[JohnR34231]

The "something rotten" is that a young man is injured, consulted his parents and doctors, and concluded that it's wisest not to play football.

Yvonne, I don't mean Ben Edwards specifically. I mean all the news of departures that we have had in the last day or two. My gosh.
There probably really isn't anything wrong with the program.

[JohnR34231]

The "something rotten" is that a young man is injured, consulted his parents and doctors, and concluded that it's wisest not to play football.

Yvonne, I don't mean Ben Edwards specifically. I mean all the news of departures that we have had in the last day or two. My gosh.
There probably really isn't anything wrong with the program.

[yvonne]

If you want a program that attracts the kind of players who are likely to leave early, you've got to expect guys leaving early.

[yvonne]

If you want a program that attracts the kind of players who are likely to leave early, you've got to expect guys leaving early.

[OutsiderFan]

If you want a program that attracts the kind of players who are likely to leave early, you've got to expect guys leaving early.

While this is true, if you also want a program that can compete for championships in the current landscape, you also need to find a way to get more talented players into the program.  Otherwise, what's the point of attracting a handful of guys who can leave early if you don't have adequate depth of players to compete for championships?  Is your MO to develop players to move on, or to compete for conference titles? I'm not sure Stanford can do both with its current paradigm.

[OutsiderFan]

If you want a program that attracts the kind of players who are likely to leave early, you've got to expect guys leaving early.

While this is true, if you also want a program that can compete for championships in the current landscape, you also need to find a way to get more talented players into the program.  Otherwise, what's the point of attracting a handful of guys who can leave early if you don't have adequate depth of players to compete for championships?  Is your MO to develop players to move on, or to compete for conference titles? I'm not sure Stanford can do both with its current paradigm.

[Spiny_Norman]

This is exactly the time of year to learn about comings and goings. If there are going to be any changes in the coaching ranks, we can expect to hear about those in the next 2-3 weeks as well.

With Ben Edwards retirement, that leaves 7 names on BC's list above of possible 5th years for 2019.

As a point of comparison, here are the number of 5th year seniors on the roster in the recent past:
2018 - 10
2017 - 6
2016 - unknown (roster on GoStanford excludes class information)
2015 - 10
2014 - 13
2013 - 9
2012 - 4

[Spiny_Norman]

This is exactly the time of year to learn about comings and goings. If there are going to be any changes in the coaching ranks, we can expect to hear about those in the next 2-3 weeks as well.

With Ben Edwards retirement, that leaves 7 names on BC's list above of possible 5th years for 2019.

As a point of comparison, here are the number of 5th year seniors on the roster in the recent past:
2018 - 10
2017 - 6
2016 - unknown (roster on GoStanford excludes class information)
2015 - 10
2014 - 13
2013 - 9
2012 - 4

[terry]

if you also want a program that can compete for championships in the current landscape, you also need to find a way to get more talented players into the program.  Otherwise, what's the point of attracting a handful of guys who can leave early if you don't have adequate depth of players to compete for championships?  Is your MO to develop players to move on, or to compete for conference titles? I'm not sure Stanford can do both with its current paradigm.

Stanford has won 3 conference titles and 4 division titles in the last 7 years. Both of those figures are the most in the conference. Obviously, Stanford is competing for titles.

[terry]

if you also want a program that can compete for championships in the current landscape, you also need to find a way to get more talented players into the program.  Otherwise, what's the point of attracting a handful of guys who can leave early if you don't have adequate depth of players to compete for championships?  Is your MO to develop players to move on, or to compete for conference titles? I'm not sure Stanford can do both with its current paradigm.

Stanford has won 3 conference titles and 4 division titles in the last 7 years. Both of those figures are the most in the conference. Obviously, Stanford is competing for titles.

[oldalum]

Stanford admits football players with transcripts, GPAs, and test scores that wouldn't get them admitted if they weren't playing sports, so the 5% acceptance is a bit of a canard, isn't it?

I look at it this way: athletic ability and achievement is the primary attribute or talent that football players possess on their applications and that they are bringing to the university, apart from general academic excellence. This skill/attribute is not substantively different from the horn player that the music department needs or the history buff that the history department needs, etc.; it is part of creating a diverse entering class. These days, just being a very intelligent person in general is not enough to get you admitted, there are too many of those. If you take away football from the football applicant's application, his chance of acceptance would be less than 5%, but same for the horn player or the history buff if you took away their primary attribute/ability. 

