[SamuelMcF]

It looks like we offered Overton, but his top five are Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas A&M.

Indeed we did offer. Reclassified right after visiting College Station. Aggie.

That $30M investment in paying recruits is really paying off for them this cycle.

[SamuelMcF]

It looks like we offered Overton, but his top five are Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas A&M.

Indeed we did offer. Reclassified right after visiting College Station. Aggie.

That $30M investment in paying recruits is really paying off for them this cycle.

[OutsiderFan]

It looks like we offered Overton, but his top five are Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas A&M.

Indeed we did offer. Reclassified right after visiting College Station. Aggie.

That $30M investment in paying recruits is really paying off for them this cycle.

And people are going to still argue schools shouldn't pay the labor?  This is as silly as having a law that says PACs can't coordinate with the candidates for elected office that they endorse.

Although, I must admit, if schools don't pay the athletes, it certainly would be easy to spin off football and basketball programs as professional entities that have nothing to do with the schools. The schools can just license the teams to use their NIL and lease their stadiums. 

The idea that people are suppose to believe they aren't professional sports now, is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can observe reality. School and education has about nothing to do with any of it, so please stop pretending it does.

Stanford might be the only school for which the school part actually matters, and even then, Stanford drops its standards for elite athletes to join its teams, just not as much as other schools.

[OutsiderFan]

It looks like we offered Overton, but his top five are Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas A&M.

Indeed we did offer. Reclassified right after visiting College Station. Aggie.

That $30M investment in paying recruits is really paying off for them this cycle.

And people are going to still argue schools shouldn't pay the labor?  This is as silly as having a law that says PACs can't coordinate with the candidates for elected office that they endorse.

Although, I must admit, if schools don't pay the athletes, it certainly would be easy to spin off football and basketball programs as professional entities that have nothing to do with the schools. The schools can just license the teams to use their NIL and lease their stadiums. 

The idea that people are suppose to believe they aren't professional sports now, is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can observe reality. School and education has about nothing to do with any of it, so please stop pretending it does.

Stanford might be the only school for which the school part actually matters, and even then, Stanford drops its standards for elite athletes to join its teams, just not as much as other schools.

[SamuelMcF]

It looks like we offered Overton, but his top five are Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas A&M.

Indeed we did offer. Reclassified right after visiting College Station. Aggie.

That $30M investment in paying recruits is really paying off for them this cycle.

And people are going to still argue schools shouldn't pay the labor?  This is as silly as having a law that says PACs can't coordinate with the candidates for elected office that they endorse.

Although, I must admit, if schools don't pay the athletes, it certainly would be easy to spin off football and basketball programs as professional entities that have nothing to do with the schools. The schools can just license the teams to use their NIL and lease their stadiums. 

The idea that people are suppose to believe they aren't professional sports now, is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can observe reality. School and education has about nothing to do with any of it, so please stop pretending it does.

Stanford might be the only school for which the school part actually matters, and even then, Stanford drops its standards for elite athletes to join its teams, just not as much as other schools.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your points here (yes, CFB (especially the SEC) is just a professional NFL minor league now and has been for years), but...

Overton is a 5* mega-whale. Even if they are great students, 5* mega-whales almost never consider us in the first place, but now even more so because we aren't going to major bowls anymore. Guys like that who have good grades and even taken AP classes know they can absolutely breeze by school, graduate in 3-4 years no problem, and have degree in hand when they inevitably declare for the NFL (who already is keeping tabs on them because they are absolutely dominant players). This type of player is the football equivalent of a 5* MBB one-and-done, with somewhat worse odds. (But I think the "hit rate" of the top guys getting to the NFL is still very very high overall, and certainly much higher than any lower-ranked group.) Only once in a blue moon are they considering Stanford nowadays, ESPECIALLY when the team is in dire straits.

A wonderful example is Kayvon Thibodeaux, who was one of our first offers a few years ago. He didn't even include Stanford in his TOP TWELVE, despite his 4.0 and stating how important academics were to him. It was always - and only - about a "good enough" academic school (whether Oregon is "good enough" is a separate discussion) and the NFL. Stanford's academics - and requiring changing HS schedules to account for multiple AP classes - just get in the way for these guys.

[SamuelMcF]

It looks like we offered Overton, but his top five are Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas A&M.

Indeed we did offer. Reclassified right after visiting College Station. Aggie.

