[TrumpCard]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

[TrumpCard]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

[Bampa]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

A BIG +1

[Bampa]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

A BIG +1

[BobK]

Love the politics but leaving it for football recruiting I believe we have 20 openings for the class of 2023.
Thoughts ?

[BobK]

Love the politics but leaving it for football recruiting I believe we have 20 openings for the class of 2023.
Thoughts ?

[TrumpCard]

My kingdom for a QB.  Two kingdoms for a good one.  Everything else is secondary.

[TrumpCard]

My kingdom for a QB.  Two kingdoms for a good one.  Everything else is secondary.

[Alvin]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

And I understand your position even if I disagree with the arguments you made above, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.  My main point, which I didn't emphasize enough, is that recruiting at Stanford is hard enough. We have only a tiny pool of applicants who can qualify academically and compete at the highest level. I believe that our vaccine policy has now made that pool even smaller. The vaccine requirement has added another barrier to the already herculean task of convincing the few interested and qualified high schools student-athletes to come play for Stanford. We are in a somewhat similar situation to the 2001-2005 restrictions which set us back several years.

[Alvin]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

And I understand your position even if I disagree with the arguments you made above, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.  My main point, which I didn't emphasize enough, is that recruiting at Stanford is hard enough. We have only a tiny pool of applicants who can qualify academically and compete at the highest level. I believe that our vaccine policy has now made that pool even smaller. The vaccine requirement has added another barrier to the already herculean task of convincing the few interested and qualified high schools student-athletes to come play for Stanford. We are in a somewhat similar situation to the 2001-2005 restrictions which set us back several years.

[BostonCard]

While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.


BC

One of the premises in this characterization is that being a "Football First" guy precludes being a "Stanford Man". I don't think there was any question Andrew Luck was a Football First guy. He was going to the NFL, that was his intention and he would do what it took to get there. He showed many times he would do what it took and sacrifice his body for the game. Yet I think few would question that Luck was also a "Stanford Man". Being a Football First guy doesn't require you be a football only guy. While there are certainly plenty of players that are "that way", there are an infinite number of gradations in between. I argue it isn't just a false dichotomy, it isn't even a dichotomy. Was Richard Sherman a Football First guy but not a Stanford Man?

Being a "Stanford Man" is a pretty big category IMHO. I knew several people who were Physics First people. That is all they talked about, and all they did. Everything else was a distraction. Monomania definitely exists at Stanford, and at least when I was there it was common. Quite a few people started out that way and evolved over their years at Stanford to the point they at least recognized other options existed. Some became less one-dimensional, some didn't. IMHO it is almost impossible to play P5 level football and actually have much of another focus. To a large degree, anybody who is on the team and following the physical requirements of workouts and practicing has little or no time to spend smelling the roses. Maybe for a week or two in winter quarter you aren't involved in football. Otherwise, you are. That is a kind of "Stanford Man" too.

Wait, are we talking about the Andrew Luck who would have been the first pick of the draft but returned to Stanford to graduate or the one who retired from football because he was more concerned with his long-term health than playing in the NFL until he dropped.  Or are we talking about the Andrew Luck who established a book club?

I think you would have been on more solid footing citing Christian McCaffrey, an outstanding football player, but one who went pro after three years and sat out the Sun Bowl so as not to get injured.

Obviously it is not cut and dry, but compare what Bryce Love did (come back to graduate at risk for injury with a goal of becoming a doctor, not necessarily an NFL player) to McCaffrey.  Maybe it’s not either/or, but we can imagine which of the two Shaw would gravitate towards in recruiting, if forced to chose.

BC

[BostonCard]

While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.


BC

One of the premises in this characterization is that being a "Football First" guy precludes being a "Stanford Man". I don't think there was any question Andrew Luck was a Football First guy. He was going to the NFL, that was his intention and he would do what it took to get there. He showed many times he would do what it took and sacrifice his body for the game. Yet I think few would question that Luck was also a "Stanford Man". Being a Football First guy doesn't require you be a football only guy. While there are certainly plenty of players that are "that way", there are an infinite number of gradations in between. I argue it isn't just a false dichotomy, it isn't even a dichotomy. Was Richard Sherman a Football First guy but not a Stanford Man?