Another response is that if the top 25% academically of the nation's 3-to-5 star football recruits, or 4-to-5 star recruits, applied to Stanford, the acceptance rate would be far less than 5%. It is very difficult to get in, even as a good football player.

Bottom line is that I don't view the 5% acceptance rate as a canard. The admissions standards are a big barrier to recruiting players who we'd like based purely on football ability.

[oldalum]

Stanford admits football players with transcripts, GPAs, and test scores that wouldn't get them admitted if they weren't playing sports, so the 5% acceptance is a bit of a canard, isn't it?

I look at it this way: athletic ability and achievement is the primary attribute or talent that football players possess on their applications and that they are bringing to the university, apart from general academic excellence. This skill/attribute is not substantively different from the horn player that the music department needs or the history buff that the history department needs, etc.; it is part of creating a diverse entering class. These days, just being a very intelligent person in general is not enough to get you admitted, there are too many of those. If you take away football from the football applicant's application, his chance of acceptance would be less than 5%, but same for the horn player or the history buff if you took away their primary attribute/ability. 

Another response is that if the top 25% academically of the nation's 3-to-5 star football recruits, or 4-to-5 star recruits, applied to Stanford, the acceptance rate would be far less than 5%. It is very difficult to get in, even as a good football player.

Bottom line is that I don't view the 5% acceptance rate as a canard. The admissions standards are a big barrier to recruiting players who we'd like based purely on football ability.

[OutsiderFan]

if you also want a program that can compete for championships in the current landscape, you also need to find a way to get more talented players into the program.  Otherwise, what's the point of attracting a handful of guys who can leave early if you don't have adequate depth of players to compete for championships?  Is your MO to develop players to move on, or to compete for conference titles? I'm not sure Stanford can do both with its current paradigm.

Stanford has won 3 conference titles and 4 division titles in the last 7 years. Both of those figures are the most in the conference. Obviously, Stanford is competing for titles.

Not in the last three, and the trend isn't favorable given the attrition issues that are becoming a bigger and bigger concern. Stanford wants to do everything slow and methodical in a high speed world. At the 10,000 ft level it looks like Stanford could be being left in the dust if it doesn't adapt in some meaningful ways.

[OutsiderFan]

if you also want a program that can compete for championships in the current landscape, you also need to find a way to get more talented players into the program.  Otherwise, what's the point of attracting a handful of guys who can leave early if you don't have adequate depth of players to compete for championships?  Is your MO to develop players to move on, or to compete for conference titles? I'm not sure Stanford can do both with its current paradigm.

Stanford has won 3 conference titles and 4 division titles in the last 7 years. Both of those figures are the most in the conference. Obviously, Stanford is competing for titles.

Not in the last three, and the trend isn't favorable given the attrition issues that are becoming a bigger and bigger concern. Stanford wants to do everything slow and methodical in a high speed world. At the 10,000 ft level it looks like Stanford could be being left in the dust if it doesn't adapt in some meaningful ways.

[stupac2]

Not in the last three, and the trend isn't favorable given the attrition issues that are becoming a bigger and bigger concern. Stanford wants to do everything slow and methodical in a high speed world. At the 10,000 ft level it looks like Stanford could be being left in the dust if it doesn't adapt in some meaningful ways.

The trend line wasn't favorable in 2014 either.

I really think that you're overfitting the data here, but I also don't think I can actually convince you of that.

[stupac2]

Not in the last three, and the trend isn't favorable given the attrition issues that are becoming a bigger and bigger concern. Stanford wants to do everything slow and methodical in a high speed world. At the 10,000 ft level it looks like Stanford could be being left in the dust if it doesn't adapt in some meaningful ways.

The trend line wasn't favorable in 2014 either.

I really think that you're overfitting the data here, but I also don't think I can actually convince you of that.

[BostonCard]

The last three years have unquestionably been represented a downtrend.  So much so that we only have more wins than 9 out of the 11 other Pac-12 schools during our downtrend (Washington has more, WSU is tied).

Wins over the past three years:
UW: 32
Stanford: 28
WSU: 28
USC: 26
Utah: 25
Oregon: 20
Colorado: 20
ASU: 19
Cal: 17
Arizona: 15
UCLA: 13
OSU: 7

Also, I believe Stanford is one of only four Pac-12 teams (the others being UW, WSU, and Utah) to have made a bowl game all three years.

