[CTcard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]

[CTcard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]