Early Enrollees - 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: Early Enrollees (/thread-21381.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: Early Enrollees (/thread-21381.html)
Pages:
1
2
Early Enrollees - SamuelMcF - 01-12-2021
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/1349038631889952768[/tweet]
Ari Patu and Jaden Slocum will enroll early in the Spring. First ever early enrollees. Wow!
RE: Early Enrollees - donkey687 - 01-12-2021
(01-12-2021, 10:11 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/1349038631889952768[/tweet]
Ari Patu and Jaden Slocum will enroll early in the Spring. First ever early enrollees. Wow!
Holy cow! Stanford had adapted. Next thing you know, we will be taking transfers mid-year.
RE: Early Enrollees - Papa John - 01-12-2021
That is great news for Stanford football! Under the old schedule they would miss the first half of spring practice, but maybe that is being moved later as well?
RE: Early Enrollees - Phogge - 01-12-2021
I assume that the staff is getting this message out to the 2022 targets, the 2023 targets, etc, and to the the targets currently in sixth grade.
RE: Early Enrollees - donkey687 - 01-12-2021
(01-12-2021, 10:28 AM)Phogge Wrote: I assume that the staff is getting this message out to the 2022 targets, the 2023 targets, etc, and to the the targets currently in sixth grade.
If you read the press release, it makes it sound like a covid related trial rather than a new paradigm, but my guess is that the floodgate has opened and this will become the new normal.
RE: Early Enrollees - winflop - 01-12-2021
(01-12-2021, 10:36 AM)donkey687 Wrote:(01-12-2021, 10:28 AM)Phogge Wrote: I assume that the staff is getting this message out to the 2022 targets, the 2023 targets, etc, and to the the targets currently in sixth grade.
If you read the press release, it makes it sound like a covid related trial rather than a new paradigm, but my guess is that the floodgate has opened and this will become the new normal.
Agreed. This genie will be very difficult to put back in the bottle without having a significant negative impact on recruiting.
RE: Early Enrollees - Papa John - 01-12-2021
I would be even happier if Stanford would have winter quarter early enrollees, but I'll take whatever we can get.
And to be fair, I would support this option for non-athletes as well.
RE: Early Enrollees - SamuelMcF - 01-12-2021
An interesting question how much this will help us should it remain a recruiting tool. There have been some big-time recruits who were very good students that crossed us off the list because they were dead-set on enrolling early.
RE: Early Enrollees - BostonCard - 01-12-2021
This is tough because I know that not having early enrollees has hurt us recruiting-wise. And, with the trend towards fewer fifth year seniors, giving freshmen a chance to enroll early and learn will improve the chances that they make positive contributions their freshmen seasons. However, I think the trend towards early everything is a bad one and a net negative for Stanford. Shaw is right that most high school students would be be best served by finishing their senior year in high school. It is all part of a trend towards earlier everything, which doesn't help Stanford. High School and college is now viewed as something to get through as quickly as possible, and we are seeing it on the back end with many players moving as quickly as possible to the NFL or (if no NFL prospects) forgoing a fifth year to get on with life. If I were in charge of everything, I would eliminate early entry (and maybe while I'm at it make all freshmen redshirt) and let high school kids be high school kids and let college athletes be college athletes and not future professional athletes that happen to be in college.
BC
RE: Early Enrollees - JJJ - 01-12-2021
From R.J. Abeytia, who also quotes the press release. (not paywalled)
Quote:Stanford has held strong over the years as early enrollees have become part of the norm in college football recruiting. Schools on semester systems are able to move in freshman players in January and have those players participate in spring football practice. It's unclear since we don't have the dates for Stanford's spring practices yet whether Patu and Slocum will be able to participate in the Cardinal's spring sessions (typically two two-week practice intervals broken up by spring final exams) but with the spring quarter 2021 slated to end on June 4 there's a good shot this spring will include its first two freshmen ever for the Cardinal. Both Patu and Slocum finished as three-stars in the 247Sports and 247Sports composite rankings as recruits.
https://247sports.com/college/stanford/Article/Stanford-Cardinal-21-Signees-Ari-Patu-And-Jaden-Slocum-Make-History-As-Stanfords-First-Early-Enrollees-159131311/
RE: Early Enrollees - Papa John - 01-12-2021
BC, I don't see this as a recent trend. I graduated from high school in 1980 (!) and knew several senior classmates who graduated after fall semester and went to work or college starting in January. They were non-athletes. Would you apply your rule preventing early enrollment to these people?
As for Stanford, I don't think you'll see a rush of students trying to take advantage of early enrollment, athlete or non-athlete. In the first place, a number of them will need spring semester of their senior HS year to complete admissions requirements. In the second place, most parents will want their kids to have an extra nine months of maturation before they matriculate in the traditional fall term. In the third place, most parents and students will want the "full" experience of entering college with the vast majority of their cohort.
Stanford has already adopted early admissions, so it can change without the sky falling. It's possible to create early enrollment rules for athletes and non-athletes that will disadvantage no one and, as you mentioned, allow Stanford to compete better in recruiting.
RE: Early Enrollees - BostonCard - 01-12-2021
(01-12-2021, 12:11 PM)Papa John Wrote: BC, I don't see this as a recent trend. I graduated from high school in 1980 (!) and knew several senior classmates who graduated after fall semester and went to work or college starting in January. They were non-athletes. Would you apply your rule preventing early enrollment to these people?
As for Stanford, I don't think you'll see a rush of students trying to take advantage of early enrollment, athlete or non-athlete. In the first place, a number of them will need spring semester of their senior HS year to complete admissions requirements. In the second place, most parents will want their kids to have an extra nine months of maturation before they matriculate in the traditional fall term. In the third place, most parents and students will want the "full" experience of entering college with the vast majority of their cohort.