Being a "Stanford Man" is a pretty big category IMHO. I knew several people who were Physics First people. That is all they talked about, and all they did. Everything else was a distraction. Monomania definitely exists at Stanford, and at least when I was there it was common. Quite a few people started out that way and evolved over their years at Stanford to the point they at least recognized other options existed. Some became less one-dimensional, some didn't. IMHO it is almost impossible to play P5 level football and actually have much of another focus. To a large degree, anybody who is on the team and following the physical requirements of workouts and practicing has little or no time to spend smelling the roses. Maybe for a week or two in winter quarter you aren't involved in football. Otherwise, you are. That is a kind of "Stanford Man" too.

Wait, are we talking about the Andrew Luck who would have been the first pick of the draft but returned to Stanford to graduate or the one who retired from football because he was more concerned with his long-term health than playing in the NFL until he dropped.  Or are we talking about the Andrew Luck who established a book club?

I think you would have been on more solid footing citing Christian McCaffrey, an outstanding football player, but one who went pro after three years and sat out the Sun Bowl so as not to get injured.

Obviously it is not cut and dry, but compare what Bryce Love did (come back to graduate at risk for injury with a goal of becoming a doctor, not necessarily an NFL player) to McCaffrey.  Maybe it’s not either/or, but we can imagine which of the two Shaw would gravitate towards in recruiting, if forced to chose.

BC

[TrumpCard]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

And I understand your position even if I disagree with the arguments you made above, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.  My main point, which I didn't emphasize enough, is that recruiting at Stanford is hard enough. We have only a tiny pool of applicants who can qualify academically and compete at the highest level. I believe that our vaccine policy has now made that pool even smaller. The vaccine requirement has added another barrier to the already herculean task of convincing the few interested and qualified high schools student-athletes to come play for Stanford. We are in a somewhat similar situation to the 2001-2005 restrictions which set us back several years.

Right, I understood your point.  My response is "oh well," and I presume Stanford's response would be the same.  Your premise may be correct that Stanford is losing recruits from the vaccine policy.  Stanford's public statements, however, lead me to believe that Stanford and I are on the same page regarding the vaccines, i.e. that they are safe and effective and that mandating them is an absolute necessity (at least for now) to protect the health and safety of the 30,000+ people who live and work on campus, as well as their families.  So if that hurts Stanford football, tough.  I don't think you are saying that you would put 30,000+ people in harm's way for the sake of Stanford football.  I think you are saying that the vaccine mandates are not needed and won't protect anyone.  It's not material whether you are right or wrong.  The reality is that Stanford thinks you are wrong, and there is no chance on Earth that Stanford would jeapordize the health and safety of everyone on campus just for football.  It's not really a question of priorities, I don't think.  It's more a question of whether or not Stanford believes your premise that the vaccine is all downside, no upside, and it seems quite clear to me that Stanford vociforously disagrees.  (If I'm wrong and you value college football above the health and safety of people at Stanford and their families, then that's a whole different ballgame, but I don't think that's the disconnect here.)

[TrumpCard]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

And I understand your position even if I disagree with the arguments you made above, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.  My main point, which I didn't emphasize enough, is that recruiting at Stanford is hard enough. We have only a tiny pool of applicants who can qualify academically and compete at the highest level. I believe that our vaccine policy has now made that pool even smaller. The vaccine requirement has added another barrier to the already herculean task of convincing the few interested and qualified high schools student-athletes to come play for Stanford. We are in a somewhat similar situation to the 2001-2005 restrictions which set us back several years.

Right, I understood your point.  My response is "oh well," and I presume Stanford's response would be the same.  Your premise may be correct that Stanford is losing recruits from the vaccine policy.  Stanford's public statements, however, lead me to believe that Stanford and I are on the same page regarding the vaccines, i.e. that they are safe and effective and that mandating them is an absolute necessity (at least for now) to protect the health and safety of the 30,000+ people who live and work on campus, as well as their families.  So if that hurts Stanford football, tough.  I don't think you are saying that you would put 30,000+ people in harm's way for the sake of Stanford football.  I think you are saying that the vaccine mandates are not needed and won't protect anyone.  It's not material whether you are right or wrong.  The reality is that Stanford thinks you are wrong, and there is no chance on Earth that Stanford would jeapordize the health and safety of everyone on campus just for football.  It's not really a question of priorities, I don't think.  It's more a question of whether or not Stanford believes your premise that the vaccine is all downside, no upside, and it seems quite clear to me that Stanford vociforously disagrees.  (If I'm wrong and you value college football above the health and safety of people at Stanford and their families, then that's a whole different ballgame, but I don't think that's the disconnect here.)

