[Goose]

I agree that we should think of roster management one year at a time rather than getting sucked in to thinking about three year projections for people who will face annual opportunities to leave. The problem I have is that even if we are simply optimizing for 2025 the evidence so far is that Cisse is a better receiver than Williams. I don't think it's a guarantee but if I had to bet I think Cisse would be the better receiver for us next year. Oh well.

These are supposed to be college students, not part of a roster to be "managed".  Of course I recognize that ship has sailed long ago, but it really kills me that this board is talking like it has given up all pretense that these are supposed to be student athletes not professional football players. 

BC

It seems to me we have two choices. Cling to the "student athlete" idea and be OK with 3-9 records every year. If we want to do better we have to (IMO) reluctantly realize that things have changed
and go with the flow.
So take your choice.

I do not think "clinging" to the concept of student athlete will result in 3-9 records. What I do think is necessary is that the University recognize that in order to compete in the brave new world, admissions has to be willing to accept far more transfers than in the past, then they have to be able to decide quickly,

I don't think the University is willing to do this to an "adequate" extent, but I could be wrong. IMO changing a policy for no other reason than admitting more football players is inconsistent with how the University claims to operate, but we will see.

then the coaches need to learn how to find transfer candidates who can get in.

The simple fact is that in any given year the players necessary to meet our needs that are in the portal and admissible may not exist. This fact is exacerbated by many players who could get admitted not wanting to attend a school that will make them do the work. There are generally alternative landing places that can match the NIL money and are much more "fun". Unless those obstacles are removed even if we find guys we want most will simply say no. They don't value a Stanford degree enough to make it a reasonable choice for them. The NFL doesn't care what degree they have.

I think we have to learn to accept a constant change in our line up.  Frankly I now think that focusing high school athletes is a waste of time unless they are truly elite players. What is the point of recruiting kids, developing them for a year and then have them move on at the end of their first year.  Lets focus on finding 30 or so players around the country who can get in and can start and recruit them like crazy.

In a given year there may not be 30 transfer players in the portal that can get in and can start. Lots of players are in the portal because they aren't very good. Worse still, there are 100 other schools looking for guys that can start. They have advantages (from the athlete's point of view) that Stanford does not. The portal is a resource that cannot be ignored, but building a team from the portal alone just won't work, especially for Stanford.

Maybe they will leave the next year too, but at least having a one year player who can actually play is far better than having a one year player who can't play his first year and then leaves.
[quote]
Except if one looks at the results other schools are getting from the portal the results are decidedly mixed. Lots of the "answers" selected in the portal end up as second string or not even that. Busts are common. There is no reason to believe Stanford will be much better at this than the competition. If your team is looking for one or two players that will fill holes in what is already a pretty good team, you may get lucky and find what you need. You can also take several bites from the apple which increases your odds. If you need help at all positions, you aren't likely to find it.
[quote]
If we can't make a change in this direction, then we are done.  Basketball seems to have figured it out.

Basketball has the advantage they don't need lots of players in any given year. Also, IMO it isn't clear basketball has it "figured out". When we start making the NCAA tournament in most years, THEN we can say they have. We still have a long way to go for that to be in evidence.

IMO we have to attack the personnel problem from all angles. Recruit, retain, and mine the transfer portal as much as possible. Yes, turnover is going to be higher than it was before the portal existed. That is going to be true for everybody. If we give up on any one of the paths to acquire personnel we will be at a disadvantage relative to those who have not.

[Goose]

I agree that we should think of roster management one year at a time rather than getting sucked in to thinking about three year projections for people who will face annual opportunities to leave. The problem I have is that even if we are simply optimizing for 2025 the evidence so far is that Cisse is a better receiver than Williams. I don't think it's a guarantee but if I had to bet I think Cisse would be the better receiver for us next year. Oh well.

These are supposed to be college students, not part of a roster to be "managed".  Of course I recognize that ship has sailed long ago, but it really kills me that this board is talking like it has given up all pretense that these are supposed to be student athletes not professional football players. 

BC

It seems to me we have two choices. Cling to the "student athlete" idea and be OK with 3-9 records every year. If we want to do better we have to (IMO) reluctantly realize that things have changed
and go with the flow.
So take your choice.

I do not think "clinging" to the concept of student athlete will result in 3-9 records. What I do think is necessary is that the University recognize that in order to compete in the brave new world, admissions has to be willing to accept far more transfers than in the past, then they have to be able to decide quickly,

I don't think the University is willing to do this to an "adequate" extent, but I could be wrong. IMO changing a policy for no other reason than admitting more football players is inconsistent with how the University claims to operate, but we will see.

then the coaches need to learn how to find transfer candidates who can get in.

The simple fact is that in any given year the players necessary to meet our needs that are in the portal and admissible may not exist. This fact is exacerbated by many players who could get admitted not wanting to attend a school that will make them do the work. There are generally alternative landing places that can match the NIL money and are much more "fun". Unless those obstacles are removed even if we find guys we want most will simply say no. They don't value a Stanford degree enough to make it a reasonable choice for them. The NFL doesn't care what degree they have.

I think we have to learn to accept a constant change in our line up.  Frankly I now think that focusing high school athletes is a waste of time unless they are truly elite players. What is the point of recruiting kids, developing them for a year and then have them move on at the end of their first year.  Lets focus on finding 30 or so players around the country who can get in and can start and recruit them like crazy.

In a given year there may not be 30 transfer players in the portal that can get in and can start. Lots of players are in the portal because they aren't very good. Worse still, there are 100 other schools looking for guys that can start. They have advantages (from the athlete's point of view) that Stanford does not. The portal is a resource that cannot be ignored, but building a team from the portal alone just won't work, especially for Stanford.

Maybe they will leave the next year too, but at least having a one year player who can actually play is far better than having a one year player who can't play his first year and then leaves.
[quote]
Except if one looks at the results other schools are getting from the portal the results are decidedly mixed. Lots of the "answers" selected in the portal end up as second string or not even that. Busts are common. There is no reason to believe Stanford will be much better at this than the competition. If your team is looking for one or two players that will fill holes in what is already a pretty good team, you may get lucky and find what you need. You can also take several bites from the apple which increases your odds. If you need help at all positions, you aren't likely to find it.
[quote]
If we can't make a change in this direction, then we are done.  Basketball seems to have figured it out.

Basketball has the advantage they don't need lots of players in any given year. Also, IMO it isn't clear basketball has it "figured out". When we start making the NCAA tournament in most years, THEN we can say they have. We still have a long way to go for that to be in evidence.

IMO we have to attack the personnel problem from all angles. Recruit, retain, and mine the transfer portal as much as possible. Yes, turnover is going to be higher than it was before the portal existed. That is going to be true for everybody. If we give up on any one of the paths to acquire personnel we will be at a disadvantage relative to those who have not.