[Goose]

When I was a student, it was a rare player who didn't redshirt, and a plurality of the players on the two-deep were redshirt seniors.


The world has changed since I was in school (and I suspect the same for you).  Forget football; we used to joke about professional students who loved being in school so much that they would do what they could to prolong their stay.  That's not really a thing anymore.  Obviously, a college education has always been a means to an end, but "back in the day", it was an end in itself as well.  Increasingly, though, it is viewed more pragmatically; just look at the share of graduates who major in the humanities, which has plummeted.  I suspect that has to do with its cost, the student debt crisis that hit millennials, and increasing uncertainty in the job market for college graduates.  While when I was going through, a college degree was viewed as a recipe for success, increasingly it is viewed as insufficient.  So now, instead of "enjoy your four (or more) years in college; you will have nothing to worry about when you get out" the message kids are increasingly hearing is that they need to use college tactically to major in the right major, land the right internships and position themselves for life after graduation.  Football players are little different, but for the fact that at least they don't graduate with (as much) student debt.



Shaw has been slow to react to the changing world, so I don't give him a pass on this.  But he has not been the cause of the changing world as you intimate.  I suspect this will be a problem for us going forward, as one of our competitive advantages had always been less attrition (due to academic or legal failings), and who wouldn't want to stay at Stanford a fifth year, for free.  At the least, Shaw needs to plan for it, by recruiting as if fifth year players will be the exception and not the rule.  I agree with calls for him to adapt to the new reality, but we do need to understand that some of the tools available to other teams (having freshmen enroll early, for example) will not be available to us.



BC

For sure times have changed. When I was a student, freshmen weren't eligible and played freshman football. Back then, almost nobody went to the NFL and players did play because they loved the game. Naturally, there were no redshirts. unless you got hurt, and even that was real rare. Yet we still had a football team. It can be done under different conditions.

For the record, I don't think it has ever been the large offensive playbook that was the problem. Stanford students can learn things like that fast The problem is the QB learning to recognize the defense and checking off to the right play. The rest of the team only needs to know what to do when the check off happens. A freshman can do that, as our OL proved last year. The QB probably cannot. One of eleven. A much bigger problem in how the game has changed is that college athletes are expected to be much bigger and much stronger. Freshmen often are not. That is a problem that can't be fixed by being smart and studying the playbook. That takes S&C time.

Shaw's ideal situation is freshmen and sophomores getting strong and gaining experience (to avoid "freshman mistakes) while juniors and seniors play. One big problem with this approach is that if the upperclassmen get injured or are just not very good, you have to play a younger guy. That isn't fatal, but is not ideal. A more significant problem is really good players are going to go to the NFL as soon as they can. They won't be there in year four.

Fifth year players were always a "bonus". The pattern of freshman redshirts was a luxury Stanford was often afforded because people were actually glad to get an "extra" year paid for. It did produce more mature, better football players, so the approach could be sold to some pretty good athletes. That just isn't the case anymore. The guys who want to go pro want to get the money ASAP. The NFL is drafting much more based on potential, not proven performance, so staying around to "prove it" just risks injury for no real benefit. Other players figure out they aren't going to the NFL and possibly aren't even going to play much if they stay for their fifth year and will grad transfer. In the past, nobody would take such players, but with all the "holes" opening up on other teams because of guys leaving early, there is now a market. These are just facts.

Shaw can't really fix this problem by signing more recruits. If you lose a rising junior or rising senior, you just aren't going to plug in a freshman and get the same results, at least in general. Sometimes you find an exceptional guy who can step in as a freshman and play like a junior, but that is the exception. Other programs can get JC transfers or graduate transfers (and probably soon non-graduate transfers) to fill unexpected holes. One may say "Sign better freshman", but if they existed and wanted to come to Stanford they would already be here.

[Goose]

When I was a student, it was a rare player who didn't redshirt, and a plurality of the players on the two-deep were redshirt seniors.


The world has changed since I was in school (and I suspect the same for you).  Forget football; we used to joke about professional students who loved being in school so much that they would do what they could to prolong their stay.  That's not really a thing anymore.  Obviously, a college education has always been a means to an end, but "back in the day", it was an end in itself as well.  Increasingly, though, it is viewed more pragmatically; just look at the share of graduates who major in the humanities, which has plummeted.  I suspect that has to do with its cost, the student debt crisis that hit millennials, and increasing uncertainty in the job market for college graduates.  While when I was going through, a college degree was viewed as a recipe for success, increasingly it is viewed as insufficient.  So now, instead of "enjoy your four (or more) years in college; you will have nothing to worry about when you get out" the message kids are increasingly hearing is that they need to use college tactically to major in the right major, land the right internships and position themselves for life after graduation.  Football players are little different, but for the fact that at least they don't graduate with (as much) student debt.



Shaw has been slow to react to the changing world, so I don't give him a pass on this.  But he has not been the cause of the changing world as you intimate.  I suspect this will be a problem for us going forward, as one of our competitive advantages had always been less attrition (due to academic or legal failings), and who wouldn't want to stay at Stanford a fifth year, for free.  At the least, Shaw needs to plan for it, by recruiting as if fifth year players will be the exception and not the rule.  I agree with calls for him to adapt to the new reality, but we do need to understand that some of the tools available to other teams (having freshmen enroll early, for example) will not be available to us.



BC

For sure times have changed. When I was a student, freshmen weren't eligible and played freshman football. Back then, almost nobody went to the NFL and players did play because they loved the game. Naturally, there were no redshirts. unless you got hurt, and even that was real rare. Yet we still had a football team. It can be done under different conditions.

For the record, I don't think it has ever been the large offensive playbook that was the problem. Stanford students can learn things like that fast The problem is the QB learning to recognize the defense and checking off to the right play. The rest of the team only needs to know what to do when the check off happens. A freshman can do that, as our OL proved last year. The QB probably cannot. One of eleven. A much bigger problem in how the game has changed is that college athletes are expected to be much bigger and much stronger. Freshmen often are not. That is a problem that can't be fixed by being smart and studying the playbook. That takes S&C time.

Shaw's ideal situation is freshmen and sophomores getting strong and gaining experience (to avoid "freshman mistakes) while juniors and seniors play. One big problem with this approach is that if the upperclassmen get injured or are just not very good, you have to play a younger guy. That isn't fatal, but is not ideal. A more significant problem is really good players are going to go to the NFL as soon as they can. They won't be there in year four.

Fifth year players were always a "bonus". The pattern of freshman redshirts was a luxury Stanford was often afforded because people were actually glad to get an "extra" year paid for. It did produce more mature, better football players, so the approach could be sold to some pretty good athletes. That just isn't the case anymore. The guys who want to go pro want to get the money ASAP. The NFL is drafting much more based on potential, not proven performance, so staying around to "prove it" just risks injury for no real benefit. Other players figure out they aren't going to the NFL and possibly aren't even going to play much if they stay for their fifth year and will grad transfer. In the past, nobody would take such players, but with all the "holes" opening up on other teams because of guys leaving early, there is now a market. These are just facts.

Shaw can't really fix this problem by signing more recruits. If you lose a rising junior or rising senior, you just aren't going to plug in a freshman and get the same results, at least in general. Sometimes you find an exceptional guy who can step in as a freshman and play like a junior, but that is the exception. Other programs can get JC transfers or graduate transfers (and probably soon non-graduate transfers) to fill unexpected holes. One may say "Sign better freshman", but if they existed and wanted to come to Stanford they would already be here.