[Goose]

Wait, are we talking about the Andrew Luck who would have been the first pick of the draft but returned to Stanford to graduate or the one who retired from football because he was more concerned with his long-term health than playing in the NFL until he dropped.  Or are we talking about the Andrew Luck who established a book club?


I think you would have been on more solid footing citing Christian McCaffrey, an outstanding football player, but one who went pro after three years and sat out the Sun Bowl so as not to get injured.



Obviously it is not cut and dry, but compare what Bryce Love did (come back to graduate at risk for injury with a goal of becoming a doctor, not necessarily an NFL player) to McCaffrey.  Maybe it’s not either/or, but we can imagine which of the two Shaw would gravitate towards in recruiting, if forced to chose.



BC

I am talking about the Andrew Luck who came back to play with his teammates when he could have gone to the NFL. Is Luck less of a Football Guy because he did that? I am not sure one can say that is the case. There is also the fact the he might have wanted to win the award that cannot be named. Plenty of good, valid football reasons to do that.

Luck played professionally with a lacerated kidney as I recall. I don't think one can question his heart or willingness to play for the team. He had spent so much time injured and was looking at another rehab stint. He played for a management that obviously did not put his health as a big priority. I don't think his actions reflect lack of commitment to football, but rather self preservation. He was in the league seven years. He missed one entire year with a shoulder injury. Lots of QBs are not the same after that. He worked his way back, but arguably wasn't his "old self". He was looking at more rehab from injuries suffered that year. Lots of guys don't make it 7 years. He was done. FWIW, everybody retires from football eventually. Football is first until it isn't.

I think the Love/McCaffrey comparison is a good one. From Shaw's point of view, as far as recruiting these guys, I think there would be no difference whatsoever. The actions they took later in their career at Stanford were not an issue at the time they were recruited (obviously), and I think Shaw is fine with both decisions they made. Obviously, BL fully intended to go to the NFL. It was a question of when. So did McCaffery. They both gave it their all when they played, they both did the necessary off-season work, neither were discipline or academic problems. Fans may have a problem with what McCaffery did, but his teammates, at least in the main, did not. IMHO Shaw (of all people) didn't either. He understood it, and he would have had no problem if BL didn't come back either. Shaw isn't the rah-rah type anyway. He understands football is, to a large degree, a profession. It certainly is for him. His players are trying to gain the skills that profession requires. Some will, most will fall short or chose other things. He expects his players to act professionally. Luck, McCaffrey, and Love did.

[Goose]

Wait, are we talking about the Andrew Luck who would have been the first pick of the draft but returned to Stanford to graduate or the one who retired from football because he was more concerned with his long-term health than playing in the NFL until he dropped.  Or are we talking about the Andrew Luck who established a book club?


I think you would have been on more solid footing citing Christian McCaffrey, an outstanding football player, but one who went pro after three years and sat out the Sun Bowl so as not to get injured.



Obviously it is not cut and dry, but compare what Bryce Love did (come back to graduate at risk for injury with a goal of becoming a doctor, not necessarily an NFL player) to McCaffrey.  Maybe it’s not either/or, but we can imagine which of the two Shaw would gravitate towards in recruiting, if forced to chose.



BC

I am talking about the Andrew Luck who came back to play with his teammates when he could have gone to the NFL. Is Luck less of a Football Guy because he did that? I am not sure one can say that is the case. There is also the fact the he might have wanted to win the award that cannot be named. Plenty of good, valid football reasons to do that.

Luck played professionally with a lacerated kidney as I recall. I don't think one can question his heart or willingness to play for the team. He had spent so much time injured and was looking at another rehab stint. He played for a management that obviously did not put his health as a big priority. I don't think his actions reflect lack of commitment to football, but rather self preservation. He was in the league seven years. He missed one entire year with a shoulder injury. Lots of QBs are not the same after that. He worked his way back, but arguably wasn't his "old self". He was looking at more rehab from injuries suffered that year. Lots of guys don't make it 7 years. He was done. FWIW, everybody retires from football eventually. Football is first until it isn't.

I think the Love/McCaffrey comparison is a good one. From Shaw's point of view, as far as recruiting these guys, I think there would be no difference whatsoever. The actions they took later in their career at Stanford were not an issue at the time they were recruited (obviously), and I think Shaw is fine with both decisions they made. Obviously, BL fully intended to go to the NFL. It was a question of when. So did McCaffery. They both gave it their all when they played, they both did the necessary off-season work, neither were discipline or academic problems. Fans may have a problem with what McCaffery did, but his teammates, at least in the main, did not. IMHO Shaw (of all people) didn't either. He understood it, and he would have had no problem if BL didn't come back either. Shaw isn't the rah-rah type anyway. He understands football is, to a large degree, a profession. It certainly is for him. His players are trying to gain the skills that profession requires. Some will, most will fall short or chose other things. He expects his players to act professionally. Luck, McCaffrey, and Love did.

