[BostonCard]

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

An average of >2 flips a year when our average class size is <20 seems pretty significant to me.  I mean, it is a small proportion of targets, but a decent proportion of the final class.  Or, to put it another way, 2 recruits that have committed elsewhere plus reasonable expectations out of what we have already offered would make a decent class, and certainly a better one than this year.  I am certainly heartened by the bevy of offers that went out in the last couple days.

Also, I think drawing comparisons to prior years is fraught because the changes in the recruiting calendar kind of change everything.  In prior years, very few players (outside of quarterbacks and the rare early commit), most players were uncommitted at this point in the recruiting cycle.  I don't claim to know how this will affect us.  It could mean that decommitments are much more common, and that these spring commitments mean a whole lot less than they used to.  Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC

[BostonCard]

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

An average of >2 flips a year when our average class size is <20 seems pretty significant to me.  I mean, it is a small proportion of targets, but a decent proportion of the final class.  Or, to put it another way, 2 recruits that have committed elsewhere plus reasonable expectations out of what we have already offered would make a decent class, and certainly a better one than this year.  I am certainly heartened by the bevy of offers that went out in the last couple days.

Also, I think drawing comparisons to prior years is fraught because the changes in the recruiting calendar kind of change everything.  In prior years, very few players (outside of quarterbacks and the rare early commit), most players were uncommitted at this point in the recruiting cycle.  I don't claim to know how this will affect us.  It could mean that decommitments are much more common, and that these spring commitments mean a whole lot less than they used to.  Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC