11-07-2022, 02:48 PM
Diagnosing the causes of a failing program once you get to the point that everything is failing is going to be difficult. It is likely that there are multiple causes for our lack of success, some of which are internal (poor coaching, poor recruiting, etc.) and some of which are external (how the rules and traditions of college football restrain Stanford, how Stanford's self-imposed academic standards further restrain us, etc.
I can't prove that one factor is the dominant one, but I do think that when USC came to town with 26 transfers and we had 1, it was a major factor in outclassing our football talent on the field. I think I remembered that Washington had 17. I stopped keeping track after that.
Not every school is going to be able to skim the cream from lesser leagues as USC was able to, but many will. In time we will see most of the football powerhouses using lesser FBS schools and FCS schools as minor league feeders--just as they also have frequently done with community college transfers in the past. Those schools with elite football reputations will be able to afford to not rely so overwhelmingly on high school recruiting and player development, but can instead watch to see where the talent is developing in the college ranks and then simply take it.
Stanford will not be able to do that. That is and will become a major structural barrier to our relative success vis a vis those schools that can.
It is likely that schools like Oregon State will have a much more limited pull for transfers than USC will. They likely will have a net out-migration rather than in-migration of talent. No reason we can't be competitive with them. And in fact, this year, we were "competitive" with them. We lost a tight game.
The NIL stuff is more up in the air, I think. If nothing changes I expect more and more programs to drift to the Texas A&M model that got Nick Saban so riled up. I have a hard time believing Stanford would ever permit anything similar here, but such deals may become pretty much standard at most major programs. If the trend toward organized payola continues, Stanford's own internal restrictions will put us at a competitive disadvantage.
I can't prove that one factor is the dominant one, but I do think that when USC came to town with 26 transfers and we had 1, it was a major factor in outclassing our football talent on the field. I think I remembered that Washington had 17. I stopped keeping track after that.
Not every school is going to be able to skim the cream from lesser leagues as USC was able to, but many will. In time we will see most of the football powerhouses using lesser FBS schools and FCS schools as minor league feeders--just as they also have frequently done with community college transfers in the past. Those schools with elite football reputations will be able to afford to not rely so overwhelmingly on high school recruiting and player development, but can instead watch to see where the talent is developing in the college ranks and then simply take it.
Stanford will not be able to do that. That is and will become a major structural barrier to our relative success vis a vis those schools that can.
It is likely that schools like Oregon State will have a much more limited pull for transfers than USC will. They likely will have a net out-migration rather than in-migration of talent. No reason we can't be competitive with them. And in fact, this year, we were "competitive" with them. We lost a tight game.
The NIL stuff is more up in the air, I think. If nothing changes I expect more and more programs to drift to the Texas A&M model that got Nick Saban so riled up. I have a hard time believing Stanford would ever permit anything similar here, but such deals may become pretty much standard at most major programs. If the trend toward organized payola continues, Stanford's own internal restrictions will put us at a competitive disadvantage.