[old spanish trail]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

A BIG +1

A GIANT +2. Alvin may be antivax and so be it. Hope he doesn't regret it down the line. If he has proof of effect on recruiting would love to hear it.

[old spanish trail]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

A BIG +1

A GIANT +2. Alvin may be antivax and so be it. Hope he doesn't regret it down the line. If he has proof of effect on recruiting would love to hear it.

[Goose]

Perhaps this reflects my bias, but most athletes that apply to Stanford are going to be required to do lots of "hard" things, like take AP classes and enduring the admissions process. Certainly when they get to Stanford, they are going to be asked to do things they would probably rather not do. Under those circumstances, I would expect most students, if they got admitted, would go get the vaccine even if they really didn't want to. After all, isn't Paris worth a Mass? Some possibly would not, but I think very few. The athlete would have to be very committed to the idea they don't want the shot to forgo the opportunity.

[Goose]

Perhaps this reflects my bias, but most athletes that apply to Stanford are going to be required to do lots of "hard" things, like take AP classes and enduring the admissions process. Certainly when they get to Stanford, they are going to be asked to do things they would probably rather not do. Under those circumstances, I would expect most students, if they got admitted, would go get the vaccine even if they really didn't want to. After all, isn't Paris worth a Mass? Some possibly would not, but I think very few. The athlete would have to be very committed to the idea they don't want the shot to forgo the opportunity.

[Phogge]

"Stanford Man?" LOL. Like Piltdown Man? LMFAO.

[Phogge]

"Stanford Man?" LOL. Like Piltdown Man? LMFAO.

[OutsiderFan]

There are dozens of reasons a recruit won't pick Stanford that have the middle of a donut to do with any vaccination requirements. And there are even more for Football and MBB recruits.

I can assure you the drop in competitiveness on the field and court are the biggest objections by far raised by "the pool." Then, navigating NIL, and now the uncertainty of the Pac and Stanford's conference alignment and relevance, come way before anything else. Any Stanford Covid vaccination requirement is so far down the list of reasons "the pool" is now smaller, that I can't even believe anyone would make such a claim.

It's akin to complaining about the color of the drapes when the whole house is on fire.

Stanford Football is a dinosaur of a program right now. It's lost its relevance in a shockingly fast period. Whether it's all on David Shaw, Stanford itself, or a combination of both hardly matters. All the bloom is off all the Roses the program recently had.

[OutsiderFan]

There are dozens of reasons a recruit won't pick Stanford that have the middle of a donut to do with any vaccination requirements. And there are even more for Football and MBB recruits.

I can assure you the drop in competitiveness on the field and court are the biggest objections by far raised by "the pool." Then, navigating NIL, and now the uncertainty of the Pac and Stanford's conference alignment and relevance, come way before anything else. Any Stanford Covid vaccination requirement is so far down the list of reasons "the pool" is now smaller, that I can't even believe anyone would make such a claim.

It's akin to complaining about the color of the drapes when the whole house is on fire.

Stanford Football is a dinosaur of a program right now. It's lost its relevance in a shockingly fast period. Whether it's all on David Shaw, Stanford itself, or a combination of both hardly matters. All the bloom is off all the Roses the program recently had.

[Phogge]

At least “we’ll always have Pasadena” Ingrid Bergman.

Not many Cal fans alive who can say that.

[Phogge]

At least “we’ll always have Pasadena” Ingrid Bergman.

Not many Cal fans alive who can say that.

[msqueri]

I'm late to the BC-Goose exchange but a comment: I think Stanford fans kid themselves if they think Andrew Luck, AJ Tarpley, Bryce Love, Jonathan Martin, Ben Gardner, etc. are "football first" guys in the sense that the NFL wants. Each made life decisions and/or have a personality type that is very much not the go out on your shield type. There's nothing wrong with that. And I could have picked dozens of other lesser football players but instead chose to pick a handful of absolutely spectacular football players who famously excelled at Stanford. Clearly you don't need to be a meathead with no prospects in life beyond football to be really, really good at football. But it's just self-delusion to think that having, shall we say, a neuroatypical brain compared to the NFL norm and having options beyond football make you just as likely to be in it for the long haul. I bet there are NFL teams that after Luck and Tarpley will prefer an Arizona State player to a Stanford player, all things being equal, to get a return on their investment. I bet the Colts would have rather had Andrew Luck with Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers' mentality than what they did get. 

