Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - 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 Offseason / Transfer Portal (/thread-25325.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 Offseason / Transfer Portal (/thread-25325.html)
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - JohnR34231 - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 12:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-29-2024, 08:17 AM)msqueri Wrote: I agree that we should think of roster management one year at a time rather than getting sucked in to thinking about three year projections for people who will face annual opportunities to leave. The problem I have is that even if we are simply optimizing for 2025 the evidence so far is that Cisse is a better receiver than Williams. I don't think it's a guarantee but if I had to bet I think Cisse would be the better receiver for us next year. Oh well.
These are supposed to be college students, not part of a roster to be "managed". Of course I recognize that ship has sailed long ago, but it really kills me that this board is talking like it has given up all pretense that these are supposed to be student athletes not professional football players.
BC
It seems to me we have two choices. Cling to the "student athlete" idea and be OK with 3-9 records every year. If we want to do better we have to (IMO) reluctantly realize that things have changed
and go with the flow.
So take your choice.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - Mick - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 01:53 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(12-29-2024, 12:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-29-2024, 08:17 AM)msqueri Wrote: I agree that we should think of roster management one year at a time rather than getting sucked in to thinking about three year projections for people who will face annual opportunities to leave. The problem I have is that even if we are simply optimizing for 2025 the evidence so far is that Cisse is a better receiver than Williams. I don't think it's a guarantee but if I had to bet I think Cisse would be the better receiver for us next year. Oh well.
These are supposed to be college students, not part of a roster to be "managed". Of course I recognize that ship has sailed long ago, but it really kills me that this board is talking like it has given up all pretense that these are supposed to be student athletes not professional football players.
BC
It seems to me we have two choices. Cling to the "student athlete" idea and be OK with 3-9 records every year. If we want to do better we have to (IMO) reluctantly realize that things have changed
and go with the flow.
So take your choice.
I don't think Andrew Luck would have taken the job with the idea that regular 3-9 seasons are acceptable. 9-3 seasons, I'm guessing, are what he's targeting.
I think University leadership realizes that the environment has changed. Perhaps Mr. Luck provides political cover for doing what needs to be done to be part of the national football conversation. I'm hopeful that there's a substantial, unseen effort that is dragging Stanford football into where it needs to be to compete successfully. The next 12-24 months will either presage ongoing success or the lingering death of Stanford sports.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - old spanish trail - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 04:03 PM)Mick Wrote:(12-29-2024, 01:53 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(12-29-2024, 12:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-29-2024, 08:17 AM)msqueri Wrote: I agree that we should think of roster management one year at a time rather than getting sucked in to thinking about three year projections for people who will face annual opportunities to leave. The problem I have is that even if we are simply optimizing for 2025 the evidence so far is that Cisse is a better receiver than Williams. I don't think it's a guarantee but if I had to bet I think Cisse would be the better receiver for us next year. Oh well.
These are supposed to be college students, not part of a roster to be "managed". Of course I recognize that ship has sailed long ago, but it really kills me that this board is talking like it has given up all pretense that these are supposed to be student athletes not professional football players.
BC
It seems to me we have two choices. Cling to the "student athlete" idea and be OK with 3-9 records every year. If we want to do better we have to (IMO) reluctantly realize that things have changed
and go with the flow.
So take your choice.
I don't think Andrew Luck would have taken the job with the idea that regular 3-9 seasons are acceptable. 9-3 seasons, I'm guessing, are what he's targeting.
I think University leadership realizes that the environment has changed. Perhaps Mr. Luck provides political cover for doing what needs to be done to be part of the national football conversation. I'm hopeful that there's a substantial, unseen effort that is dragging Stanford football into where it needs to be to compete successfully. The next 12-24 months will either presage ongoing success or the lingering death of Stanford sports.
Yep.
