[stupac2]

I think the recruiting rankings are a bit misleading, however. Stanford's well-documented lower attrition rate is widely acknowledged by college football observers, but it is never factored in as any kind of adjuster to the Stanford recruiting rankings.  So while I concur Shaw has outperformed recruiting rankings on the same measures as other programs, those recruiting rankings themselves don't measure Stanford's classes accurately.

Recruiting class rankings are measured by total points accumulated.  When you have smaller classes annually, by definition you will accumulate fewer points.  The best way to adjust to account for Stanford's smaller classes, is to simply measure average recruit ranking. This is sometimes done on a per class analysis basis, like it was this year, when stories were written about Stanford having the 3rd or 4th best class by avg. recruit ranking.  But it's rarely done in these year-over-year numbers.

My point is that yes, Shaw has done a great job, but let's not pretend Stanford hasn't had Top 10 talent.  I'm assuming that if you looked at the Top 10 avg. over the Shaw era, and looked at the avg. ranking per recruit for all such teams over that period, Stanford would be at a similar avg. ranking number as the top 7-12 programs over the same period.

I don't think it's necessarily misleading, because as WiM loves to point out, recruiting is a crapshoot. To some extent we actually handicap ourselves by having a lower attrition rate. Sure, it's great that we keep our guys around and get them an education even when they don't pan out, because that's the damn point of the school, but from a football perspective it means that those guys are taking up a scholarship that could (potentially) be used for a better, younger player. Or at least another lottery ticket. I'm sure we can all name seniors who we were really excited about but never panned out, and they graduate from Stanford, but they transfer (or "retire") out of Alabama. That gives them an advantage over us on the gridiron, even if it makes them sleazy pieces of garbage.


On OP's topic, of all the things we have autocorrects for, I wish we'd add "Shawgren". I don't think it ever adds anything to a topic and just reads as whiny to me.

[stupac2]

I think the recruiting rankings are a bit misleading, however. Stanford's well-documented lower attrition rate is widely acknowledged by college football observers, but it is never factored in as any kind of adjuster to the Stanford recruiting rankings.  So while I concur Shaw has outperformed recruiting rankings on the same measures as other programs, those recruiting rankings themselves don't measure Stanford's classes accurately.

Recruiting class rankings are measured by total points accumulated.  When you have smaller classes annually, by definition you will accumulate fewer points.  The best way to adjust to account for Stanford's smaller classes, is to simply measure average recruit ranking. This is sometimes done on a per class analysis basis, like it was this year, when stories were written about Stanford having the 3rd or 4th best class by avg. recruit ranking.  But it's rarely done in these year-over-year numbers.

My point is that yes, Shaw has done a great job, but let's not pretend Stanford hasn't had Top 10 talent.  I'm assuming that if you looked at the Top 10 avg. over the Shaw era, and looked at the avg. ranking per recruit for all such teams over that period, Stanford would be at a similar avg. ranking number as the top 7-12 programs over the same period.

I don't think it's necessarily misleading, because as WiM loves to point out, recruiting is a crapshoot. To some extent we actually handicap ourselves by having a lower attrition rate. Sure, it's great that we keep our guys around and get them an education even when they don't pan out, because that's the damn point of the school, but from a football perspective it means that those guys are taking up a scholarship that could (potentially) be used for a better, younger player. Or at least another lottery ticket. I'm sure we can all name seniors who we were really excited about but never panned out, and they graduate from Stanford, but they transfer (or "retire") out of Alabama. That gives them an advantage over us on the gridiron, even if it makes them sleazy pieces of garbage.


On OP's topic, of all the things we have autocorrects for, I wish we'd add "Shawgren". I don't think it ever adds anything to a topic and just reads as whiny to me.