[metsjetsfan]

It's my understanding that if you're "just" a regular student, there are really no guarantees for Stanford admission, regardless of what your numbers are. A friend of mine who's an older Stanford alum recently described admission as "being hit by lightning," and I think that's pretty accurate.

But if you're a player that the football team is recruiting, I think it's more about meeting certain requirements. If your test scores and transcript and application indicate that you can handle the academics, you're in. I can't imagine that a recruited football player with an ACT score of 35 (which puts him in the top 1%) has ever been denied admission to any school in America, not even Stanford.

I get what you're saying.  However, I'm thinking that McFadden's case is a little different because he's a walk-on.  A top recruit would almost definitely get accepted into Stanford (assuming grades, extracurriculars, and classes are also up to standards).  But for Stanford/Ivy League schools, I'm curious if admissions officers hold walk-on/lower priority recruits to higher academic standards than scholarship/priority recruits...

Regardless, I suppose my concern is more about the fact that a coach guaranteed a recruit would be accepted into Stanford.  Then if the coach is wrong, the recruit is screwed.  More specifically, I wonder if the rejected recruit from earlier this year was the victim of that scenario...


Anyway, back to the depth chart, I wonder if Kelsey Young above Whitfield means KY is a better wide receiver than Whitfield?  For example, in a 3 or 4 WR set, would KY and not Whitfield be the 3rd or 4th receiver?  It would seem the coaches want to put KY on the field as much as possible, and not necessarily designating him as a RB or WR.  So it makes sense to me that they would choose Whitfield for more conventional WR sets...unless KY was simply better at the wide receiver position, which to me, may be what they're suggesting by placing KY above Whitfield in the depth chart.  Are there any indications that they deviated from the original plan of creating a "KY" position, and have decided he will be best served as a WR?

[metsjetsfan]

It's my understanding that if you're "just" a regular student, there are really no guarantees for Stanford admission, regardless of what your numbers are. A friend of mine who's an older Stanford alum recently described admission as "being hit by lightning," and I think that's pretty accurate.

But if you're a player that the football team is recruiting, I think it's more about meeting certain requirements. If your test scores and transcript and application indicate that you can handle the academics, you're in. I can't imagine that a recruited football player with an ACT score of 35 (which puts him in the top 1%) has ever been denied admission to any school in America, not even Stanford.

I get what you're saying.  However, I'm thinking that McFadden's case is a little different because he's a walk-on.  A top recruit would almost definitely get accepted into Stanford (assuming grades, extracurriculars, and classes are also up to standards).  But for Stanford/Ivy League schools, I'm curious if admissions officers hold walk-on/lower priority recruits to higher academic standards than scholarship/priority recruits...

Regardless, I suppose my concern is more about the fact that a coach guaranteed a recruit would be accepted into Stanford.  Then if the coach is wrong, the recruit is screwed.  More specifically, I wonder if the rejected recruit from earlier this year was the victim of that scenario...


Anyway, back to the depth chart, I wonder if Kelsey Young above Whitfield means KY is a better wide receiver than Whitfield?  For example, in a 3 or 4 WR set, would KY and not Whitfield be the 3rd or 4th receiver?  It would seem the coaches want to put KY on the field as much as possible, and not necessarily designating him as a RB or WR.  So it makes sense to me that they would choose Whitfield for more conventional WR sets...unless KY was simply better at the wide receiver position, which to me, may be what they're suggesting by placing KY above Whitfield in the depth chart.  Are there any indications that they deviated from the original plan of creating a "KY" position, and have decided he will be best served as a WR?