(12-29-2024, 08:17 AM)msqueri Wrote: I agree that we should think of roster management one year at a time rather than getting sucked in to thinking about three year projections for people who will face annual opportunities to leave. The problem I have is that even if we are simply optimizing for 2025 the evidence so far is that Cisse is a better receiver than Williams. I don't think it's a guarantee but if I had to bet I think Cisse would be the better receiver for us next year. Oh well.
Yes, certainly a fair chance that Cisse would be better than Williams. Plus, if the number of transfers are "regulated," we use one of those spots. I don't know if they are or not. Question? Are there enuf eligible and interested players out there to meet whatever the regulated amount might be?
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - GK3 - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 01:53 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(12-29-2024, 12:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-29-2024, 08:17 AM)msqueri Wrote: I agree that we should think of roster management one year at a time rather than getting sucked in to thinking about three year projections for people who will face annual opportunities to leave. The problem I have is that even if we are simply optimizing for 2025 the evidence so far is that Cisse is a better receiver than Williams. I don't think it's a guarantee but if I had to bet I think Cisse would be the better receiver for us next year. Oh well.
These are supposed to be college students, not part of a roster to be "managed". Of course I recognize that ship has sailed long ago, but it really kills me that this board is talking like it has given up all pretense that these are supposed to be student athletes not professional football players.
BC
It seems to me we have two choices. Cling to the "student athlete" idea and be OK with 3-9 records every year. If we want to do better we have to (IMO) reluctantly realize that things have changed
and go with the flow.
So take your choice.
I do not think "clinging" to the concept of student athlete will result in 3-9 records. What I do think is necessary is that the University recognize that in order to compete in the brave new world, admissions has to be willing to accept far more transfers than in the past, then they have to be able to decide quickly, then the coaches need to learn how to find transfer candidates who can get in. I think we have to learn to accept a constant change in our line up. Frankly I now think that focusing high school athletes is a waste of time unless they are truly elite players. What is the point of recruiting kids, developing them for a year and then have them move on at the end of their first year. Lets focus on finding 30 or so players around the country who can get in and can start and recruit them like crazy. Maybe they will leave the next year too, but at least having a one year player who can actually play is far better than having a one year player who can't play his first year and then leaves.
If we can't make a change in this direction, then we are done. Basketball seems to have figured it out.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - Goose - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 06:31 PM)GK3 Wrote:I don't think the University is willing to do this to an "adequate" extent, but I could be wrong. IMO changing a policy for no other reason than admitting more football players is inconsistent with how the University claims to operate, but we will see.(12-29-2024, 01:53 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(12-29-2024, 12:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-29-2024, 08:17 AM)msqueri Wrote: I agree that we should think of roster management one year at a time rather than getting sucked in to thinking about three year projections for people who will face annual opportunities to leave. The problem I have is that even if we are simply optimizing for 2025 the evidence so far is that Cisse is a better receiver than Williams. I don't think it's a guarantee but if I had to bet I think Cisse would be the better receiver for us next year. Oh well.
These are supposed to be college students, not part of a roster to be "managed". Of course I recognize that ship has sailed long ago, but it really kills me that this board is talking like it has given up all pretense that these are supposed to be student athletes not professional football players.
BC
It seems to me we have two choices. Cling to the "student athlete" idea and be OK with 3-9 records every year. If we want to do better we have to (IMO) reluctantly realize that things have changed
and go with the flow.
So take your choice.
I do not think "clinging" to the concept of student athlete will result in 3-9 records. What I do think is necessary is that the University recognize that in order to compete in the brave new world, admissions has to be willing to accept far more transfers than in the past, then they have to be able to decide quickly,
Quote:then the coaches need to learn how to find transfer candidates who can get in.The simple fact is that in any given year the players necessary to meet our needs that are in the portal and admissible may not exist. This fact is exacerbated by many players who could get admitted not wanting to attend a school that will make them do the work. There are generally alternative landing places that can match the NIL money and are much more "fun". Unless those obstacles are removed even if we find guys we want most will simply say no. They don't value a Stanford degree enough to make it a reasonable choice for them. The NFL doesn't care what degree they have.