BC

---

If you want a program that attracts the kind of players who are likely to leave early, you've got to expect guys leaving early.

Kaden Smith or JJ Arcega-Whiteside leaving early is not a surprise; those guys are expected to be drafted in the first few rounds of the draft.  But in the past, guys like Wilson and Jackson would have been happy to get a graduate degree at Stanford (or, last year, Terrence Alexander and Casey Tucker, or Keller Chryst).

To be fair, in the past, transferring to LSU (Alexander), Tennessee (Chryst), or ASU (Tucker) wouldn't have been an option for those guys, and if you are looking at the depth chart and think you are likely a back-up the opportunity to graduate transfer is alluring.  For one of those guys (Tucker), it worked out well.  On the other hand, Chryst and Alexander were not to be starters in their new destinations either.

BC

[BostonCard]

The last three years have unquestionably been represented a downtrend.  So much so that we only have more wins than 9 out of the 11 other Pac-12 schools during our downtrend (Washington has more, WSU is tied).

Wins over the past three years:
UW: 32
Stanford: 28
WSU: 28
USC: 26
Utah: 25
Oregon: 20
Colorado: 20
ASU: 19
Cal: 17
Arizona: 15
UCLA: 13
OSU: 7

Also, I believe Stanford is one of only four Pac-12 teams (the others being UW, WSU, and Utah) to have made a bowl game all three years.

BC

---

If you want a program that attracts the kind of players who are likely to leave early, you've got to expect guys leaving early.

Kaden Smith or JJ Arcega-Whiteside leaving early is not a surprise; those guys are expected to be drafted in the first few rounds of the draft.  But in the past, guys like Wilson and Jackson would have been happy to get a graduate degree at Stanford (or, last year, Terrence Alexander and Casey Tucker, or Keller Chryst).

To be fair, in the past, transferring to LSU (Alexander), Tennessee (Chryst), or ASU (Tucker) wouldn't have been an option for those guys, and if you are looking at the depth chart and think you are likely a back-up the opportunity to graduate transfer is alluring.  For one of those guys (Tucker), it worked out well.  On the other hand, Chryst and Alexander were not to be starters in their new destinations either.

BC

[CTcard]

I don't think 5th year attrition is particularly unusual. We've always had some players who do not return for a 5th year for whatever reason -- limited playing time, wanting to pursue academic ambitions, not invited back, transfer, health issues, tired of the football grind, or just graduating and wanting to get on with life.

I don't have stats to back this up, but I think the last few years we have lost a larger share of attritable players after their third or fourth years than in the past.  

attritable??

My own guess is that this falls into the category of Socrates complaining that the kids these days are making society go down the toilet (or whatever exactly Socrates was using). 
It seems each year Stanford fans are shocked by the amount of attrition, promptly forgetting about it in time to be shocked again the next year.  

From the ultra helpful personnel tracker, here are our academic senior players with a year of eligibility, and how they project next year:
Cameron Scarlett: current back-up, likely starter
Reagan Williams: current starter, likely starter (to the extent we still use a fullback)
JJ Arcega-Whiteside: current starter, declared pro (obviously would have been a starter)
Nick Wilson: current back-up, projected starter (decided not to return)
Brian Chaffin: current back-up, possible starter (but likely back-up)
Dylan Jackson: injured, but was a starter, likely starter (decided not to return)
Casey Toohill: current starter, projected starter
Sean Barton: current starter, projected starter
Ryan Beecher: former walk-on, not a projected starter
Frank Buncom: current starter, projected starter
Ben Edwards: injured, but was a starter, projected starter

As Terry noted in one case, I think you are being overly aggressive in projecting starters out of this group. 

I do worry a bit about discontent - there is always some in a group this large, particularly when by definition only about 1/4 of the roster is being used to what they feel is their full potential. From outside its always hard to tell the difference between more discontent and more of the discontented speaking up. It had always appeared to me that keeping the team's attitude on track has been a Shaw strength.

[CTcard]

I don't think 5th year attrition is particularly unusual. We've always had some players who do not return for a 5th year for whatever reason -- limited playing time, wanting to pursue academic ambitions, not invited back, transfer, health issues, tired of the football grind, or just graduating and wanting to get on with life.

I don't have stats to back this up, but I think the last few years we have lost a larger share of attritable players after their third or fourth years than in the past.  

attritable??

