[msqueri]

Goose, you've mischaracterized my view of success in the transfer portal. I was merely going off of the best industry rating of transfer impacts, which is both qualitative and quantitative and which accounts for both incoming transfers and outgoing transfers. Mischaracterization to say I'm just going off of numbers. The fact is that there isn't as much of a relationship between the transfer portal and the national landscape as many assume and there is a much clearer relationship between high school recruiting rankings and the national landscape. Too many miss that fact.

I do think your mention of the transfer QBs in the Pac-12 is an important point. Looking at the data I shared above it appears that the Pac-12 is unusually impacted by transfers. The transfer portal is a much bigger deal in the Pac-12 in 2023 than it is elsewhere. That's interesting for now, but I'm not sure it tells us anything about the future. The Pac-12 won't exist anymore in a few months. The transfer QBs currently dominating our league will be scattered across the pro and college landscape next year. And the 2023 Pac-12 QB cohort is a known outlier/phenomenon in college football this year. I think if we want to think systematically about this it's far more relevant that, as I showed, in general in college football there is more of a relationship between overall talent and performance than there is between the transfer portal and performance.

You have a lot of good points/arguments but occasionally say things that make me wonder what fact base you're operating from. Extremely odd comment that it's easier to recruit at Kansas State than Stanford. That hasn't been the case pretty much ever and is very, very far from being the truth. Stanford historically has been able to recruit top 40 classes consistently. Kansas State not so much. Right now, the 247 talent composite has Stanford #37 and Kansas State #68. Right now, rebuilding, awful Stanford has a top 30 class and ascendant, bona fide good Kansas State has a top 90 class. Massively easier to recruit at Stanford than Kansas State.

---

Is recruiting harder at Stanford than K-State? I would strenuously disagree. Shaw and Harbaugh routinely brought in mega-whales. Even Taylor -- a total non-entity, coaching at a disaster zone, as far as big-league college football is concerned -- has brought in a surprisingly good class. By contrast K-State's all-time best recruit, per 247sports, is way back in the class of 2001. I don't think there's any excuse for poo-pooing what can be done recruiting-wise at Stanford, or for unfavorably comping it to the Wildcats. The question is less "can you recruit well" but more "can you optimize recruiting to be a consistent national contender."

Unfortunately, It isn't what you or I think, it is what the coaches you are trying to hire think. Shaw and Harbaugh's success may not translate well to the candidate's recruiting style. It is a different situation than they are used to, and they may not want to chance it.

There is literally not a single person on the planet who knows anything about recruiting who thinks Kansas State is easier to recruit at than Stanford. Kansas State was able to attract Klieman because....he was an FCS coach. A Power Five program doesn't need to convince an FCS coach of anything to take the job. Harbaugh, Klieman, and Taylor were thanking their lucky stars to have programs on a budget pluck them from obscurity rather than go the much more tried and true route of picking a proven major coach. There is no skill in getting somebody like Klieman or Taylor to accept your offer. The skill is in picking the right guy so it's not a Paul Wulff or Mike London.

[msqueri]

Goose, you've mischaracterized my view of success in the transfer portal. I was merely going off of the best industry rating of transfer impacts, which is both qualitative and quantitative and which accounts for both incoming transfers and outgoing transfers. Mischaracterization to say I'm just going off of numbers. The fact is that there isn't as much of a relationship between the transfer portal and the national landscape as many assume and there is a much clearer relationship between high school recruiting rankings and the national landscape. Too many miss that fact.

I do think your mention of the transfer QBs in the Pac-12 is an important point. Looking at the data I shared above it appears that the Pac-12 is unusually impacted by transfers. The transfer portal is a much bigger deal in the Pac-12 in 2023 than it is elsewhere. That's interesting for now, but I'm not sure it tells us anything about the future. The Pac-12 won't exist anymore in a few months. The transfer QBs currently dominating our league will be scattered across the pro and college landscape next year. And the 2023 Pac-12 QB cohort is a known outlier/phenomenon in college football this year. I think if we want to think systematically about this it's far more relevant that, as I showed, in general in college football there is more of a relationship between overall talent and performance than there is between the transfer portal and performance.

You have a lot of good points/arguments but occasionally say things that make me wonder what fact base you're operating from. Extremely odd comment that it's easier to recruit at Kansas State than Stanford. That hasn't been the case pretty much ever and is very, very far from being the truth. Stanford historically has been able to recruit top 40 classes consistently. Kansas State not so much. Right now, the 247 talent composite has Stanford #37 and Kansas State #68. Right now, rebuilding, awful Stanford has a top 30 class and ascendant, bona fide good Kansas State has a top 90 class. Massively easier to recruit at Stanford than Kansas State.

---

Is recruiting harder at Stanford than K-State? I would strenuously disagree. Shaw and Harbaugh routinely brought in mega-whales. Even Taylor -- a total non-entity, coaching at a disaster zone, as far as big-league college football is concerned -- has brought in a surprisingly good class. By contrast K-State's all-time best recruit, per 247sports, is way back in the class of 2001. I don't think there's any excuse for poo-pooing what can be done recruiting-wise at Stanford, or for unfavorably comping it to the Wildcats. The question is less "can you recruit well" but more "can you optimize recruiting to be a consistent national contender."

Unfortunately, It isn't what you or I think, it is what the coaches you are trying to hire think. Shaw and Harbaugh's success may not translate well to the candidate's recruiting style. It is a different situation than they are used to, and they may not want to chance it.

There is literally not a single person on the planet who knows anything about recruiting who thinks Kansas State is easier to recruit at than Stanford. Kansas State was able to attract Klieman because....he was an FCS coach. A Power Five program doesn't need to convince an FCS coach of anything to take the job. Harbaugh, Klieman, and Taylor were thanking their lucky stars to have programs on a budget pluck them from obscurity rather than go the much more tried and true route of picking a proven major coach. There is no skill in getting somebody like Klieman or Taylor to accept your offer. The skill is in picking the right guy so it's not a Paul Wulff or Mike London.