Quote:I think we have to learn to accept a constant change in our line up. Frankly I now think that focusing high school athletes is a waste of time unless they are truly elite players. What is the point of recruiting kids, developing them for a year and then have them move on at the end of their first year. Lets focus on finding 30 or so players around the country who can get in and can start and recruit them like crazy.In a given year there may not be 30 transfer players in the portal that can get in and can start. Lots of players are in the portal because they aren't very good. Worse still, there are 100 other schools looking for guys that can start. They have advantages (from the athlete's point of view) that Stanford does not. The portal is a resource that cannot be ignored, but building a team from the portal alone just won't work, especially for Stanford.
Quote:Maybe they will leave the next year too, but at least having a one year player who can actually play is far better than having a one year player who can't play his first year and then leaves.Basketball has the advantage they don't need lots of players in any given year. Also, IMO it isn't clear basketball has it "figured out". When we start making the NCAA tournament in most years, THEN we can say they have. We still have a long way to go for that to be in evidence.
[quote]
Except if one looks at the results other schools are getting from the portal the results are decidedly mixed. Lots of the "answers" selected in the portal end up as second string or not even that. Busts are common. There is no reason to believe Stanford will be much better at this than the competition. If your team is looking for one or two players that will fill holes in what is already a pretty good team, you may get lucky and find what you need. You can also take several bites from the apple which increases your odds. If you need help at all positions, you aren't likely to find it.
[quote]
If we can't make a change in this direction, then we are done. Basketball seems to have figured it out.
IMO we have to attack the personnel problem from all angles. Recruit, retain, and mine the transfer portal as much as possible. Yes, turnover is going to be higher than it was before the portal existed. That is going to be true for everybody. If we give up on any one of the paths to acquire personnel we will be at a disadvantage relative to those who have not.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - Mick - 12-29-2024
I wouldn't use basketball as the measuring stick. They need five players a year, with one stud and one with stud potential. Football needs 4x to 5x what basketball gets in a given year. Basketball goes 8-10 deep with five starters. Football has 22 starters and some combination of 44 players on special teams, along with 22 backups who will likely play between "some" and "a lot" when the starters get injured. Football is ravenous for talent, and a decision needs to be made on whether the talent can be attracted.
As for NFL vs. the 40 year decision, they're not mutually exclusive. I would argue that Stanford degree is exceptionally valuable. A few numbers I would trot out in front of every recruit:
- 1.6% of all NCAA football players get drafted. A like amount become UDFAs.
- Less than half of all NFL players play more than five years.
- Most billionaire alumni, Stanford is tied for second.
- 1,127 companies founded by Stanford alumni who graduated in a 12 year span (2006 to 2017)
- 5th in most Fortune 500 CEOs
- 3rd most alums of any university on Forbes 400
- #6 highest post-college salaries, early and mid career. Next highest D1 FBS school outside of the military academies was Cal at #20.
Best Universities and Colleges | Payscale
By the way, in case you wanted to know how Harbaugh turned around the program in such a short time, you might consider this Forbes article:
The Secrets Behind Stanford's Emergence as a Football Powerhouse
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - Goose - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 08:13 PM)Mick Wrote: I wouldn't use basketball as the measuring stick. They need five players a year, with one stud and one with stud potential. Football needs 4x to 5x what basketball gets in a given year. Basketball goes 8-10 deep with five starters. Football has 22 starters and some combination of 44 players on special teams, along with 22 backups who will likely play between "some" and "a lot" when the starters get injured. Football is ravenous for talent, and a decision needs to be made on whether the talent can be attracted.Agree about basketball vs football and that football is ravenous for talent. IMO the statement needs to be modified by saying "can be attracted and admitted.".
