02-03-2015, 02:09 PM
While Flemming's criticism is fair and probably well-founded, I have a belief that the lack of aggressiveness is a necessary evil of dealing with the Stanford admissions requirement and that being more aggressive might have negative consequences.
A reason for hesitance on our recruiting might be that they do not want to deal with athletes who have either not provided enough information to allow us to gauge their admissibility or who we do not believe will be admitted. Having a player commit and then have to de-commit because of academics must be painful for both the players and coaching staff and hinders Stanford's ability to monitor its class while also providing recruits a reason to distrust Stanford.
The Shaw era of recruitment and limiting offers to somewhere around 100 seems to be a better long-term strategy than Harbaugh offering 300 athletes, most of which who have no chance of being admitted. Having a bunch of players rejected by the school and then having to de-commit would be a big negative for Stanford among HS coaches and players who often speak to each other.Â
A reason for hesitance on our recruiting might be that they do not want to deal with athletes who have either not provided enough information to allow us to gauge their admissibility or who we do not believe will be admitted. Having a player commit and then have to de-commit because of academics must be painful for both the players and coaching staff and hinders Stanford's ability to monitor its class while also providing recruits a reason to distrust Stanford.
The Shaw era of recruitment and limiting offers to somewhere around 100 seems to be a better long-term strategy than Harbaugh offering 300 athletes, most of which who have no chance of being admitted. Having a bunch of players rejected by the school and then having to de-commit would be a big negative for Stanford among HS coaches and players who often speak to each other.Â
