[Farm93]

Farm93, it sounds like you acknowledge that academics are important and that the rankings do impact kids' perception of schools' academic quality.  So we are really just talking about where kids probably end up drawing the line.  I broke it down into tiers of 15, i.e. 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, etc.  I said that Stanford has a big advantage over schools outside the top 45.  You said that any school in the top 50 can compete with any other, so the difference is that you want to add Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, and Washington.  I disagree that people think that those schools are in the same universe as Stanford in terms of academic quality, but even if we move the line back 5 spots, the principle is the same.  My point is that Stanford needs to find a way to land the next Devon Allen.

Big advantage - No, I don't agree.  Stanford has an advantage because of its approach to recruiting, but it is not that big.  Also UCB at #20 has no real advantage over Texas, several notches below.  So clearly the rankings themselves don't fit neatly into tiers for football recruits.

Still my biggest problem was with the use of inferior.
Bottom Line - I don't expect Shaw to land any recruit because of some implied academic superiority in a ranking system.  To imply that Shaw needs to close the deal against schools that "are so far inferior" to Stanford was rather elitist.  IMHO.  If an athlete selects Penn State, San Jose State or Cincinnati I might wonder a touch, but I would not immediate conclude that Shaw failed to close and/or that the kid must not care about getting the best possible education.

So, while I agree with the idea that Stanford is a great experience, I am not willing or able to subscribe to the ideas of far inferior academics or that a coach at Stanford needs to close merely because Stanford is 10, 20 or even 100 positions higher than a recruits' other options in the US News report.

[Farm93]

Farm93, it sounds like you acknowledge that academics are important and that the rankings do impact kids' perception of schools' academic quality.  So we are really just talking about where kids probably end up drawing the line.  I broke it down into tiers of 15, i.e. 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, etc.  I said that Stanford has a big advantage over schools outside the top 45.  You said that any school in the top 50 can compete with any other, so the difference is that you want to add Wisconsin, Penn State, Florida, Miami, and Washington.  I disagree that people think that those schools are in the same universe as Stanford in terms of academic quality, but even if we move the line back 5 spots, the principle is the same.  My point is that Stanford needs to find a way to land the next Devon Allen.

Big advantage - No, I don't agree.  Stanford has an advantage because of its approach to recruiting, but it is not that big.  Also UCB at #20 has no real advantage over Texas, several notches below.  So clearly the rankings themselves don't fit neatly into tiers for football recruits.

Still my biggest problem was with the use of inferior.
Bottom Line - I don't expect Shaw to land any recruit because of some implied academic superiority in a ranking system.  To imply that Shaw needs to close the deal against schools that "are so far inferior" to Stanford was rather elitist.  IMHO.  If an athlete selects Penn State, San Jose State or Cincinnati I might wonder a touch, but I would not immediate conclude that Shaw failed to close and/or that the kid must not care about getting the best possible education.

So, while I agree with the idea that Stanford is a great experience, I am not willing or able to subscribe to the ideas of far inferior academics or that a coach at Stanford needs to close merely because Stanford is 10, 20 or even 100 positions higher than a recruits' other options in the US News report.