[Mick]

[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=10603.msg97655#msg97655 date=1410298702]
I think the rankings have some relevance to recruiting because Stanford sells itself as the best combination of athletics and academics, and the rankings help explain that sales pitch. 

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Numbers 16-30 include 10 football programs--the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Vandy, Rice, kal, UCLA, UVA, U$(, Wake Forest, Michigan and UNC.  Vandy, Rice, and Wake Forest never have strong enough football programs to provide real competition, but the others do, at least in some years.  Stanford is going to lose some recruits to those 7 schools, especially kids who live closer to the competition and even more so in years when Stanford isn't a superior football school. 

Numbers 30-45 include some marginal football programs like Illinois and Georgia Tech, but no real recruiting competition. 

You have to drop below 45 before you find the competition that is most vulnerable to the academics/athletics combination pitch.  Schools like Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Washington, Texas and Ohio State.  In my view, for Stanford to succeed, it needs to win almost all of the recruiting battles against these schools.  There just aren't enough admissible kids to lose them to schools that are so far inferior in academics. 

Unfortunately, Stanford already appears to have lost Wimbush and Polk to Penn State this year.  Losing Wilkins to Penn State as well would be a big blow in a year when Stanford really cannot afford to miss at the NT position.  Shaw has shown himself to be an excellent recruiter, and U.S. News helped him by ranking Stanford #4 (up 1 spot) compared to Penn State at #48 (down 11 spots).  Now Shaw has to close.

That's reading way too much into the rankings and their relative value on the recruiting trail IMHO.
[/quote]

I wonder about that.  While I absolutely agree that the rankings are based upon statistical irrelevancies and that they aren't important to you and me, I suspect that both students and parents pay a lot of attention to those rankings.  For them, it may be the only way to "objectively" evaluate differences between the schools, apart from visual aspects of the campus and what they hear and read from students and recent alumni.  Or they listen to Richard Sherman tussling with that idiot Skip Bayless and the first thing Sherman says "Skip, you can say whatever you want to about me, you can refer to me any way you want, but address me as 'Richard Sherman, all-Pro Stanford graduate because those are accomplishments you can aspire to but will never accomplish.'"  Within the context of the interview, only the All-Pro part is really important, but Sherman doesn't add the "Stanford" part gratuitously.  It's a heck of an achievement, graduating from Stanford.  And that's why Stanford gets so many applications and has such high yield and acceptance rates. 

And in certain businesses, they follow you throughout your life.  Look at any law firm web site, virtually all of the 50 year old attorneys cite their undergrad and law schools.

[Mick]

[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=10603.msg97655#msg97655 date=1410298702]
I think the rankings have some relevance to recruiting because Stanford sells itself as the best combination of athletics and academics, and the rankings help explain that sales pitch. 

The top 15 includes the only three football programs--Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.  Stanford has by far the top football program and rarely loses recruits to the other two. 

Numbers 16-30 include 10 football programs--the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Vandy, Rice, kal, UCLA, UVA, U$(, Wake Forest, Michigan and UNC.  Vandy, Rice, and Wake Forest never have strong enough football programs to provide real competition, but the others do, at least in some years.  Stanford is going to lose some recruits to those 7 schools, especially kids who live closer to the competition and even more so in years when Stanford isn't a superior football school. 

Numbers 30-45 include some marginal football programs like Illinois and Georgia Tech, but no real recruiting competition. 

You have to drop below 45 before you find the competition that is most vulnerable to the academics/athletics combination pitch.  Schools like Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Washington, Texas and Ohio State.  In my view, for Stanford to succeed, it needs to win almost all of the recruiting battles against these schools.  There just aren't enough admissible kids to lose them to schools that are so far inferior in academics. 

Unfortunately, Stanford already appears to have lost Wimbush and Polk to Penn State this year.  Losing Wilkins to Penn State as well would be a big blow in a year when Stanford really cannot afford to miss at the NT position.  Shaw has shown himself to be an excellent recruiter, and U.S. News helped him by ranking Stanford #4 (up 1 spot) compared to Penn State at #48 (down 11 spots).  Now Shaw has to close.

That's reading way too much into the rankings and their relative value on the recruiting trail IMHO.
[/quote]

I wonder about that.  While I absolutely agree that the rankings are based upon statistical irrelevancies and that they aren't important to you and me, I suspect that both students and parents pay a lot of attention to those rankings.  For them, it may be the only way to "objectively" evaluate differences between the schools, apart from visual aspects of the campus and what they hear and read from students and recent alumni.  Or they listen to Richard Sherman tussling with that idiot Skip Bayless and the first thing Sherman says "Skip, you can say whatever you want to about me, you can refer to me any way you want, but address me as 'Richard Sherman, all-Pro Stanford graduate because those are accomplishments you can aspire to but will never accomplish.'"  Within the context of the interview, only the All-Pro part is really important, but Sherman doesn't add the "Stanford" part gratuitously.  It's a heck of an achievement, graduating from Stanford.  And that's why Stanford gets so many applications and has such high yield and acceptance rates. 

And in certain businesses, they follow you throughout your life.  Look at any law firm web site, virtually all of the 50 year old attorneys cite their undergrad and law schools.