[washingtonismoney]

As the sophistication of player development increases, and college systems are simplified to enable faster paced game play, so too do more True Frosh play and make big impacts.  How many True Frosh did UCLA play in 2013, 19?  Every year it seems more younger players are getting on the field sooner.  This is a trend that will continue.

Whether Shaw concludes simplifying things to get the best athletes on the field as soon as possible is the best route to success for his program, is open for debate.

I don't think it's quite that simple. I haven't done research into this, but I recall Baylor fans commenting about this -- for example, at least a few were confounded it took Lache Seastrunk so long to see the field in 2012 (especially since his presence transformed the team.)

There are a few variables, it seems to me:
1. Quality of team -- of course UCLA fielded more freshmen. They were a worse team! Better teams tend to be older.
2. Quality of incoming players/position played -- More highly-rated players tend to see the field early; linemen and quarterbacks need seasoning while skill players tend to hit the field earlier. Stanford's highly-rated players  tend to be linemen and quarterbacks. I don't think it's an accident that the players who have made an early impact at Stanford tend to be both highly-rated and skill players.
3. System -- some systems seem to accommodate early players and some don't. Is that an advantage, even with all things being equal? That is, will a player developed under that less accommodative system end in a more effective place than one in a more accommodative systems?

So I think it's hard to sort out the confounding variables. I'm sure someone will try to sort them out at some point.

EDIT: shaw-era Stanford has also had some bad luck in this respect -- Lyons, Cajuste and Rector all got injured either pre- or early-season freshman year.

[washingtonismoney]

As the sophistication of player development increases, and college systems are simplified to enable faster paced game play, so too do more True Frosh play and make big impacts.  How many True Frosh did UCLA play in 2013, 19?  Every year it seems more younger players are getting on the field sooner.  This is a trend that will continue.

Whether Shaw concludes simplifying things to get the best athletes on the field as soon as possible is the best route to success for his program, is open for debate.

I don't think it's quite that simple. I haven't done research into this, but I recall Baylor fans commenting about this -- for example, at least a few were confounded it took Lache Seastrunk so long to see the field in 2012 (especially since his presence transformed the team.)

There are a few variables, it seems to me:
1. Quality of team -- of course UCLA fielded more freshmen. They were a worse team! Better teams tend to be older.
2. Quality of incoming players/position played -- More highly-rated players tend to see the field early; linemen and quarterbacks need seasoning while skill players tend to hit the field earlier. Stanford's highly-rated players  tend to be linemen and quarterbacks. I don't think it's an accident that the players who have made an early impact at Stanford tend to be both highly-rated and skill players.
3. System -- some systems seem to accommodate early players and some don't. Is that an advantage, even with all things being equal? That is, will a player developed under that less accommodative system end in a more effective place than one in a more accommodative systems?

So I think it's hard to sort out the confounding variables. I'm sure someone will try to sort them out at some point.

EDIT: shaw-era Stanford has also had some bad luck in this respect -- Lyons, Cajuste and Rector all got injured either pre- or early-season freshman year.