[Goose]

Goose, your error is twofold. 

First, you are way off on how hard it is to get into Stanford as a football player. It’s possibly closer to 40 percent of elite football players can get in than it is to 4 percent. It’s not “some” preference for football players. It’s a completely different admissions standard that opens up the universe of possible admits dramatically. The football team has let people in with Cs or with test scores that nearly half the country has obtained or reclassifying high school years despite only being a self-professed B+ student.

You are clearly much closer to the issue than I am. I did of course know that Stanford had admitted football players that were well below the "mean" in several metrics. I had been under the impression that while they could walk a few such guys through each year, the "mean" football admit couldn't be well outside the profile of other admits. This was partially driven by the fact the football players I knew fairly well were academically pretty much like everybody else. Their SAT scores were in the 1200s, not the 1500s, but so were lots of other people's. They certainly didn't stand out as "different" academically. So to be clear, you are saying that of the top 1000 athletes, 400 of them could be admitted to Stanford and that in any given year the team could get admitted as many of these "B+" students as they wished?

Second, you’re acting like SamuelMcF and I are guessing at these characterizations but we’re not. We’ve both followed recruiting very closely over a span of years. At one time I was a recruiting reporter fed inside information on who Stanford was recruiting, who was admissible or not, and why for both. Additionally, the number of composite top 1000 players at a position is not guesswork. At OL in the just-signed 2023 cycle it was 156. In 2022 it was 140. In 2021 it was 149. This data is available going back many years. Similarly, we are not bloviating when we say “dozens.” We have each observed Stanford recruiting dozens of players annually for years. Not all rise to the level of meriting a football scholarship in the staff’s evaluation, but that’s a different screen than the admissibility one. And not all would have been admissible, but by the same token we’re probably not recruiting everybody who would be admissible either. 

Lots of good thoughts in your posts but I think you have some erroneous assumptions about football recruiting at Stanford. Seeing you cite the 4 percent acceptance number was jaw dropping for me. Jonathan Martin, Michael Thomas, Tyler Gaffney, Ben Edwards, Wilfredo Aybar, etc. got into Stanford. Some of our football players would be lucky to get into UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara.

Again, you have been much closer to the action than I. Good to have access to your information and analysis. I would indeed hope that the staff would be considering and in contact with more than 10 or so OL prospects in any given "cycle". If there are about 150 such guys, and 40% of them can actually get admitted, that is 60 prospects. To be clear, you are saying that Stanford's "admissions penalty" is really 0.4. While it doesn't surprise me at all that "some" of our football players would be lucky to get into UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara, some is far from "most" or "all". My thought, which you say is far too conservative, was that the number is closer to 0.08. You are saying it is 0.4. Is that basically correct? I admit I don't really have any way to know what that number is, and it appears you do have that information. While it surprises me that 40% of the top 1000 football players would be admissible, I admit all I have to go on is "rumor" and some statements by Shaw indicating a much lower number.

[Goose]

Goose, your error is twofold. 

First, you are way off on how hard it is to get into Stanford as a football player. It’s possibly closer to 40 percent of elite football players can get in than it is to 4 percent. It’s not “some” preference for football players. It’s a completely different admissions standard that opens up the universe of possible admits dramatically. The football team has let people in with Cs or with test scores that nearly half the country has obtained or reclassifying high school years despite only being a self-professed B+ student.

You are clearly much closer to the issue than I am. I did of course know that Stanford had admitted football players that were well below the "mean" in several metrics. I had been under the impression that while they could walk a few such guys through each year, the "mean" football admit couldn't be well outside the profile of other admits. This was partially driven by the fact the football players I knew fairly well were academically pretty much like everybody else. Their SAT scores were in the 1200s, not the 1500s, but so were lots of other people's. They certainly didn't stand out as "different" academically. So to be clear, you are saying that of the top 1000 athletes, 400 of them could be admitted to Stanford and that in any given year the team could get admitted as many of these "B+" students as they wished?

Second, you’re acting like SamuelMcF and I are guessing at these characterizations but we’re not. We’ve both followed recruiting very closely over a span of years. At one time I was a recruiting reporter fed inside information on who Stanford was recruiting, who was admissible or not, and why for both. Additionally, the number of composite top 1000 players at a position is not guesswork. At OL in the just-signed 2023 cycle it was 156. In 2022 it was 140. In 2021 it was 149. This data is available going back many years. Similarly, we are not bloviating when we say “dozens.” We have each observed Stanford recruiting dozens of players annually for years. Not all rise to the level of meriting a football scholarship in the staff’s evaluation, but that’s a different screen than the admissibility one. And not all would have been admissible, but by the same token we’re probably not recruiting everybody who would be admissible either. 

Lots of good thoughts in your posts but I think you have some erroneous assumptions about football recruiting at Stanford. Seeing you cite the 4 percent acceptance number was jaw dropping for me. Jonathan Martin, Michael Thomas, Tyler Gaffney, Ben Edwards, Wilfredo Aybar, etc. got into Stanford. Some of our football players would be lucky to get into UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara.

Again, you have been much closer to the action than I. Good to have access to your information and analysis. I would indeed hope that the staff would be considering and in contact with more than 10 or so OL prospects in any given "cycle". If there are about 150 such guys, and 40% of them can actually get admitted, that is 60 prospects. To be clear, you are saying that Stanford's "admissions penalty" is really 0.4. While it doesn't surprise me at all that "some" of our football players would be lucky to get into UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara, some is far from "most" or "all". My thought, which you say is far too conservative, was that the number is closer to 0.08. You are saying it is 0.4. Is that basically correct? I admit I don't really have any way to know what that number is, and it appears you do have that information. While it surprises me that 40% of the top 1000 football players would be admissible, I admit all I have to go on is "rumor" and some statements by Shaw indicating a much lower number.