Quote:As for NFL vs. the 40 year decision, they're not mutually exclusive. I would argue that Stanford degree is exceptionally valuable. A few numbers I would trot out in front of every recruit:I am sure this is trotted out before all recruits. To some, it matters, to others, it no longer does. Most football players don't see themselves as CEO material. They don't see themselves as entrepreneurs that are going to found a company. They aren't looking at a "plan B". They are all about NIL money and the opportunity to become an NFL player or at least a celebrity. Call it unrealistic and short-sighted but that is modern America. Of course, that isn't everybody, but many four star and above players see it that way. That is what they have been told was the way ahead all through high school. They are also often quite aware that their academic interest isn't all that profound and that a degree from any "major" college is "good enough" for their purposes. They are probably correct in this belief.
- 1.6% of all NCAA football players get drafted. A like amount become UDFAs.
- Less than half of all NFL players play more than five years.
- Most billionaire alumni, Stanford is tied for second.
- 1,127 companies founded by Stanford alumni who graduated in a 12 year span (2006 to 2017)
- 5th in most Fortune 500 CEOs
- 3rd most alums of any university on Forbes 400
- #6 highest post-college salaries, early and mid career. Next highest D1 FBS school outside of the military academies was Cal at #20.
Best Universities and Colleges | Payscale
This interpretation is supported by the apparent willingness of so many athletes to burn their bridges with their current academic institution. They attempt to transfer to an unknown notional "other school". Obviously the degree doesn't matter to them, because they have no idea where they will end up. Football however maters greatly to them and they are willing to take a random academic chance to improve their football fortunes. Of course, they often don't succeed in that either and end up either worse off or no better off.
Quote:By the way, in case you wanted to know how Harbaugh turned around the program in such a short time, you might consider this Forbes article:The Forbes article is pretty short on specifics. It does point out a lot of the talent was already there. Harbaugh exhibited the leadership to utilize it. By choosing to play power football Stanford occupied a niche that allowed them to maximize their strengths. What the article does not say is that at that time the NFL was more into "power football" than the college game was. That gave Stanford athletes an advantage. Of course, that is no longer true and the NFL has adopted the "spread" shotgun heavy passing game with RPO as part of the scheme. The approach that worked then has no chance today and we are not even attempting it. We are doing what everybody else is doing.
The Secrets Behind Stanford's Emergence as a Football Powerhouse
The article also fails to point out that Harbaugh benefited greatly from the "tunnel workers union" and the "intellectual brutality" meme. This was created by the players, not the coaching staff. There were some very special personalities that created a culture that nourished the high standards of the program. EUTM fed that culture, but did not solely create it. The article does correctly point out that winning makes recruiting good players much easier. It also correctly points out that having Andrew Luck was a very special benefit to the program. However, it was Andrew Luck that made that work. He was a unicorn. He made the choice to go to Stanford, Harbaugh did not. Harbaugh (and others) made it possible, which was great, but it was AL who delivered the goods and then stayed the extra year. This situation cannot be replicated at will. That is what made it "special".
The world in which these events occurred no longer exists. There was no portal then, and no NIL. Would Richard Sherman have stayed at Stanford if he could transfer without sitting out a year and USC would get him a million dollar NIL deal to do so? We will never know, but I seriously doubt it. He had had all he wanted of JH. The fact must be faced that "back in the day" once you chose a school changing your mind had a significant cost. The benefits that each school could offer were exactly the same, baring some kind of cheating. What "worked" then will not work at all now, unfortunately.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - BostonCard - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 01:25 PM)msqueri Wrote: I actually think you are the one with a misplaced sense of what this is all about. This has been professional entertainment longer than either of us have been alive. It had just operated under a system in which powers-that-be cynically used the term "amateur" to describe something that wasn't (it has been adults working a job to entertain people for a long, long time) and colluded to deny monetary compensation to the workers. Football players would not go to the schools they go to were it not for football. The recent move to a more one year at a time, transactional model just gives the employees more agency in this arrangement. That evolution makes it necessary for those administering programs to "manage" them as they try to construct a roster amidst so much player agency.