That $30M investment in paying recruits is really paying off for them this cycle.

And people are going to still argue schools shouldn't pay the labor?  This is as silly as having a law that says PACs can't coordinate with the candidates for elected office that they endorse.

Although, I must admit, if schools don't pay the athletes, it certainly would be easy to spin off football and basketball programs as professional entities that have nothing to do with the schools. The schools can just license the teams to use their NIL and lease their stadiums. 

The idea that people are suppose to believe they aren't professional sports now, is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can observe reality. School and education has about nothing to do with any of it, so please stop pretending it does.

Stanford might be the only school for which the school part actually matters, and even then, Stanford drops its standards for elite athletes to join its teams, just not as much as other schools.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your points here (yes, CFB (especially the SEC) is just a professional NFL minor league now and has been for years), but...

Overton is a 5* mega-whale. Even if they are great students, 5* mega-whales almost never consider us in the first place, but now even more so because we aren't going to major bowls anymore. Guys like that who have good grades and even taken AP classes know they can absolutely breeze by school, graduate in 3-4 years no problem, and have degree in hand when they inevitably declare for the NFL (who already is keeping tabs on them because they are absolutely dominant players). This type of player is the football equivalent of a 5* MBB one-and-done, with somewhat worse odds. (But I think the "hit rate" of the top guys getting to the NFL is still very very high overall, and certainly much higher than any lower-ranked group.) Only once in a blue moon are they considering Stanford nowadays, ESPECIALLY when the team is in dire straits.

A wonderful example is Kayvon Thibodeaux, who was one of our first offers a few years ago. He didn't even include Stanford in his TOP TWELVE, despite his 4.0 and stating how important academics were to him. It was always - and only - about a "good enough" academic school (whether Oregon is "good enough" is a separate discussion) and the NFL. Stanford's academics - and requiring changing HS schedules to account for multiple AP classes - just get in the way for these guys.

[Goose]

It was always - and only - about a "good enough" school (whether Oregon is "good enough" is debatable, but that's a separate discussion) and the NFL. Stanford's academics - and requiring changing HS schedules to account for multiple AP classes - just get in the way for these guys.

You are absolutely correct. This situation points out how much of an outlier Andrew Luck was when he decided to go to Stanford. He could have done just fine at lots of other places, but he wanted to be an architect. That mattered to him, along with lots of other things that he could get at Stanford but at few (any?) other places. We were indeed blessed, but expecting it to be common is unrealistic.

[Goose]

It was always - and only - about a "good enough" school (whether Oregon is "good enough" is debatable, but that's a separate discussion) and the NFL. Stanford's academics - and requiring changing HS schedules to account for multiple AP classes - just get in the way for these guys.

You are absolutely correct. This situation points out how much of an outlier Andrew Luck was when he decided to go to Stanford. He could have done just fine at lots of other places, but he wanted to be an architect. That mattered to him, along with lots of other things that he could get at Stanford but at few (any?) other places. We were indeed blessed, but expecting it to be common is unrealistic.

[DC 86]

It was always - and only - about a "good enough" school (whether Oregon is "good enough" is debatable, but that's a separate discussion) and the NFL. Stanford's academics - and requiring changing HS schedules to account for multiple AP classes - just get in the way for these guys.

You are absolutely correct. This situation points out how much of an outlier Andrew Luck was when he decided to go to Stanford. He could have done just fine at lots of other places, but he wanted to be an architect. That mattered to him, along with lots of other things that he could get at Stanford but at few (any?) other places. We were indeed blessed, but expecting it to be common is unrealistic.

And Luck wasn't a 5* mega-whale.

[DC 86]

It was always - and only - about a "good enough" school (whether Oregon is "good enough" is debatable, but that's a separate discussion) and the NFL. Stanford's academics - and requiring changing HS schedules to account for multiple AP classes - just get in the way for these guys.

You are absolutely correct. This situation points out how much of an outlier Andrew Luck was when he decided to go to Stanford. He could have done just fine at lots of other places, but he wanted to be an architect. That mattered to him, along with lots of other things that he could get at Stanford but at few (any?) other places. We were indeed blessed, but expecting it to be common is unrealistic.

And Luck wasn't a 5* mega-whale.