It's less clear what this means for us on the college level. As is evident from the spectacular football accomplishments of the guys I mentioned, you don't need to be a Trent Murphy/Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in college. There's a sweet spot for Stanford where guys who are neuroatypical from the NFL norm and/or have much better non-football professional prospects can still do great things in college football. Nonetheless, I think there are cumulative, cultural, and law of averages effects at play where a roster full of this mentality has an adverse competitive effect.

[msqueri]

I'm late to the BC-Goose exchange but a comment: I think Stanford fans kid themselves if they think Andrew Luck, AJ Tarpley, Bryce Love, Jonathan Martin, Ben Gardner, etc. are "football first" guys in the sense that the NFL wants. Each made life decisions and/or have a personality type that is very much not the go out on your shield type. There's nothing wrong with that. And I could have picked dozens of other lesser football players but instead chose to pick a handful of absolutely spectacular football players who famously excelled at Stanford. Clearly you don't need to be a meathead with no prospects in life beyond football to be really, really good at football. But it's just self-delusion to think that having, shall we say, a neuroatypical brain compared to the NFL norm and having options beyond football make you just as likely to be in it for the long haul. I bet there are NFL teams that after Luck and Tarpley will prefer an Arizona State player to a Stanford player, all things being equal, to get a return on their investment. I bet the Colts would have rather had Andrew Luck with Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers' mentality than what they did get. 

It's less clear what this means for us on the college level. As is evident from the spectacular football accomplishments of the guys I mentioned, you don't need to be a Trent Murphy/Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in college. There's a sweet spot for Stanford where guys who are neuroatypical from the NFL norm and/or have much better non-football professional prospects can still do great things in college football. Nonetheless, I think there are cumulative, cultural, and law of averages effects at play where a roster full of this mentality has an adverse competitive effect.

[Goose]

I'm late to the BC-Goose exchange but a comment: I think Stanford fans kid themselves if they think Andrew Luck, AJ Tarpley, Bryce Love, Jonathan Martin, Ben Gardner, etc. are "football first" guys in the sense that the NFL wants.

Usually when you and I disagree, I can see some merit in your position. This time, I really can't. I think it is absolutely clear that the NFL wants above all things guys that can play football. They have/are tolerating guys that are basically known criminals. They give guys who have had drug problems chance after chance. However, you are arguing basically that they would prefer not to take guys who have a "neuroatypical brain" because they might retire after 7 years and four pro bowls? I am sure Luck's retirement greatly influenced the Texans decision to take Mills. Obviously nobody would take an Elway (who was so "neuroatypical" he forced the Colts to trade him) because they wouldn't want to risk he would have a 16 year career and go to the HOF if they did. Dave DeCastro obviously had no real desire to play football and nobody would want him. Richard Sherman never cared about football. And of course Jim Plunkett quit football at the first opportunity". These "neuroatypical" guys just have no desire and quit on you.

But it's just self-delusion to think that having, shall we say, a neuroatypical brain compared to the NFL norm and having options beyond football make you just as likely to be in it for the long haul. I bet there are NFL teams that after Luck and Tarpley will prefer an Arizona State player to a Stanford player, all things being equal, to get a return on their investment. I bet the Colts would have rather had Andrew Luck with Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers' mentality than what they did get.

I think the many, many, many, counter-examples speak for themselves. The NFL wants players. I actually suspect they are kind of happy when they get somebody who can play and at the same time can remember the snap count. OTOH, they can live with some "issues" if they must. I seriously doubt any NFL team would consider the risk somebody will quit the sport early in a successful career as a factor in not drafting them. They just want a successful career to happen. Retention is very secondary and will be handled if/when it becomes an issue, just like it is with guys who aren't  "neuroatypical" but have agents that are. Virtually any team would sell their soul (assuming they haven't already) to have an Andrew Luck. The fact the Colts didn't win multiple super bowls on his watch certainly wasn't his fault.

