociferous basher of U$C and everything Cardinal&Gold. My credentials as an $C hater go back longer than I want to think about, let alone admit. OK, having said all that, let me say this: As we all know we're in parlous times that do not augur well for a return to great football on The Farm. Thus, I humbly submit as I grind my molars that maybe, just maybe, there may be a thing or three that Stanford can learn about the indefatigable U$C Football Industrial Complex? Specifically those things that just might lend themselves handily to other related things that Stanford can, well, Stanford-ize and apply to a heroic quest for a Conference. Resources? Got 'em. Creativity and imagination? Both boxes checked. Diabolical intelligence? I'd say so. The Will that makes a WAY? Ah, now it gets complicated. Seems to this old horse that Stanford at the very least must own up to the fact that Greater Trojan Nation knows its football -- specifically how to re-animate itself after their own existential implosion(s): A string of ineffectual coaches. A near-death- penalty probationary period (that was manna from heaven for Stanford). I am more than aware of the baked-in competitive advantages had by U$C in all aspects of their institution of football. But emergency times demand emergency measures. The brave new world isn't going way. U$C isn't going away. The Trojan Band playing their Weekend at Bernie's dead-ass version of All Right Now isn't going away. Stanford cannot, MUST NOT, go away, either. The challenge is that it's gonna take a sh!tload of WUTM: Will Unknown to Mankind. Does this exist on the Farm today? In this context, what does WUTM mean you? Anyone? Anyone?
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Spiny_Norman - 09-30-2022
Stanford football is a troubled company. They have gone from a market leader to a market laggard. Those in the business world know that the leaders who got you into a hole are not the leaders who can get you out.
USC's football makeover started when they brought in an AD from outside who knows and cares about football. Stanford athletics needs a similar transformation at the top. Nothing changes in the Stanford football program without a new AD.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - CowboyIndian - 09-30-2022
(09-30-2022, 03:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: USC's football makeover started when they brought in an AD from outside who knows and cares about football.
Pat Haden? Lynn Swann? I think their football bona fides speak for themselves and success (as they defined it) never really found a home at $C while they were in charge. Even the guy they've got now floundered for a couple of years before the portal and NIL opened up.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - gailtate - 09-30-2022
(09-30-2022, 03:53 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(09-30-2022, 03:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: USC's football makeover started when they brought in an AD from outside who knows and cares about football.
Pat Haden? Lynn Swann? I think their football bona fides speak for themselves and success (as they defined it) never really found a home at $C while they were in charge. Even the guy they've got now floundered for a couple of years before the portal and NIL opened up.
The watchword in Spiny Norman's post was "outside" as an AD with real AD chops. Haden was razor sharp and Swann could charm a ballroom full of moneybag donors, but both were out of their depths when it came to overseeing 36 sports and managing a bazillion-dollar budget.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - lex24 - 09-30-2022
(09-30-2022, 03:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Stanford football is a troubled company. They have gone from a market leader to a market laggard. Those in the business world know that the leaders who got you into a hole are not the leaders who can get you out.
USC's football makeover started when they brought in an AD from outside who knows and cares about football. Stanford athletics needs a similar transformation at the top. Nothing changes in the Stanford football program without a new AD.
“Back to the future “. Stanfords turnaround began when Bowlsby replaced Leland. This is not to exonerate Shaw - but unless Admin is invested, no coach they bring in will succeed.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Spiny_Norman - 09-30-2022
(09-30-2022, 04:07 PM)gailtate Wrote:(09-30-2022, 03:53 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(09-30-2022, 03:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: USC's football makeover started when they brought in an AD from outside who knows and cares about football.
Pat Haden? Lynn Swann? I think their football bona fides speak for themselves and success (as they defined it) never really found a home at $C while they were in charge. Even the guy they've got now floundered for a couple of years before the portal and NIL opened up.
The watchword in Spiny Norman's post was "outside" as an AD with real AD chops. Haden was razor sharp and Swann could charm a ballroom full of moneybag donors, but both were out of their depths when it came to overseeing 36 sports and managing a bazillion-dollar budget.
Yes, I should have bolded "from outside". Bohn knew that he had to change the culture around the football program, something that insiders like Haden and Swann never could do. After Bohn was hired in late 2019, it took one season (a Covid year) and 2 additional games for him to see that Clay Helton was not the right guy to lead that turnaround.
Four games in the 2022 season are not enough to determine that Lincoln Riley is the right guy. But the signs are positive, not only on the field but off as well. Riley might have led a USC revival even without NIL and transfers. But NIL and transfers certainly accelerated the process.