[Papa John]

Decided to check on this for the heck of it. According to 247sports, the following 5-star players (ca. top 30-35 for any given recruiting year) have signed with Stanford since the beginning of the Harshaw era:
2007: None. Highest ranked player was #319 Jonathan Frink (to be fair these were Walt Harris recruits)
2008: None. Andrew Luck #42
2009: None. Shayne Skov #106
2010: None. Blake Leuders #114
2011: None. James Vaughters #64
2012: Two, Kyle Murphy #11 and Andrus Peat #31. Joshua Garnett just missed at #38.
2013: None. Peter Kalambayi #150
2014: One, Solomon Thomas #26
2015: None. Trenton Irwin #70
2016: None. Kaden Smith #38
2017: Three, Foster Sarell #5, Walker Little #9, Davis Mills #15, Colby Parkinson just missed at #36.
2018: None. Tanner McKee #46
2019: None. Elijah Higgins #85
2020: None. Myles Hinton #74
2021: None. Wilfredo Aybar #153
2022: None. David Bailey #65

So in the last 16 recruiting classes combined, Stanford has attracted 6 5-star signees. Contrast that with Texas A&M, who, if Overton signs, will have 8 5-stars in the 2022 class alone! Another way to look at it: with Overton, aTm will have 11 signees who are ranked higher than Stanford's top signee, David Bailey. And, as of today, Stanford still has the #1 HS recruiting class in the Pac-12, #17 in the nation. 

I don't trust the "overall" rankings that take into account transfers coming in. These rankings do not take into account the outbound transfers, who are, essentially, decommitments. For example, USC has 5-star QB Caleb Williams transferring in. But they have 5-star QB Jaxon Dart and 4-star QB Kedon Slovis transferring out. Is this really a net gain? Maybe, but it's overvalued IMO in the class rankings.

[Papa John]

Decided to check on this for the heck of it. According to 247sports, the following 5-star players (ca. top 30-35 for any given recruiting year) have signed with Stanford since the beginning of the Harshaw era:
2007: None. Highest ranked player was #319 Jonathan Frink (to be fair these were Walt Harris recruits)
2008: None. Andrew Luck #42
2009: None. Shayne Skov #106
2010: None. Blake Leuders #114
2011: None. James Vaughters #64
2012: Two, Kyle Murphy #11 and Andrus Peat #31. Joshua Garnett just missed at #38.
2013: None. Peter Kalambayi #150
2014: One, Solomon Thomas #26
2015: None. Trenton Irwin #70
2016: None. Kaden Smith #38
2017: Three, Foster Sarell #5, Walker Little #9, Davis Mills #15, Colby Parkinson just missed at #36.
2018: None. Tanner McKee #46
2019: None. Elijah Higgins #85
2020: None. Myles Hinton #74
2021: None. Wilfredo Aybar #153
2022: None. David Bailey #65

So in the last 16 recruiting classes combined, Stanford has attracted 6 5-star signees. Contrast that with Texas A&M, who, if Overton signs, will have 8 5-stars in the 2022 class alone! Another way to look at it: with Overton, aTm will have 11 signees who are ranked higher than Stanford's top signee, David Bailey. And, as of today, Stanford still has the #1 HS recruiting class in the Pac-12, #17 in the nation. 

I don't trust the "overall" rankings that take into account transfers coming in. These rankings do not take into account the outbound transfers, who are, essentially, decommitments. For example, USC has 5-star QB Caleb Williams transferring in. But they have 5-star QB Jaxon Dart and 4-star QB Kedon Slovis transferring out. Is this really a net gain? Maybe, but it's overvalued IMO in the class rankings.

[Papa John]

It looks like 2022 recruiting/transfer activity for Stanford is over and done? I think a few more HS recruits/transfers may leave or enter Pac-12 programs, but this thread probably does not need to be pinned any more.

But I do have one last thought regarding recruiting. In terms of high school recruits, it looks like Stanford will finish with a top 20 class at/near the top of the conference, which is where it needs to be considering our inability to acquire very much talent through the transfer portal.

Speaking of transfers, USC has the top-ranked 2022 transfer class according to 247sports, due in no small part to incoming 5-star QB Caleb Williams. But they are only ranking entering talent and ignoring the eligible talent that has departed (e.g. outgoing five-star QB Jaxson Dart).