My own guess is that this falls into the category of Socrates complaining that the kids these days are making society go down the toilet (or whatever exactly Socrates was using). 
It seems each year Stanford fans are shocked by the amount of attrition, promptly forgetting about it in time to be shocked again the next year.  

From the ultra helpful personnel tracker, here are our academic senior players with a year of eligibility, and how they project next year:
Cameron Scarlett: current back-up, likely starter
Reagan Williams: current starter, likely starter (to the extent we still use a fullback)
JJ Arcega-Whiteside: current starter, declared pro (obviously would have been a starter)
Nick Wilson: current back-up, projected starter (decided not to return)
Brian Chaffin: current back-up, possible starter (but likely back-up)
Dylan Jackson: injured, but was a starter, likely starter (decided not to return)
Casey Toohill: current starter, projected starter
Sean Barton: current starter, projected starter
Ryan Beecher: former walk-on, not a projected starter
Frank Buncom: current starter, projected starter
Ben Edwards: injured, but was a starter, projected starter

As Terry noted in one case, I think you are being overly aggressive in projecting starters out of this group. 

I do worry a bit about discontent - there is always some in a group this large, particularly when by definition only about 1/4 of the roster is being used to what they feel is their full potential. From outside its always hard to tell the difference between more discontent and more of the discontented speaking up. It had always appeared to me that keeping the team's attitude on track has been a Shaw strength.

[BostonCard]

attritable (adj) - being an academic senior with eligibility remaining.

I don't think the other shoe has dropped yet.  It's likely that at least six out of the ten players in that category will be gone, and it could be as many as eight.  I know that there may be some recency bias going on, and maybe this is just random fluctuation, and next year we will have an unusually large number of players staying for fifth years.  But I really think this year will wind up an outlier compared to past years.  What I'm not  certain is whether this represents a new reality or if it is just an aberration.

Fair point about projecting starters going forward, though I tried to avoid the common trap of denigrating players who are on their way out.  I don't think its a good look when fans justify departures by saying, "he was going to be passed on the depth chart anyways".  I know that not all of the projections would have come to pass.  At the very least, the two folks cited by Terry would have competed to be starters, even though they may not have ultimately won the job.  At the very least, they would have been on the two-deep, and probably the first ones off the bench at their respective positions.  In the past, those players would have in all likelihood stayed at Stanford for their fifth year.

BC

[BostonCard]

attritable (adj) - being an academic senior with eligibility remaining.

I don't think the other shoe has dropped yet.  It's likely that at least six out of the ten players in that category will be gone, and it could be as many as eight.  I know that there may be some recency bias going on, and maybe this is just random fluctuation, and next year we will have an unusually large number of players staying for fifth years.  But I really think this year will wind up an outlier compared to past years.  What I'm not  certain is whether this represents a new reality or if it is just an aberration.

Fair point about projecting starters going forward, though I tried to avoid the common trap of denigrating players who are on their way out.  I don't think its a good look when fans justify departures by saying, "he was going to be passed on the depth chart anyways".  I know that not all of the projections would have come to pass.  At the very least, the two folks cited by Terry would have competed to be starters, even though they may not have ultimately won the job.  At the very least, they would have been on the two-deep, and probably the first ones off the bench at their respective positions.  In the past, those players would have in all likelihood stayed at Stanford for their fifth year.

BC

[ChicagoCard]

We still can hold out hope for:

Barton
Buncom
Costello
Scarlett 
Toohill

to come back as 5th-year seniors.

[ChicagoCard]

We still can hold out hope for:

Barton
Buncom
Costello
Scarlett 
Toohill

to come back as 5th-year seniors.

[CTcard]

I know that there may be some recency bias going on, and maybe this is just random fluctuation, and next year we will have an unusually large number of players [not?] staying for fifth years.  But I really think this year will wind up an outlier compared to past years.  What I'm not  certain is whether this represents a new reality or if it is just an aberration.

Well, you could check out Spiny's list of fifth year players year by year. There's no denominator there, but it sure does not look like a trend of fewer and fewer guys opting to be back for year five.

[CTcard]

I know that there may be some recency bias going on, and maybe this is just random fluctuation, and next year we will have an unusually large number of players [not?] staying for fifth years.  But I really think this year will wind up an outlier compared to past years.  What I'm not  certain is whether this represents a new reality or if it is just an aberration.

Well, you could check out Spiny's list of fifth year players year by year. There's no denominator there, but it sure does not look like a trend of fewer and fewer guys opting to be back for year five.