Stanford has already adopted early admissions, so it can change without the sky falling. It's possible to create early enrollment rules for athletes and non-athletes that will disadvantage no one and, as you mentioned, allow Stanford to compete better in recruiting.
I think what was once an exceptional circumstance has become routine, but I admit I have no data to back that up; it is entirely possible that it just seems that way.
BC
RE: Early Enrollees - CTcard - 01-12-2021
While I suspect these particular two enrolling early was primarily determined by their academic progress, they are an interesting couple from a football perspective.
Patu, I would think, will unlikely play a significant role on the field in 2021. As a true frosh who with a reasonable but not outstanding recruiting profile, he would seem to have a tough time beating out a RS Junior who has shown at least something and a very highly touted RS Frosh.
Slocum, on the other hand, while not rated particularly highly by 247, he has an impressive offer list (if most are true offers). While Stanford lists him as a cornerback on the official site, he was listed as a safety on most (all?) recruiting services. The latter, of course, being perhaps the most acute area of need on the team. One might think he would be near the top of the list of 2021 frosh likely to see significant playing time.
It will be interesting to see if enrolling early actually gives a clear leg up for early playing time.
(01-12-2021, 12:11 PM)Papa John Wrote: Stanford has already adopted early admissions, so it can change without the sky falling. It's possible to create early enrollment rules for athletes and non-athletes that will disadvantage no one and, as you mentioned, allow Stanford to compete better in recruiting.
In general terms, I see Stanford as more willing than most universities to embrace change - if not necessarily change driven by the needs of the football team. This one appears driven by football, however, as the official announcement makes no mention of this being allowed across the board.
"Disadvantage no one" is a tricky position to be very certain about. Stanford has been quite adamant that its "all frosh start together policy" is good for all, or at least most, students. If they have been correct, then getting rid of it would be ... well, less good. Getting rid of it for football players might advantage their football careers, but possibly not their academic careers. Of course that's a trade-off most in-coming recruits would take.
RE: Early Enrollees - Papa John - 01-12-2021
(01-12-2021, 01:00 PM)CTcard Wrote: <snip>
"Disadvantage no one" is a tricky position to be very certain about. Stanford has been quite adamant that its "all frosh start together policy" is good for all, or at least most, students. If they have been correct, then getting rid of it would be ... well, less good. Getting rid of it for football players might advantage their football careers, but possibly not their academic careers. Of course that's a trade-off most in-coming recruits would take.
Yes, frosh (and transfers, few though they may be) starting together in the fall is best for most students. New Student Orientation, bonding--or not--with dormmates, enculturation, taking year-long first-year courses in sequence, etc. I don't want Stanford to be like USC, which has no early admissions for the non-athlete, but first-year football players can enroll in January while high school applicants are still waiting to hear back from the admissions office. That's flat out hypocritical.
As I mentioned earlier, Stanford now has Restrictive Early Action admissions--students apply by November 1, decisions come out around December 10, and financial aid awards are announced by December 15. On the REA application, a student could indicate to which quarter they seek to matriculate. Fall would, of course, be the default, but students seeking early enrollment could write a short explanation. More devil in the details, but this can and, in my opinion, should be done for those few students who might be better off matriculating in winter or spring. I have no problem that football is the catalyst for this change, but I would object if only football players could take advantage of it.
RE: Early Enrollees - jonnyss - 01-12-2021
early enrolling isn't new; it comes and goes. in new york city public schools in the 60s, for example, good students were encouraged to enter the s.p. (special progress) program in which they would complete 6, 7, & 8th grades in 2 years.
in addition, kids didn't have to turn 6 til may of first grade (vs in california today they have to turn 6 by sept of first grade). many, if not most, good students entered college at 16 or 17.
imo emphasizing emotional maturity often leads to later college matriculation; emphasizing intellectual or physical maturity often leads to earlier college matriculation.
RE: Early Enrollees - Mick - 01-12-2021
(01-12-2021, 12:11 PM)Papa John Wrote: BC, I don't see this as a recent trend. I graduated from high school in 1980 (!) and knew several senior classmates who graduated after fall semester and went to work or college starting in January. They were non-athletes. Would you apply your rule preventing early enrollment to these people?
Was thinking that same thing. I graduated in 1980 as well, but fundamentally I was done after the winter quarter. My father wouldn't let me start school early, nor would he let me work and earn a wage. Oh well.
RE: Early Enrollees - Phogge - 01-12-2021
And you probably had no NFL future. As long as there are programs that take marginal students who excel at football there will be early enrollment because there are kids who want to get paid as soon as they can. Or that want to play as soon as they can. In Patu's case he will soon get the playbook and we all know about Stanford's recent history of injuries.
RE: Early Enrollees - Papa John - 01-12-2021
Phogge, I don't think early enrollment affects a player's timeline for declaring for the draft. You must be three years out of high school. So if a player finishes high school in late December 2020, he won't be eligible for the NFL draft in spring 2023 but rather spring 2024.
RE: Early Enrollees - Spiny_Norman - 01-12-2021
There was a time when parents would hold back their athletic kids for a year in school to get bigger, stronger, more mature. John Elway was 19 and a year older than the rest of our class when we enrolled as freshmen. I don't think I ever heard an explanation why that was the case.
RE: Early Enrollees - JJJ - 01-12-2021
(01-12-2021, 03:19 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: There was a time when parents would hold back their athletic kids for a year in school to get bigger, stronger, more mature. John Elway was 19 and a year older than the rest of our class when we enrolled as freshmen. I don't think I ever heard an explanation why that was the case.I could've sworn there was a passage about that in Jason Cole's book, but now I can't find it, so perhaps I was just dreaming.