[qwerty49]

I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date. 

I agree with your first sentence here but not with your second one. 

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

We're already flying half-blind in situations where 7th semester grades and late test scores are not available by the Dec signing date.  Add our obstinance in not allowing early enrollment and we have an uphill battle all the way.

Now perhaps this class was just luck-of-the-draw.  But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.  Yes, cause and effect are difficult to identify, and we unwashed fans don't know any facts or details, but the optics are not good from a number of different angles. 

Are some process tweaks needed? Well, that's hard to say as an outsider.  Sure, it's great that recruits get to meet Condi, I get that.  But might there be room to improve our network with feeder-school coaches to identify guys as early as 8th or 9th grade, and to reach out to get them on an appropriate academic track at that point?  And we need every advantage we can get -- I do think it's time for Shaw and the AD to go to the mat with the University about extending early enrollment to at least spring quarter and put us on level ground as far as that decision factor goes. 

And one (unpopular) question we can't avoid -- even if we do have the best recruiting strategy and process in the world, do we have the right people executing it?  We've had some turnover on staff.  Are we "coaching up" our recruiters?

These are hard questions to ask, and magic answers don't always exist.  Some recruits are coming to Stanford no matter what, and some will never, no matter what.  But it's the tossups that make all the difference, with our pool we need every edge we can get, and if staff isn't at least asking these questions of itself, we will keep going into those gunfights with knives IMHO.

[qwerty49]

I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date. 

I agree with your first sentence here but not with your second one. 

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

We're already flying half-blind in situations where 7th semester grades and late test scores are not available by the Dec signing date.  Add our obstinance in not allowing early enrollment and we have an uphill battle all the way.

Now perhaps this class was just luck-of-the-draw.  But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.  Yes, cause and effect are difficult to identify, and we unwashed fans don't know any facts or details, but the optics are not good from a number of different angles. 

Are some process tweaks needed? Well, that's hard to say as an outsider.  Sure, it's great that recruits get to meet Condi, I get that.  But might there be room to improve our network with feeder-school coaches to identify guys as early as 8th or 9th grade, and to reach out to get them on an appropriate academic track at that point?  And we need every advantage we can get -- I do think it's time for Shaw and the AD to go to the mat with the University about extending early enrollment to at least spring quarter and put us on level ground as far as that decision factor goes. 

And one (unpopular) question we can't avoid -- even if we do have the best recruiting strategy and process in the world, do we have the right people executing it?  We've had some turnover on staff.  Are we "coaching up" our recruiters?

These are hard questions to ask, and magic answers don't always exist.  Some recruits are coming to Stanford no matter what, and some will never, no matter what.  But it's the tossups that make all the difference, with our pool we need every edge we can get, and if staff isn't at least asking these questions of itself, we will keep going into those gunfights with knives IMHO.