Fundamentally, these players I talk about "managing" are at Stanford to play football. They wouldn't get into the school were it otherwise and their value to the school is the entertainment and revenue they produce.
I'll go even more fundamental than that: college football has always been an extremely bizarre convenience for communities that want to benefit from the labor of young people in a way that makes them feel a swell of community pride. Everywhere else in the world this is recognized as professional or semi-professional sports. I think if we really were talking about the purpose of universities sports in the way we've defined it for decades would have nothing to do with the conversation. College football is not about college at all and it never has been. It's about entertainment and community. I can't get outraged or sad about the twists and turns of college sports finally bringing it toward greater alignment with that reality.
You are conflating two different trends in college athletics. Whether athletes should be paid or not is separate from the idea of whether the University as an academic institution has a responsibility to educate its students, including the ones who also happen to play football. The two are mostly orthogonal and only converges in the extreme situation where professional athletes playing for a University are not students at that University (or students, period). I think that’s a pretty radical concept even as we are careening in that direction. And maybe that’s what a substantial number of people want; I don’t claim to know, but it’s not what I want.
I made no claim on whether athletes should be entitled to collect payments for their NIL (I think they do, but disagree with using collectives to funnel money that is really pay-to-play not for their NIL as it is defined) or whether athletes should be able to draw a salary (I don’t object in principle, though I think there are a host of issues that will pop up that haven’t been thought through, but I do think that is better than using collectives to skirt the issue). Where I do have strong opinions on is that student athletes, whether they are paid or not, should be students, that we should have standards for admissions and transfers of athletes that we stick to, and that going 3-9 is not a valid reason to ditch the standards. And while I recognize that athletes have special needs, those needs shouldn’t subsume the school’s responsibility to adequately educate them.
I think the proof is in the pudding. We used to have a 97%+ graduation rate amongst our athletes and football players. I think the last federal graduation rate was down to 94%, and the football GSR (notably more lax than the federally calculated rate) is down to 93%. The fact that our players graduated used to be a point of pride and differentiation compared to the football factories. Now, it is viewed as a failure to adequately manage the roster.
Most of our players will not be drafted and will never play in the NFL. Even during the 2010’s (2010-2019), when we were mostly a good to excellent team, we had 42 players drafted by the NFL (an average of 4.2/yr), which is about 1/4 to 1/5 of the average number of players we recruited each year. I think we do them a dramatic disservice if, because the move in collegiate athletics at large, we look at them as a roster to be managed rather than students to be educated. Sorry, we are a University with a football team, not a football team with a University (though, financially, we are a medical center with a University side hustle). And yeah, that means that some of the guys we recruit each year decide to major in something other than football and are proverbial steak eaters. Maybe they are a recruiting “bust”, but I don’t want to see them run off to the portal just because they’ve been overrecruited. And if that makes us less competitive on the field, so be it. Let’s face it, there is a race to the bottom, and while I recognize that many people here are on board with joining the race, I think that a) we shouldn’t and b) even if we did, we are unlikely to win the race because, let’s face it, contra the SEC, it doesn’t actually mean more here (and yeah, it’s a bit of a circular argument, though the first is a statement of principle and the second a statement of fact).
BC
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - drnoodleman - 12-30-2024
(12-29-2024, 06:31 PM)GK3 Wrote:(12-29-2024, 01:53 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(12-29-2024, 12:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-29-2024, 08:17 AM)msqueri Wrote: I agree that we should think of roster management one year at a time rather than getting sucked in to thinking about three year projections for people who will face annual opportunities to leave. The problem I have is that even if we are simply optimizing for 2025 the evidence so far is that Cisse is a better receiver than Williams. I don't think it's a guarantee but if I had to bet I think Cisse would be the better receiver for us next year. Oh well.
