[BostonCard]

I think you guys are talking past each other a little bit.

Matt's definition of "a healthy program" is exactly a program where a kid will not "continue to flounder" (and thus bolt at first opportunity).

"Loyalty and sense of team" are increased when said team is winning and successfully developing its players.

As I interpreted what Matt was saying, above and beyond guys leaving because the team sucked and they were not developing, we were recruiting players who were more in it for themselves than for the team, and instilling in them a culture that it was not just acceptable, but encouraged to do what is best for them even if it harmed the team.

I'm at least a little skeptical of the latter.  I think we can adequately explain what is being observed with the combination of secular changes to college football, one-off factors due to the pandemic, and the fact that the team sucked and players were not developing.  I don't think the idea of "Stanford men" is something we ought to avoid, as Andrew Luck and Bryce Love coming back can attest, nor does recruiting a "football first" player  protect you from a Christian McCaffrey eschewing playing in a bowl game in order to preserve his draft position.

The answer to me is not to avoid recruiting "Stanford men" who might have interests outside of football or that we shouldn't tout the 40-year decision.  In fact, to the extent that we can offer incoming high school athletes a good value proposition (especially now) it isn't that they will be joining a team that is going to play in front of packed stadia or have a realistic shot at going to the CFP.  The value proposition is that Stanford is a place where they can thrive both in football and academically, and differentiates us from, say, ASU.

I would focus on aligning incentives for the players to the team goals.  That means improving play, demonstrating that players can develop while at Stanford and improve their draft stock, and finding a path way for those who want to pursue a graduate degree in their fifth year to do so at Stanford.  To me, that seems like an easier win/win lift than to try to convince players with pro potential to forgo their best interests by staying at Stanford instead of going pro or trying to convince those who don't have a professional future not to grad transfer and instead just delay their graduation quarter.

BC

---

Signing McCaffrey hurt Stanford?    C’mon, BC. That’s just  silly. 

Of course not, I'm using McCaffrey to make two points.  First,  by the logic espoused by some here, McCaffrey was somehow symptomatic of the culture rot that occurred at Stanford (and may have contributed to it) because he didn't put the team's interests ahead of his own.  And secondly, that recruiting football-first guys is how you get players not to leave eligibility on the table.

I think more broadly, this shows the paradox that the culture theory creates.  Among players who are not going to go to the NFL, you want them to prioritize football over other pursuits, such as graduate degrees.  But amongst the players who can be drafted with eligibility remaining, then you want them to prioritize sticking around to get their degree (or even take a fifth year) over declaring early for the NFL draft (and thus prioritize other pursuits, over football), since if they prioritize football they can pursue their passion and get paid for it (perhaps less of an issue now with NIL).

BC

[BostonCard]

I think you guys are talking past each other a little bit.

Matt's definition of "a healthy program" is exactly a program where a kid will not "continue to flounder" (and thus bolt at first opportunity).

"Loyalty and sense of team" are increased when said team is winning and successfully developing its players.

As I interpreted what Matt was saying, above and beyond guys leaving because the team sucked and they were not developing, we were recruiting players who were more in it for themselves than for the team, and instilling in them a culture that it was not just acceptable, but encouraged to do what is best for them even if it harmed the team.

I'm at least a little skeptical of the latter.  I think we can adequately explain what is being observed with the combination of secular changes to college football, one-off factors due to the pandemic, and the fact that the team sucked and players were not developing.  I don't think the idea of "Stanford men" is something we ought to avoid, as Andrew Luck and Bryce Love coming back can attest, nor does recruiting a "football first" player  protect you from a Christian McCaffrey eschewing playing in a bowl game in order to preserve his draft position.

The answer to me is not to avoid recruiting "Stanford men" who might have interests outside of football or that we shouldn't tout the 40-year decision.  In fact, to the extent that we can offer incoming high school athletes a good value proposition (especially now) it isn't that they will be joining a team that is going to play in front of packed stadia or have a realistic shot at going to the CFP.  The value proposition is that Stanford is a place where they can thrive both in football and academically, and differentiates us from, say, ASU.

I would focus on aligning incentives for the players to the team goals.  That means improving play, demonstrating that players can develop while at Stanford and improve their draft stock, and finding a path way for those who want to pursue a graduate degree in their fifth year to do so at Stanford.  To me, that seems like an easier win/win lift than to try to convince players with pro potential to forgo their best interests by staying at Stanford instead of going pro or trying to convince those who don't have a professional future not to grad transfer and instead just delay their graduation quarter.

BC

---

Signing McCaffrey hurt Stanford?    C’mon, BC. That’s just  silly. 

Of course not, I'm using McCaffrey to make two points.  First,  by the logic espoused by some here, McCaffrey was somehow symptomatic of the culture rot that occurred at Stanford (and may have contributed to it) because he didn't put the team's interests ahead of his own.  And secondly, that recruiting football-first guys is how you get players not to leave eligibility on the table.

I think more broadly, this shows the paradox that the culture theory creates.  Among players who are not going to go to the NFL, you want them to prioritize football over other pursuits, such as graduate degrees.  But amongst the players who can be drafted with eligibility remaining, then you want them to prioritize sticking around to get their degree (or even take a fifth year) over declaring early for the NFL draft (and thus prioritize other pursuits, over football), since if they prioritize football they can pursue their passion and get paid for it (perhaps less of an issue now with NIL).

BC