The CardBoard
Question on slow start on recruiting - 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: Question on slow start on recruiting (/thread-3486.html)

Pages: 1 2

Question on slow start on recruiting - Bruce Wang - 07-18-2012

Though high in quality, the new class is small in number compared to other schools.  Questions for the long time observers:

1.  Is this normal? 
2.  If so, is it because of our unusual application process (you actually have to fill out an application and write an essay) so the recruits are hesitant to commit unless they know they got in?
3.  Or is this because this is the first class that could actually wait to see how Stanford performs without Luck?

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - washingtonismoney - 07-18-2012

None of the above. There are only 10 scholarships we can be sure will be available; the actual number will surely be higher due to fifth years not being renewed, NFL departures, transfers, etc. Nevertheless the class will surely be pretty small. For that reason, we're taking people slowly with a focus on quality, as you've noted. So far the important needs of LB and TE have been met, so it's really about stockpiling quality with the remaining 4-9 (or so) scholarships.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - StannyBoy - 07-18-2012

I think after so many guys getting dinged by admissions so late in the process last year that they are telling recruits to hold off on committing.

In the Spring they were telling recruits they only had 11 for sure spots open, but Skov is def gone and Plantaric has never played so I can't see him getting a 5th year, so that takes us to 13.

Plus Gardner, Murphy, Hewitt, Ertz, and Toilolo could turn pro too depending on how well they play this year.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - slide - 07-18-2012

publius, trend-wise on commits, percentage-wise we are actually ahead of last year.  at this time last year, we had 9 verbals from a class of 22.  today we have 6 verbals out of a projected class of 11.  these two years however are much slower than the previous (class signing 2011).

SC has 15 verbals, supposedly its sanction quota, but it looks like they will get 3 more this year and have them enrol early.  I am not sure if Enron's accounting team is working for Kiffin or not.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - washingtonismoney - 07-18-2012

(07-18-2012, 02:35 PM)young_money link Wrote:In the Spring they were telling recruits they only had 11 for sure spots open, but Skov is def gone and Plantaric has never played so I can't see him getting a 5th year, so that takes us to 13.

Plantaric is a third-year junior this year. Likely candidates for nonrenewal of a fifth year are Jemari Roberts and Usua Amanam.

There are only ten open spots due to graduation. If Skov is gone, that's eleven. That's where the 11-player baseline comes from.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - StannyBoy - 07-18-2012

You're right about Plantaric. I don't know why I thought he was in the 09 class. And yeah Amanam and Roberts aren't likely to be back for a 5th year.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - StannyBoy - 07-18-2012

(07-18-2012, 02:46 PM)slide link Wrote:SC has 15 verbals, supposedly its sanction quota, but it looks like they will get 3 more this year and have them enrol early.  I am not sure if Enron's accounting team is working for Kiffin or not.

SC landed borderline 5 star FS Max Redfield today so they're up to 16 commits. The rich keep getting richer.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - CowboyIndian - 07-18-2012

(07-18-2012, 02:46 PM)slide link Wrote:  I am not sure if Enron's accounting team is working for Kiffin or not.

I believe Arthur Andersen went down with that ship, although some of their criminals, er, CPAs may be consulting with the Kiffster. IMHO...he should be talking with an accredited child disciplinarian so he'll know when he ought to call a timeout.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - socalstanfan1 - 07-18-2012

I've also wondered whether, with the small class and the high quality of recruits we are offering, if the coaches are making some "provisional" offers.  For example: We offered Hunter Henry first, some of the other TE recruits have offers dependent upon him going elsewhere.  If Henry comes, that's it for TEs this year.  Some of you are probably a lot more informed about the inner workings of the recruiting process.  Does this sound like a reasonable assumption?

If so, some of the committments might be held up by a bottleneck as we wait for a few key guys to make their decisions.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - StannyBoy - 07-18-2012

I do remember in years past recruits who got offers later in the year would say they were hoping there was room for them, but in the case of Hunter Henry I'm pretty sure Shaw has known for awhile that he's not leaving the state of Arkansas. Probably why they offered Cotton and Austin Hooper from DLS.

Henry - Redrum - 07-18-2012

Not sure he's a lock for Arkansas,  but nothing I've read gives me any confidence we are seriously in it.  He's waiting for Jesus or God or both to let him know what he/they want him to do.  That's not a jab at his religion,  just an observation.  Living in the South I've heard so many kids say that and 90%+ of the time,  if offered, they end up in the SEC. 

As always, feel free to laugh me off the board when Henry commits to Stanford.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - Hank 91 - 07-18-2012

I think a big factor here is the overall jump the program has taken. When Harbaugh first arrived his theory in recruiting was to cast a wide net, not just geographically, as has always been the case, but also in the number of scholarships offered. Additionally, many more scholarships were offered earlier in the process than the elite schools. The hope was to identify and offer talented kids early, before the traditional powers were on to them, and hope the kids would be smitten by the early attention. (A notable misstep was with linebacker Jordan Zumwalt, an early Cardinal commit who then had a monster senior season, drew offers from a lot of other schools, then "defected" on Signing Day for UCLA. (For the record, he hasn't been missed.))

Shaw's staff in recent years has continued early contacts, specifically so they can be sure the kids are on the right academic path and are willing to take AP classes. But since they're dealing with four- and five-star targets, it isn't realistic to expect them all to jump at the first offer.

(I read a piece today about USC's stellar -- but small -- class, and the theory was floated that they've been able to get early commits because recruits know there won't necessarily be any slots open later in the game.)