These are supposed to be college students, not part of a roster to be "managed". Of course I recognize that ship has sailed long ago, but it really kills me that this board is talking like it has given up all pretense that these are supposed to be student athletes not professional football players.
BC
It seems to me we have two choices. Cling to the "student athlete" idea and be OK with 3-9 records every year. If we want to do better we have to (IMO) reluctantly realize that things have changed
and go with the flow.
So take your choice.
I do not think "clinging" to the concept of student athlete will result in 3-9 records. What I do think is necessary is that the University recognize that in order to compete in the brave new world, admissions has to be willing to accept far more transfers than in the past, then they have to be able to decide quickly, then the coaches need to learn how to find transfer candidates who can get in. I think we have to learn to accept a constant change in our line up. Frankly I now think that focusing high school athletes is a waste of time unless they are truly elite players. What is the point of recruiting kids, developing them for a year and then have them move on at the end of their first year. Lets focus on finding 30 or so players around the country who can get in and can start and recruit them like crazy. Maybe they will leave the next year too, but at least having a one year player who can actually play is far better than having a one year player who can't play his first year and then leaves.
If we can't make a change in this direction, then we are done. Basketball seems to have figured it out.
+100, although you do need less numbers in BB, as been discussed before...
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - Goose - 12-30-2024
(12-29-2024, 10:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You are conflating two different trends in college athletics. Whether athletes should be paid or not is separate from the idea of whether the University as an academic institution has a responsibility to educate its students, including the ones who also happen to play football. The two are mostly orthogonal and only converges in the extreme situation where professional athletes playing for a University are not students at that University (or students, period). I think that’s a pretty radical concept even as we are careening in that direction. And maybe that’s what a substantial number of people want; I don’t claim to know, but it’s not what I want.Perhaps I would quibble on the details of NIL and paying the players, but fundamentally I totally agree that the academic concerns and the "football" concerns are inherently orthogonal. You can have both because one does not interfere with the other. IMO it is important to note the difference between orthogonal and opposite.
I made no claim on whether athletes should be entitled to collect payments for their NIL (I think they do, but disagree with using collectives to funnel money that is really pay-to-play not for their NIL as it is defined) or whether athletes should be able to draw a salary (I don’t object in principle, though I think there are a host of issues that will pop up that haven’t been thought through, but I do think that is better than using collectives to skirt the issue).
Quote:Where I do have strong opinions on is that student athletes, whether they are paid or not, should be students, that we should have standards for admissions and transfers of athletes that we stick to, and that going 3-9 is not a valid reason to ditch the standards. And while I recognize that athletes have special needs, those needs shouldn’t subsume the school’s responsibility to adequately educate them.Amen and agree absolutely. IMO this is the crux of the matter.
Quote:I think the proof is in the pudding. We used to have a 97%+ graduation rate amongst our athletes and football players. I think the last federal graduation rate was down to 94%, and the football GSR (notably more lax than the federally calculated rate) is down to 93%. The fact that our players graduated used to be a point of pride and differentiation compared to the football factories. Now, it is viewed as a failure to adequately manage the roster.While a 4% drop in graduation rate might not be catastrophic, it is certainly very concerning. Unfortunately a large part of that drop isn't directly under Stanford's control. Some of the football players believe the degree is less important than typically used to be the case. They chose to walk away from it, and many of them don't graduate from their "next stop" either. There is no rational way one can deny the "40 year decision" hasn't lost a lot of its luster. The undergraduate portal entries clearly demonstrate this is the case. There are also a few players (like McCaffrey) that "leave early" for the NFL, but this is rare enough it probably doesn't drive the decline in graduation rate.