It's less clear what this means for us on the college level. As is evident from the spectacular football accomplishments of the guys I mentioned, you don't need to be a Trent Murphy/Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in college. There's a sweet spot for Stanford where guys who are neuroatypical from the NFL norm and/or have much better non-football professional prospects can still do great things in college football. Nonetheless, I think there are cumulative, cultural, and law of averages effects at play where a roster full of this mentality has an adverse competitive effect.

I think it is also abundantly clear you don't have to be a Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in the NFL, as fortunately many players demonstrate. It does help to be a bit of a maniac though. There are many different ways to be a maniac. DeCastro for example was reportedly a maniac. I think I do understand your concern about the culture at Stanford. I am guessing that some of it is misplaced, in that all of us kind of like to see guys get emotional and yell a lot. However, I think that is a fans thing. What I fear is missing at Stanford is guys who are leaders, hold themselves accountable, and expect their teammates to do the same, and will, if necessary, let their teammates know about it very, very clearly.

In the past, we had some guys who maybe us fans never saw yelling about something, but did it when necessary. It was a "us" thing that didn't make the public often, but was there. It was a "team" thing that came from the culture, not the coaches. The TWU wasn't created by the coaching staff. That can work just fine, but I fear Stanford has created a culture where the "us" factor isn't there anymore. When you lose it, it is hard to get back. We have recruited lots of guys who can play football but don't feel the need/aren't compelled to lead. Obviously I am not in the locker room, so I can't really know what is happening. However, the teams recently have left the impression they go out there, do their best, and if that isn't enough they accept it. Nobody seems to feel it is their duty to "fix it". They are waiting for somebody else to do that. It didn't used to be that way.

[Goose]

I'm late to the BC-Goose exchange but a comment: I think Stanford fans kid themselves if they think Andrew Luck, AJ Tarpley, Bryce Love, Jonathan Martin, Ben Gardner, etc. are "football first" guys in the sense that the NFL wants.

Usually when you and I disagree, I can see some merit in your position. This time, I really can't. I think it is absolutely clear that the NFL wants above all things guys that can play football. They have/are tolerating guys that are basically known criminals. They give guys who have had drug problems chance after chance. However, you are arguing basically that they would prefer not to take guys who have a "neuroatypical brain" because they might retire after 7 years and four pro bowls? I am sure Luck's retirement greatly influenced the Texans decision to take Mills. Obviously nobody would take an Elway (who was so "neuroatypical" he forced the Colts to trade him) because they wouldn't want to risk he would have a 16 year career and go to the HOF if they did. Dave DeCastro obviously had no real desire to play football and nobody would want him. Richard Sherman never cared about football. And of course Jim Plunkett quit football at the first opportunity". These "neuroatypical" guys just have no desire and quit on you.

But it's just self-delusion to think that having, shall we say, a neuroatypical brain compared to the NFL norm and having options beyond football make you just as likely to be in it for the long haul. I bet there are NFL teams that after Luck and Tarpley will prefer an Arizona State player to a Stanford player, all things being equal, to get a return on their investment. I bet the Colts would have rather had Andrew Luck with Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers' mentality than what they did get.

I think the many, many, many, counter-examples speak for themselves. The NFL wants players. I actually suspect they are kind of happy when they get somebody who can play and at the same time can remember the snap count. OTOH, they can live with some "issues" if they must. I seriously doubt any NFL team would consider the risk somebody will quit the sport early in a successful career as a factor in not drafting them. They just want a successful career to happen. Retention is very secondary and will be handled if/when it becomes an issue, just like it is with guys who aren't  "neuroatypical" but have agents that are. Virtually any team would sell their soul (assuming they haven't already) to have an Andrew Luck. The fact the Colts didn't win multiple super bowls on his watch certainly wasn't his fault.

It's less clear what this means for us on the college level. As is evident from the spectacular football accomplishments of the guys I mentioned, you don't need to be a Trent Murphy/Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in college. There's a sweet spot for Stanford where guys who are neuroatypical from the NFL norm and/or have much better non-football professional prospects can still do great things in college football. Nonetheless, I think there are cumulative, cultural, and law of averages effects at play where a roster full of this mentality has an adverse competitive effect.

I think it is also abundantly clear you don't have to be a Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in the NFL, as fortunately many players demonstrate. It does help to be a bit of a maniac though. There are many different ways to be a maniac. DeCastro for example was reportedly a maniac. I think I do understand your concern about the culture at Stanford. I am guessing that some of it is misplaced, in that all of us kind of like to see guys get emotional and yell a lot. However, I think that is a fans thing. What I fear is missing at Stanford is guys who are leaders, hold themselves accountable, and expect their teammates to do the same, and will, if necessary, let their teammates know about it very, very clearly.