So here's an inelegant, somewhat clunky solution based in part of a past effort of mine. I calculated the transfer portal +/- ranking of Pac-12 schools, using 247sports star rankings and added to that the total number of incoming stars from HS recruits:

Stanford: -22 transfer stars (stars in less stars out) + 73 HS recruiting stars = 51 net stars
Arizona: -28 + 71 = 43
Utah: -13 + 54 = 41
Oregon: -15 + 52 = 37
Oregon State: -14 + 48 = 34
Washington State: -28 + 57 = 29
Cal: -13 + 40 = 27
Arizona State: +1 + 25 = 26
USC: -5 + 30 = 25
Colorado: -46 + 69 = 23
UCLA: -22 + 39 = 17
Washington: -19 + 28 = 9

Of course, there's no reckoning for players lost to graduation, retirement, etc., incoming freshmen or weighted the same as incoming/outgoing transfers and there's no reckoning for positions of need (like losing your top two rushers over the past two years). On the other hand, Stanford comes out on top with this system, so I don't think I'll make any adjustments...

[Papa John]

It looks like 2022 recruiting/transfer activity for Stanford is over and done? I think a few more HS recruits/transfers may leave or enter Pac-12 programs, but this thread probably does not need to be pinned any more.

But I do have one last thought regarding recruiting. In terms of high school recruits, it looks like Stanford will finish with a top 20 class at/near the top of the conference, which is where it needs to be considering our inability to acquire very much talent through the transfer portal.

Speaking of transfers, USC has the top-ranked 2022 transfer class according to 247sports, due in no small part to incoming 5-star QB Caleb Williams. But they are only ranking entering talent and ignoring the eligible talent that has departed (e.g. outgoing five-star QB Jaxson Dart).

So here's an inelegant, somewhat clunky solution based in part of a past effort of mine. I calculated the transfer portal +/- ranking of Pac-12 schools, using 247sports star rankings and added to that the total number of incoming stars from HS recruits:

Stanford: -22 transfer stars (stars in less stars out) + 73 HS recruiting stars = 51 net stars
Arizona: -28 + 71 = 43
Utah: -13 + 54 = 41
Oregon: -15 + 52 = 37
Oregon State: -14 + 48 = 34
Washington State: -28 + 57 = 29
Cal: -13 + 40 = 27
Arizona State: +1 + 25 = 26
USC: -5 + 30 = 25
Colorado: -46 + 69 = 23
UCLA: -22 + 39 = 17
Washington: -19 + 28 = 9

Of course, there's no reckoning for players lost to graduation, retirement, etc., incoming freshmen or weighted the same as incoming/outgoing transfers and there's no reckoning for positions of need (like losing your top two rushers over the past two years). On the other hand, Stanford comes out on top with this system, so I don't think I'll make any adjustments...

[BobK]

Very interesting. Thanks for doing this.
You don’t often see the affects of transfers out

[BobK]

Very interesting. Thanks for doing this.
You don’t often see the affects of transfers out

[JustAnotherFan]

It looks like 2022 recruiting/transfer activity for Stanford is over and done? I think a few more HS recruits/transfers may leave or enter Pac-12 programs, but this thread probably does not need to be pinned any more.

But I do have one last thought regarding recruiting. In terms of high school recruits, it looks like Stanford will finish with a top 20 class at/near the top of the conference, which is where it needs to be considering our inability to acquire very much talent through the transfer portal.

Speaking of transfers, USC has the top-ranked 2022 transfer class according to 247sports, due in no small part to incoming 5-star QB Caleb Williams. But they are only ranking entering talent and ignoring the eligible talent that has departed (e.g. outgoing five-star QB Jaxson Dart).

So here's an inelegant, somewhat clunky solution based in part of a past effort of mine. I calculated the transfer portal +/- ranking of Pac-12 schools, using 247sports star rankings and added to that the total number of incoming stars from HS recruits:

Stanford: -22 transfer stars (stars in less stars out) + 73 HS recruiting stars = 51 net stars
Arizona: -28 + 71 = 43
Utah: -13 + 54 = 41
Oregon: -15 + 52 = 37
Oregon State: -14 + 48 = 34
Washington State: -28 + 57 = 29
Cal: -13 + 40 = 27
Arizona State: +1 + 25 = 26
USC: -5 + 30 = 25
Colorado: -46 + 69 = 23
UCLA: -22 + 39 = 17
Washington: -19 + 28 = 9

Of course, there's no reckoning for players lost to graduation, retirement, etc., incoming freshmen or weighted the same as incoming/outgoing transfers and there's no reckoning for positions of need (like losing your top two rushers over the past two years). On the other hand, Stanford comes out on top with this system, so I don't think I'll make any adjustments...