[BobK]

One should never ignore the toll that Football takes on the body. Wilson has been accepted to a Stanford Grad program, Jackson maybe also. But to imply that reasons for not playing a 5th year don't include health is very wrong.

[BobK]

One should never ignore the toll that Football takes on the body. Wilson has been accepted to a Stanford Grad program, Jackson maybe also. But to imply that reasons for not playing a 5th year don't include health is very wrong.

[BostonCard]

I know that there may be some recency bias going on, and maybe this is just random fluctuation, and next year we will have an unusually large number of players [not?] staying for fifth years.  But I really think this year will wind up an outlier compared to past years.  What I'm not  certain is whether this represents a new reality or if it is just an aberration.

Well, you could check out Spiny's list of fifth year players year by year. There's no denominator there, but it sure does not look like a trend of fewer and fewer guys opting to be back for year five.

A true comparison would also include a denominator (players who could have come back but who elected not to). I'm guessing that in the past (Willingham years), almost 80% of those who were invited back elected to come back.  More recently (Harbaugh/early Shaw years), the number went down a bit because of NFL departures, but I'd guess 3/4 of those who were invited back and didn't declare for the pros, came back.  This year it seems like at least half of the players who could come back and didn't have an NFL alternative are leaving.

Hoping its an abheration.

BC

[BostonCard]

I know that there may be some recency bias going on, and maybe this is just random fluctuation, and next year we will have an unusually large number of players [not?] staying for fifth years.  But I really think this year will wind up an outlier compared to past years.  What I'm not  certain is whether this represents a new reality or if it is just an aberration.

Well, you could check out Spiny's list of fifth year players year by year. There's no denominator there, but it sure does not look like a trend of fewer and fewer guys opting to be back for year five.

A true comparison would also include a denominator (players who could have come back but who elected not to). I'm guessing that in the past (Willingham years), almost 80% of those who were invited back elected to come back.  More recently (Harbaugh/early Shaw years), the number went down a bit because of NFL departures, but I'd guess 3/4 of those who were invited back and didn't declare for the pros, came back.  This year it seems like at least half of the players who could come back and didn't have an NFL alternative are leaving.

Hoping its an abheration.

BC

[terry]

Not in the last three, and the trend isn't favorable given the attrition issues that are becoming a bigger and bigger concern. Stanford wants to do everything slow and methodical in a high speed world. At the 10,000 ft level it looks like Stanford could be being left in the dust if it doesn't adapt in some meaningful ways.

Stanford being "left in the dust" over the last three seasons has resulted in this W/L record:

Overall...P-12

10-3.......6-3
9-5.........7-2 (Pac-12 North Champion)
9-4.........6-3

28-12....19-8
.700 .... .704

[terry]

Not in the last three, and the trend isn't favorable given the attrition issues that are becoming a bigger and bigger concern. Stanford wants to do everything slow and methodical in a high speed world. At the 10,000 ft level it looks like Stanford could be being left in the dust if it doesn't adapt in some meaningful ways.

Stanford being "left in the dust" over the last three seasons has resulted in this W/L record:

Overall...P-12

10-3.......6-3
9-5.........7-2 (Pac-12 North Champion)
9-4.........6-3

28-12....19-8
.700 .... .704

[BobK]

Just the facts Terry. Thanks. Dust in outsider’s eyes it appears.

[BobK]

Just the facts Terry. Thanks. Dust in outsider’s eyes it appears.

[BostonCard]

Not in the last three, and the trend isn't favorable given the attrition issues that are becoming a bigger and bigger concern. Stanford wants to do everything slow and methodical in a high speed world. At the 10,000 ft level it looks like Stanford could be being left in the dust if it doesn't adapt in some meaningful ways.

Stanford being "left in the dust" over the last three seasons has resulted in this W/L record:

Overall...P-12

10-3.......6-3
9-5.........7-2 (Pac-12 North Champion)
9-4.........6-3

28-12....19-8
.700 .... .704

As I noted, over the past three years, that supposedly represent downturns, only UW has won more games than Stanford in the Pac-12.

Some day, maybe as soon as next year, we will have a real downturn, and we may even have a losing season, and it will be appropriate to say this.  But for now, it really is hard to take the last three years as proof that Stanford is being left in the dust.

BC

[BostonCard]

Not in the last three, and the trend isn't favorable given the attrition issues that are becoming a bigger and bigger concern. Stanford wants to do everything slow and methodical in a high speed world. At the 10,000 ft level it looks like Stanford could be being left in the dust if it doesn't adapt in some meaningful ways.

