[Langdude]

The issue is that there are a couple of guys in the portal that we’d prefer to have back, and a couple guys not in the portal that are unlikely to contribute much next year, so even though we might be at 83 or 84 scholarships, functionally it could be closer to 80.

BC

That's essentially par for the course, though. There will always be scholarship guys who won't play. It's a matter of having enough healthy bodies to actually run competitive practices, scrimmages, and a full spring game.

"Functionally closer to 80" is sooooo much better than functionally closer to 65.

Yes. I'm thrilled that this is a problem.

As has been well covered on this board, a significant part of the struggles of this past year was the cumulative result of Shaw's inability or reluctance to get as close to 85 scholies as possible every year. It results in little or no depth at various positions, as we saw. I don't think that the press adequately covered this failing when speaking of Stanford's down year.

-m.

[Langdude]

The issue is that there are a couple of guys in the portal that we’d prefer to have back, and a couple guys not in the portal that are unlikely to contribute much next year, so even though we might be at 83 or 84 scholarships, functionally it could be closer to 80.

BC

That's essentially par for the course, though. There will always be scholarship guys who won't play. It's a matter of having enough healthy bodies to actually run competitive practices, scrimmages, and a full spring game.

"Functionally closer to 80" is sooooo much better than functionally closer to 65.

Yes. I'm thrilled that this is a problem.

As has been well covered on this board, a significant part of the struggles of this past year was the cumulative result of Shaw's inability or reluctance to get as close to 85 scholies as possible every year. It results in little or no depth at various positions, as we saw. I don't think that the press adequately covered this failing when speaking of Stanford's down year.

-m.