IMO an equally concerning trend is the very large number of football players majoring in Science, Tech. and Society. President Casper wanted to get rid of the major as not academically rigorous enough. It was originally a "design your own" major for students that had very specific interests that were interdisciplinary in nature and arguably not met by any "standard" major. The student and their faculty advisor would work closely together to design a program that was focused on what the student wanted to accomplish while retaining academic rigor. It was a very "niche" major. Obviously in today's world it has become a path used by athletes to avoid lots of the requirements of a "standard" major. I seriously question whether the University is adequately discharging the above referenced "school’s responsibility to adequately educate them". They don't pull down the graduation rate, but it is not "apples and apples" IMO.
Quote:Most of our players will not be drafted and will never play in the NFL. Even during the 2010’s (2010-2019), when we were mostly a good to excellent team, we had 42 players drafted by the NFL (an average of 4.2/yr), which is about 1/4 to 1/5 of the average number of players we recruited each year. I think we do them a dramatic disservice if, because the move in collegiate athletics at large, we look at them as a roster to be managed rather than students to be educated. Sorry, we are a University with a football team, not a football team with a University (though, financially, we are a medical center with a University side hustle). And yeah, that means that some of the guys we recruit each year decide to major in something other than football and are proverbial steak eaters.It fortunately also includes players like Andrew Luck who majored in something other than football but played pretty well as I understand it :-). While he may never reach AL heights, Tristan Sinclair arguably is in the same category. You can do both. That is (or was) the glory of Stanford Athletics. It also must be stated that being a "reserve" is an honorable state. You are the "next man up". Kevin Hogan was that for awhile.
Quote:Maybe they are a recruiting “bust”, but I don’t want to see them run off to the portal just because they’ve been overrecruited. And if that makes us less competitive on the field, so be it.In most cases they are IMO running themselves off to the portal. I could be wrong, but I suspect many (most?) of the non-grad transfers we have in the portal had a place on the team, just not under the conditions they desired. They voted with their feet. Again, the "40 year decision" wasn't enough to keep them around.
Quote:Let’s face it, there is a race to the bottom, and while I recognize that many people here are on board with joining the race, I think that a) we shouldn’t and b) even if we did, we are unlikely to win the race because, let’s face it, contra the SEC, it doesn’t actually mean more here (and yeah, it’s a bit of a circular argument, though the first is a statement of principle and the second a statement of fact).Agree. The "Stanford Culture" is unquestionably an impediment to making it "mean more". That will not radically change. The portal makes it harder for everybody but especially for Stanford. We can't win the "race to the bottom" even if we wanted to. Stanford will never wholeheartedly participate in it. We have to find a "third way" if we are to succeed. It may be impossible (and will certainly be difficult), but that is IMO the only workable alternative.
BC
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - PalmTree - 01-04-2025
Not official, but some recent rumblings on the OL front - Kai Greer (GA Tech) to the Farm?
His GT roster page
6'6", 280# 3+ star out of high school ('23) but didn't play last year. We recruited out of h.s., MS&E major.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - old spanish trail - 01-04-2025
(01-04-2025, 01:34 PM)PalmTree Wrote: Not official, but some recent rumblings on the OL front - Kai Greer (GA Tech) to the Farm?
His GT roster page
6'6", 280# 3+ star out of high school ('23) but didn't play last year. We recruited out of h.s., MS&E major.
Excellent...we hope. Thanks.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - cardcrimson - 01-04-2025
(01-04-2025, 03:32 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:He's in and committed.(01-04-2025, 01:34 PM)PalmTree Wrote: Not official, but some recent rumblings on the OL front - Kai Greer (GA Tech) to the Farm?
His GT roster page
6'6", 280# 3+ star out of high school ('23) but didn't play last year. We recruited out of h.s., MS&E major.
Excellent...we hope. Thanks.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - fullmetal - 01-04-2025
What would it take to hire Shannon Turley again?
https://www.9news.com/article/sports/high-school/strength-coach-holy-family-broomfield/73-dee91f4f-d617-4f97-8ab3-024a4f4e3c5e
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - CardinalSagehen - 01-05-2025
(01-04-2025, 11:17 PM)fullmetal Wrote: What would it take to hire Shannon Turley again?
https://www.9news.com/article/sports/high-school/strength-coach-holy-family-broomfield/73-dee91f4f-d617-4f97-8ab3-024a4f4e3c5e
An expungement of whatever happened to end his previous stint?