Thanks for doing this. If I were doing this (I am not) I would also look at weighting star ratings more, considering a 5 star is most often more than 25% a bigger impact than a 4 star, and a 4 star is most often more than a 33% bigger impact than a 3 star.

[JustAnotherFan]

It looks like 2022 recruiting/transfer activity for Stanford is over and done? I think a few more HS recruits/transfers may leave or enter Pac-12 programs, but this thread probably does not need to be pinned any more.

But I do have one last thought regarding recruiting. In terms of high school recruits, it looks like Stanford will finish with a top 20 class at/near the top of the conference, which is where it needs to be considering our inability to acquire very much talent through the transfer portal.

Speaking of transfers, USC has the top-ranked 2022 transfer class according to 247sports, due in no small part to incoming 5-star QB Caleb Williams. But they are only ranking entering talent and ignoring the eligible talent that has departed (e.g. outgoing five-star QB Jaxson Dart).

So here's an inelegant, somewhat clunky solution based in part of a past effort of mine. I calculated the transfer portal +/- ranking of Pac-12 schools, using 247sports star rankings and added to that the total number of incoming stars from HS recruits:

Stanford: -22 transfer stars (stars in less stars out) + 73 HS recruiting stars = 51 net stars
Arizona: -28 + 71 = 43
Utah: -13 + 54 = 41
Oregon: -15 + 52 = 37
Oregon State: -14 + 48 = 34
Washington State: -28 + 57 = 29
Cal: -13 + 40 = 27
Arizona State: +1 + 25 = 26
USC: -5 + 30 = 25
Colorado: -46 + 69 = 23
UCLA: -22 + 39 = 17
Washington: -19 + 28 = 9

Of course, there's no reckoning for players lost to graduation, retirement, etc., incoming freshmen or weighted the same as incoming/outgoing transfers and there's no reckoning for positions of need (like losing your top two rushers over the past two years). On the other hand, Stanford comes out on top with this system, so I don't think I'll make any adjustments...

Thanks for doing this. If I were doing this (I am not) I would also look at weighting star ratings more, considering a 5 star is most often more than 25% a bigger impact than a 4 star, and a 4 star is most often more than a 33% bigger impact than a 3 star.

[Papa John]

247sports has more precise ratings than stars provide, so that would be one way to refine the calculations. It’s also more work for people like me who do the math in our heads.

[Papa John]

247sports has more precise ratings than stars provide, so that would be one way to refine the calculations. It’s also more work for people like me who do the math in our heads.

[Mick]

In keeping with the gloom-and-doom topic, 4-star safety Kamari Ramsey--who recently decommitted from Stanford--committed to UCLA today (Tuesday). Double ouch!

Maybe he knew they were headed for the Big 10...

[Mick]

In keeping with the gloom-and-doom topic, 4-star safety Kamari Ramsey--who recently decommitted from Stanford--committed to UCLA today (Tuesday). Double ouch!

Maybe he knew they were headed for the Big 10...

[SamuelMcF]

In keeping with the gloom-and-doom topic, 4-star safety Kamari Ramsey--who recently decommitted from Stanford--committed to UCLA today (Tuesday). Double ouch!

Maybe he knew they were headed for the Big 10...

You're probably being facetious, but there is zero chance of that. NOBODY knew.

[SamuelMcF]

In keeping with the gloom-and-doom topic, 4-star safety Kamari Ramsey--who recently decommitted from Stanford--committed to UCLA today (Tuesday). Double ouch!

Maybe he knew they were headed for the Big 10...

You're probably being facetious, but there is zero chance of that. NOBODY knew.

[MV72018]

Very interesting.  Thanks for doing this. 
You don’t often see the affects of transfers out

Right, they are pretty shy and tend to repress their affects. 

But the effects are a completely different matter.

[MV72018]

Very interesting.  Thanks for doing this. 
You don’t often see the affects of transfers out

Right, they are pretty shy and tend to repress their affects. 

But the effects are a completely different matter.

[TrumpCard]

Cowboy Indian, is that you?

[TrumpCard]

Cowboy Indian, is that you?