In the past, we had some guys who maybe us fans never saw yelling about something, but did it when necessary. It was a "us" thing that didn't make the public often, but was there. It was a "team" thing that came from the culture, not the coaches. The TWU wasn't created by the coaching staff. That can work just fine, but I fear Stanford has created a culture where the "us" factor isn't there anymore. When you lose it, it is hard to get back. We have recruited lots of guys who can play football but don't feel the need/aren't compelled to lead. Obviously I am not in the locker room, so I can't really know what is happening. However, the teams recently have left the impression they go out there, do their best, and if that isn't enough they accept it. Nobody seems to feel it is their duty to "fix it". They are waiting for somebody else to do that. It didn't used to be that way.

[Ohiocard]

I think we can all agree on the fact that the Stanford's recruiting profile is narrowing due to a few NEW factors:

• Major CFB recruiting (especially at QB) speeding up the calendar & outpacing Stanford's admissions process
  
• Stanford not participating in NIL in any competitive way. (a source confirmed this will not be changing)
  
• Currently we have no clear idea of what the PAC12 will look like in 3 years
  

These new factors on top of the already small pool Stanford football recruits from are strangling the program. The reality is that Stanford will not make the "Football 1st" decisions necessary to stay competitive.

P.S. Keep an eye on current Miami commit Emory Williams and Nevada commit Jax Leatherwood for our next QB moves.

[Ohiocard]

I think we can all agree on the fact that the Stanford's recruiting profile is narrowing due to a few NEW factors:

• Major CFB recruiting (especially at QB) speeding up the calendar & outpacing Stanford's admissions process
  
• Stanford not participating in NIL in any competitive way. (a source confirmed this will not be changing)
  
• Currently we have no clear idea of what the PAC12 will look like in 3 years
  

These new factors on top of the already small pool Stanford football recruits from are strangling the program. The reality is that Stanford will not make the "Football 1st" decisions necessary to stay competitive.

P.S. Keep an eye on current Miami commit Emory Williams and Nevada commit Jax Leatherwood for our next QB moves.

[TrumpCard]

Williams appears to be more of a known quantity. Offers from a couple of major conference schools. Ranked by all the services (though 247, the most accurate typically, has him the lowest). 

Leatherwood looks like a flyer. Zero major conference offers. Unrated on On3 and ESPN, rated 5.4 (two stars) on Rivals. He is a good athlete though, and presumably that’s what 247 likes about him. He’s apparently grown to 6’8”. He was first team all-CIF in football (state champ in low division) and in volleyball as well as a contributor in basketball (also a state champ in a low division). As a result, he won San Diego athlete of the year. I’m sure it didn’t hurt his candidacy that he holds a 4.3 GPA. I don’t know whether he’ll be good, but my bet is on this guy being Stanford’s QB this class. 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spo...?_amp=true

[TrumpCard]

Williams appears to be more of a known quantity. Offers from a couple of major conference schools. Ranked by all the services (though 247, the most accurate typically, has him the lowest). 

Leatherwood looks like a flyer. Zero major conference offers. Unrated on On3 and ESPN, rated 5.4 (two stars) on Rivals. He is a good athlete though, and presumably that’s what 247 likes about him. He’s apparently grown to 6’8”. He was first team all-CIF in football (state champ in low division) and in volleyball as well as a contributor in basketball (also a state champ in a low division). As a result, he won San Diego athlete of the year. I’m sure it didn’t hurt his candidacy that he holds a 4.3 GPA. I don’t know whether he’ll be good, but my bet is on this guy being Stanford’s QB this class. 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spo...?_amp=true

[msqueri]

Goose, you're caricaturing my argument. An important phrase in my post was "all things being equal." Obviously Luck was/is/would be attractive because he's phenomenal at football, leadership, the whole package. That is different than being "football first" or having a mentality that teams would seek if they had a clone of him who didn't share that mentality. Teams can tolerate Stanford Men who bring a lot to the table otherwise, just like they can tolerate known criminals who bring a lot to the table otherwise. Doesn't mean that all else being equal that's the archetype of what they'd want.

