11-15-2021, 04:57 AM
In this back and forth debate about the current state of Cardinal football, I submit the following observations.
For the most part, recruiting at Stanford has been pretty decent during the Harbaugh-Shaw era. There have been a few bad years now and then, but on the whole Stanford has been able to attract recruiting classes that are in or around the top 30, sometimes in the top 20. From 2007-2015, the average recruiting ranking was 29.1. From 2015-2020, the average was 22.3 (according to 247 Sports).
From 2009 to 2016, Stanford tended to outperform vs. the recruiting rankings, fielding teams that ended up in the top ten (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015) or at least in the top 25 (#12, 2016, just missed in 2014). During these 8 years, for example, Stanford beat USC 7 times and lost twice. Yes, USC had sanctions in the beginning of this period and, yes, USC had coaching turbulence; yet they had average recruiting rankings of 5.2 during this period. The perennial argument at the time was that Stanford, despite having lower-ranking recruiting classes compared to USC, made up the difference with superior player development, better coaching and better S&C. The players were better than their recruiting stars, played more cohesively, made fewer mistakes, committed fewer penalties and were simply tougher. In short, the team was greater than the sum of the parts.
Beginning in 2017, this situation began to flip-flop. In fact, 2017 was the last time a Stanford team ended the season in the top 25 (#20). Recruiting rankings have not been lower, but we have seen more and more highly-touted players enter the squad and underperform vs. expectations. Foster Sarrell is the poster-child for a big-time recruit who never lived up to his billing. As I have noted elsewhere, we have also seen multiple cases of player regression during their Stanford tenure. Today, the players hardly live up to their recruiting stars, seem to lack basic skills, commit many errors and are highly prone to injury. If the key to outperforming our recruiting rankings in the past was player development, coaching and S&C, what do we currently conclude about our inability to perform at the level of our recruiting rankings? Clearly, the current team is less than the sum of the parts. Getting hammered by an Oregon State team that has had recruiting rankings in the 50-70 range during the last 6 years should be a clear sign that something is amiss.
For the most part, recruiting at Stanford has been pretty decent during the Harbaugh-Shaw era. There have been a few bad years now and then, but on the whole Stanford has been able to attract recruiting classes that are in or around the top 30, sometimes in the top 20. From 2007-2015, the average recruiting ranking was 29.1. From 2015-2020, the average was 22.3 (according to 247 Sports).
From 2009 to 2016, Stanford tended to outperform vs. the recruiting rankings, fielding teams that ended up in the top ten (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015) or at least in the top 25 (#12, 2016, just missed in 2014). During these 8 years, for example, Stanford beat USC 7 times and lost twice. Yes, USC had sanctions in the beginning of this period and, yes, USC had coaching turbulence; yet they had average recruiting rankings of 5.2 during this period. The perennial argument at the time was that Stanford, despite having lower-ranking recruiting classes compared to USC, made up the difference with superior player development, better coaching and better S&C. The players were better than their recruiting stars, played more cohesively, made fewer mistakes, committed fewer penalties and were simply tougher. In short, the team was greater than the sum of the parts.
Beginning in 2017, this situation began to flip-flop. In fact, 2017 was the last time a Stanford team ended the season in the top 25 (#20). Recruiting rankings have not been lower, but we have seen more and more highly-touted players enter the squad and underperform vs. expectations. Foster Sarrell is the poster-child for a big-time recruit who never lived up to his billing. As I have noted elsewhere, we have also seen multiple cases of player regression during their Stanford tenure. Today, the players hardly live up to their recruiting stars, seem to lack basic skills, commit many errors and are highly prone to injury. If the key to outperforming our recruiting rankings in the past was player development, coaching and S&C, what do we currently conclude about our inability to perform at the level of our recruiting rankings? Clearly, the current team is less than the sum of the parts. Getting hammered by an Oregon State team that has had recruiting rankings in the 50-70 range during the last 6 years should be a clear sign that something is amiss.