Stanford being "left in the dust" over the last three seasons has resulted in this W/L record:

Overall...P-12

10-3.......6-3
9-5.........7-2 (Pac-12 North Champion)
9-4.........6-3

28-12....19-8
.700 .... .704

As I noted, over the past three years, that supposedly represent downturns, only UW has won more games than Stanford in the Pac-12.

Some day, maybe as soon as next year, we will have a real downturn, and we may even have a losing season, and it will be appropriate to say this.  But for now, it really is hard to take the last three years as proof that Stanford is being left in the dust.

BC

[martyup]

IMO, this team needs a Shane Skov type player on both offense and defense to motivate the team and keep them fired up.  Costello fits that role on offense, but we lacked a motivational leader on defense this season.  Okereke made big plays, but didn't seem to be a lightening rod like we saw in Skov.

If I was involved with player development, I would look for that guy on D and work with him to fill that role.  It has to be a player that can walk-the-walk, not just talk.  Any candidates come to mind?

[martyup]

IMO, this team needs a Shane Skov type player on both offense and defense to motivate the team and keep them fired up.  Costello fits that role on offense, but we lacked a motivational leader on defense this season.  Okereke made big plays, but didn't seem to be a lightening rod like we saw in Skov.

If I was involved with player development, I would look for that guy on D and work with him to fill that role.  It has to be a player that can walk-the-walk, not just talk.  Any candidates come to mind?

[JustAnotherFan]

Stanford admits football players with transcripts, GPAs, and test scores that wouldn't get them admitted if they weren't playing sports, so the 5% acceptance is a bit of a canard, isn't it? What you're talking about is degree of restrictions on athletes. To me, allowing early entries and taking JC transfers would be the most accommodating moves that don't compromise academic standards. There are many guys who are too small for D1 scholarships out of high school or who really get serious about school in JC that can thrive as a student and help teams win. Plus, having JC transfers and early entries would diversify the student population, which is always beneficial.

Yes, Stanford admits top recruits for football at higher than a 5% acceptance rate, with many of them being on the low end of the class in terms of GPA and test scores. But they also admit children of Fortune 500 CEOs, politicians, and professors along those lowered standards, as well. Not saying you don't know that, but I feel it needed to be said. Also, unlike the additional groups mentioned, the athletes are basically working a full-time job to be football players for the university. 

I would agree that JC transfers should be considered if they can meet the admissions standards that are in line with those of other transfers, with the appropriately reduced hurdles. 

I'd prefer we not have early enrollees. Let them enjoy their senior year. These kids are getting burned out by football.

Jackson and Wilson really surprised me.   More locker room problems than we realize?    Obviously something went really wrong with Herbig.....

I think this is probably right. That so much attrition is happening along the line where intellectual brutality has virtually disappeared leaves me even more worried about the future of the program than I was right after the Sun Bowl.

[JustAnotherFan]

Stanford admits football players with transcripts, GPAs, and test scores that wouldn't get them admitted if they weren't playing sports, so the 5% acceptance is a bit of a canard, isn't it? What you're talking about is degree of restrictions on athletes. To me, allowing early entries and taking JC transfers would be the most accommodating moves that don't compromise academic standards. There are many guys who are too small for D1 scholarships out of high school or who really get serious about school in JC that can thrive as a student and help teams win. Plus, having JC transfers and early entries would diversify the student population, which is always beneficial.

Yes, Stanford admits top recruits for football at higher than a 5% acceptance rate, with many of them being on the low end of the class in terms of GPA and test scores. But they also admit children of Fortune 500 CEOs, politicians, and professors along those lowered standards, as well. Not saying you don't know that, but I feel it needed to be said. Also, unlike the additional groups mentioned, the athletes are basically working a full-time job to be football players for the university. 

I would agree that JC transfers should be considered if they can meet the admissions standards that are in line with those of other transfers, with the appropriately reduced hurdles. 

I'd prefer we not have early enrollees. Let them enjoy their senior year. These kids are getting burned out by football.

Jackson and Wilson really surprised me.   More locker room problems than we realize?    Obviously something went really wrong with Herbig.....

I think this is probably right. That so much attrition is happening along the line where intellectual brutality has virtually disappeared leaves me even more worried about the future of the program than I was right after the Sun Bowl.