I’m probably all for it, but I don’t know what happened, so it’s easy to say. Maybe Mr. Luck can dig into the matter and see what’s possible. There were rumors of some sort of HR issue. If that’s true, I doubt any organization would take the risk of being seen to be at fault for rehiring him.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - newguy - 01-05-2025
(01-05-2025, 03:27 AM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:(01-04-2025, 11:17 PM)fullmetal Wrote: What would it take to hire Shannon Turley again?
https://www.9news.com/article/sports/high-school/strength-coach-holy-family-broomfield/73-dee91f4f-d617-4f97-8ab3-024a4f4e3c5e
An expungement of whatever happened to end his previous stint?
I’m probably all for it, but I don’t know what happened, so it’s easy to say. Maybe Mr. Luck can dig into the matter and see what’s possible. There were rumors of some sort of HR issue. If that’s true, I doubt any organization would take the risk of being seen to be at fault for rehiring him.
would be nice to have him back, but we do have a reputation......
anyway, congrats on post #1,000.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - Mick - 01-05-2025
(01-05-2025, 03:27 AM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:(01-04-2025, 11:17 PM)fullmetal Wrote: What would it take to hire Shannon Turley again?
https://www.9news.com/article/sports/high-school/strength-coach-holy-family-broomfield/73-dee91f4f-d617-4f97-8ab3-024a4f4e3c5e
An expungement of whatever happened to end his previous stint?
I’m probably all for it, but I don’t know what happened, so it’s easy to say. Maybe Mr. Luck can dig into the matter and see what’s possible. There were rumors of some sort of HR issue. If that’s true, I doubt any organization would take the risk of being seen to be at fault for rehiring him.
Turley was National S&C Coach of the Year in both 2013 and 2014. He reduced injuries by 87% at Stanford. His departure was probably responsible for Shaw's downfall as much as anything.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - Goose - 01-05-2025
(01-05-2025, 09:33 AM)Mick Wrote: Turley was National S&C Coach of the Year in both 2013 and 2014. He reduced injuries by 87% at Stanford. His departure was probably responsible for Shaw's downfall as much as anything.
I would ask whether he has been able to replicate that performance at his subsequent stops. I suspect not. Certainly it seems that, at a minimum, the fire burns in a different way now if he is coaching at the high school level. I get it that many people believe he ran a great S&C program while at Stanford. He probably did indeed do so. However, the idea that "he reduced injuries by 87%" is IMO a bit far fetched. That reduction was undoubtedly caused by a lot of things, some Turley's doing, some not. Blind good fortune undoubtedly had a lot to do with it. Having athletes that believed in his program also helped immensely. Having a program where physical football was a major feature undoubtedly was a significant motivational factor as well. If that same exceptional performance has followed him everywhere he went, one could argue it was mostly Turley and not other factors. I haven't seen that info presented, so I am skeptical that is the case.
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - SamuelMcF - 01-05-2025
While folks here are preoccupied with talking about Shannon Turley (who was let go from Colorado after they were injured to hell for multiple years in a row), we have had 2 more transfers commit, bringing us to 8. Both extremely productive at the FCS level as sophomores.
Idaho LB Zach Johnson (83 tackles)
South Carolina State WR Caden High (60+ rec, 900+ yds)
Let's talk about the players who are going to be on our team, yeah?
RE: Football Offseason / Transfer Portal - needle - 01-05-2025
Is this Stanford’s first ever football transfer from an HBCU?
Also—during the Stanford-Pitt game, one of the announcers stated that Stanford basketball was not accepting any undergrad transfers classified as juniors (a little vague, but I think not more than two years out of high school).
Does anyone know if that is one of those unwritten rules being broadly applied across all sports?