Even though the number is smaller than it was at this point last year, Signing Day is still more than six months away. I think we'll be okay in the end.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - StannyBoy - 07-18-2012

yes SC is def getting all these guys so early so they can secure a spot in their class. And I do think we'll be ok in the end, we just won't have the quality and quantity of last year's class.

I also noticed Zumwalt's younger brother is a walk-on CB at UCLA. He's 5 inches shorter and 65 lbs lighter; talk about getting screwed on which genes were passed down. SMH

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - Bruce Wang - 07-19-2012

Just a reminder here that bagging on Enron has a glass house aspect for us. A Stanford GSB Professor of ACCOUNTING chaired Enron's audit committee.

Plenty of better reasons to hate on U$C and Lane Violation. 

BTW did anybody see that recent article that Reggie Bush was originally interested in Stanford.  Also I could swear I read somewhere that Kobe Bryant one time said if he had played college ball he would have gone to Stanford because his agent said that was the only place worth passing up for the NBA.  I haven't been able to find this quote, and more recently he's said he would have gone to Duke, probably to kiss Team USA Coach Mxtlplyk's ass for more playing time.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - FarmBoy - 07-19-2012

I grew up in outside Philly at the same time as Kobe. The word on the street was that he was going to Duke before he surprised people by jumping  straight to the NBA (this was before it was normal to have a handful of top players make the direct jump.) All the articles talked about what an intelligent person he was (1200 SAT, spoke Italian were the common themes.) But it was all related to going to Duke. I never saw Stanford mentioned in his target list. He was more likely to go to La Salle, where his dad was an assistant, than Stanford.

As for our football recruiting, I'm glad other people aren't worried, but until the names are on the paper, I will always be nervous about Stanford recruiting. We're always 1 bad season away from being considered a niche school that rises from the ashes every decade or so under the right leadership (Walsh, Harbaugh) or extenuating circumstances (the wild Pac10 1999 season.) All those late signings this year could have easily gone against us and we would have ended up with a good, but not great, class.

I'll feel more confident when Shaw and staff pull in a couple top-20 classes without the benefit of Voldemort PR or following BCS game appearing seasons.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - yvonne - 07-19-2012

Our class will be too small to get top 20 honors this year.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - Hank 91 - 07-20-2012

(07-19-2012, 08:12 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I'll feel more confident when Shaw and staff pull in a couple top-20 classes without the benefit of Voldemort PR or following BCS game appearing seasons.
But what if those things started happening on a more regular basis? Let's say we finish this season at 8-4 and for the first time in three years don't send a player to New York for the Voldemort ceremony. We won't become a niche team, because the 2013 team should be great, on a level with what we've gotten used to the past two seasons. And 2014? I can't wait for that team. With Barry J. Sanders running behind Peat, Murphy, Garnett and the rest? Good lord.

The recruiting will take care of itself. All of us here have years of history -- much of it abysmal -- to look back on, but what if you're a sixteen-year-old blue-chip recruit who's just starting to receive interest from the elite schools in America. When the envelope arrives from Stanford University, he doesn't think back to the lean years because during the time he's been paying attention to college football and imagining which jersey he might someday wear, Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw have carefully crafted the brand of Stanford Football and fielded some great teams. That kid won't see a difference between Stanford and USC and Florida and Texas and Alabama -- but his parents will. Even as visions of the NFL dance in his head, his parents will be imagining a Stanford diploma hanging on the wall.

This team is here to stay. Believe it.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - oman - 07-20-2012

Hank, I agree with just about all you say, but even if you take the parents out of it, the 17 year old kid can see a big difference in a Texas or a SoCal with Stanford in the here and now.

With TexasOU vs. The Big Game.

With the way fellow students and alumni treat the players.



Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - doublespiral - 07-20-2012

Yeah, the cultures on campus (and beyond) are vastly different.

The world revolves around football in Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, etc. - with God and country trailing a good ways behind.

That works in our favor with some recruits - e.g. Barry Sanders - but if a kid's whole life is football, it's going to be tough to pry those players away from the traditional powerhouses (and odds are low that they would have been devoted enough to academics to get past admissions anyway).

Stanford's appeal is very different. I think everyone on this board appreciates that - and I'm hopeful that a bunch of blue chippers each year will as well.

I don't think that it's unreasonable to believe that we can be in the hunt for conference championships and BCS bowls most years, but we'll stumble some years as well. Every program does. I am excited to see the general level of the program elevated and feel that it can continue.

It's great for the university and, to be frank, the NCAA should be cheering for us. College football needs folks to prove that this game can be played the right way - especially with the tragedy at Penn State and the laundry list of scandals at schools like Miami, University of Spoiled Children, tOSU, Georgia, Auburn, Oklahoma, etc.

Re: Question on slow start on recruiting - socalstanfan1 - 07-20-2012

In the vast pool of blue-chip prospects, you've got to figure a brobdingnagian percentage take themselves out of the running, either through performance in the classroom that won't get them past admissions, or through a "football is my entire life" mindset that will lead them to the gridiron factories like Texas, USC, Florida.  Stanford's success will rely upon two things: identifying that small pool of blue chippers that have both the grades and the mindset to be attracted to Stanford, and reeling in a significant number of them.  And, identifying guys who have blue chip talent but who somehow never generated buzz on the recruting trail.  You only get about 20-25 guys on campus; the coaches just have to find the right ones and connect on enough to hit that number, and I think the program will be fine.