[teejers1]

Right, there is no requirement to graduate in five years.  I think the issue is that, and this has been decades in the making, college football has gone from a game you play with your friends that oh by the way pays for your college to a profit-maximizing business that doesn't pay its players.  Is it any wonder that the players now view playing as a means to an end (an NFL payday for those good enough to get one, or at least a degree and a chance to earn a living for those not) than an end in itself?  Taking one or two classes just to stay in school an extra year to play football will be the exception and not the rule.  The majority of our players will go to the NFL, graduate and get a job at something else, or grad transfer and at least earn a masters degree for their trouble.

I think we have to assume that incoming recruits will be playing for no more than four year, if we are lucky.

BC

It's an extra quarter, not an extra year (as it always has been).

I get that people want to rationalize away the exodus of what used to be a very important part of Stanford's on-field success to something other than dissatisfaction with the program.  But no matter how you want to characterize it, the departures distill to "it's not worth it to me" to come back and play ball.  That's pretty significant, particularly if you believe (as I do) that every single one of these kids love to play the game.  I disagree with any implication that people are mechanistically working the collegiate system as a means to an end - stepping stone to NFL and/or free degree.  I think you short-sell the fun/love/desire these kids have to play the game itself when you do that.

Maybe Stanford makes it harder to stick around; maybe kids are burning out of football at a higher % and faster rate than in yesteryear; but it's hard to believe that satisfaction with the program (and prospects for next season) play no role - or even a small role - in the "it's not worth it to me" calculus.

Something is amiss.  And maybe the "amiss" is only Shaw's inability to recognize the new reality and adjust accordingly (but I suspect it's a tad more than that).

[teejers1]

Right, there is no requirement to graduate in five years.  I think the issue is that, and this has been decades in the making, college football has gone from a game you play with your friends that oh by the way pays for your college to a profit-maximizing business that doesn't pay its players.  Is it any wonder that the players now view playing as a means to an end (an NFL payday for those good enough to get one, or at least a degree and a chance to earn a living for those not) than an end in itself?  Taking one or two classes just to stay in school an extra year to play football will be the exception and not the rule.  The majority of our players will go to the NFL, graduate and get a job at something else, or grad transfer and at least earn a masters degree for their trouble.

I think we have to assume that incoming recruits will be playing for no more than four year, if we are lucky.

BC

It's an extra quarter, not an extra year (as it always has been).

I get that people want to rationalize away the exodus of what used to be a very important part of Stanford's on-field success to something other than dissatisfaction with the program.  But no matter how you want to characterize it, the departures distill to "it's not worth it to me" to come back and play ball.  That's pretty significant, particularly if you believe (as I do) that every single one of these kids love to play the game.  I disagree with any implication that people are mechanistically working the collegiate system as a means to an end - stepping stone to NFL and/or free degree.  I think you short-sell the fun/love/desire these kids have to play the game itself when you do that.

Maybe Stanford makes it harder to stick around; maybe kids are burning out of football at a higher % and faster rate than in yesteryear; but it's hard to believe that satisfaction with the program (and prospects for next season) play no role - or even a small role - in the "it's not worth it to me" calculus.

Something is amiss.  And maybe the "amiss" is only Shaw's inability to recognize the new reality and adjust accordingly (but I suspect it's a tad more than that).