Your counter-examples are potentially instructive. Elway, Sherman, and Plunkett did more in the NFL than Luck not because of talent (course they had great talent but so did Luck) but because of drive and longevity. Luck was so well-rounded a person with such a head on his shoulders that he didn't go on so long that he'd have to live his life like Plunkett has. Totally understandable but you think NFL teams admire that or would prefer Luck to a Luck who didn't have post-football options or aspirations and would play until he was physically unable? No way. I don't think Joe Burrow and Josh Allen are more talented than Luck, but they'll probably end up with better careers. I think we're kidding ourselves if we don't think guys like those I mentioned retiring early and/or otherwise showing they're not all in on football has an impact on how at least some NFL teams think.

Your Davis Mills example is awful - he was the #1 QB recruit in the country out of high school, possesses mouth-watering physical/mental/processing skills, and as a rookie immediately showed he was drafted far too low, yet he went with the 67th overall pick. If he went #1 overall you could laugh at me for thinking some teams are skeptical of Stanford Men. As it happened, it's plainly obvious teams were skeptical of Mills for a variety of reasons. It's hard to know what those reasons all were. For what it's worth, I don't think there is anywhere close to evidence Mills isn't all-in on football as there was with Luck. Luck committed to Stanford, a team that hadn't been to a bowl in half a decade; Mills committed to Stanford, a team that had played in the Rose Bowl two and a half months prior and been to three of the last four Rose Bowls, clearly one of the top programs in America. Luck committed to a first-time major college football coach; Mills committed to a coach with the two most recent QBs in the NFL. Luck decided to come back to college for the college experience despite the likelihood of being the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft; Mills left college early to be a Day 2 draft pick even though he had a ceiling that obviously screamed top of draft potential had he come back to college. Luck exudes nerdiness, majoring in architectural design and starting book clubs; Mills majored in Science, Technology, and Society, one of the closer degrees to Jocks-R-Us on the Stanford roster. Luck retired from football despite being viewed as one of the top QBs in the sport, an announcement that shocked the sports world; as it was a shocking announcement there wasn't much precedent at all for it and one would assume Mills will play longer if he has the goods.

On culture, I share your fear that Stanford has lost the "us" factor. I think it's possible that a focus on academics/Stanford Men/40 year decisions contributes to that but I think it has much more to do with changes in the zeitgeist more generally. It's an era in which players are acutely aware of the business aspect of the game and view their labor as transactional for longer-term individual ends, not to mention an era in which rules allow/encourage players to shop around/bifurcate their college experience across multiple programs based on the best fit. For a Stanford that tells players it's all about the 40 year decision, they can make the 40 year decision, go see if the football pastures are greener on the other side (or even just go have an adventure/different experience/be closer to family/take a shot at the NFL/retire from football to get on with their life/etc.), and not be in it for the long haul with their brothers. Indeed, we've redefined "long haul" as four years rather than five. I think you are absolutely right about one of the unintended consequences of what this has wrought: teams "go out there, do their best, and if that isn't enough they accept it." After all, they're here for the degree and the 40 year decision.

My view, which you may not agree with, is that Shaw's very essence encourages all of this. Given that these changes we're talking about are, IMHO, related to an overall zeitgeist, I view one of the biggest differentiators in college football today as the ability for coaches to navigate these shoals. That, of course, includes all of the recruiting, retention, and transfer dynamics but it also includes motivation and culture building. Many of our fans don't want to hear it, but when I listen to Saban/Day/Swinney and others, as well as their players, I get much more of the "us" vibe than I do with Stanford. There is a perception some of our fans have of factories being comprised of "mercenaries." Not so. They build inspirational, dynamic, learning/evolving football cultures. That's part of their success and part of how they can sustain it. If it were all about recruiting and winning Stanford post-2015 would have looked different.

[msqueri]

Goose, you're caricaturing my argument. An important phrase in my post was "all things being equal." Obviously Luck was/is/would be attractive because he's phenomenal at football, leadership, the whole package. That is different than being "football first" or having a mentality that teams would seek if they had a clone of him who didn't share that mentality. Teams can tolerate Stanford Men who bring a lot to the table otherwise, just like they can tolerate known criminals who bring a lot to the table otherwise. Doesn't mean that all else being equal that's the archetype of what they'd want.

Your counter-examples are potentially instructive. Elway, Sherman, and Plunkett did more in the NFL than Luck not because of talent (course they had great talent but so did Luck) but because of drive and longevity. Luck was so well-rounded a person with such a head on his shoulders that he didn't go on so long that he'd have to live his life like Plunkett has. Totally understandable but you think NFL teams admire that or would prefer Luck to a Luck who didn't have post-football options or aspirations and would play until he was physically unable? No way. I don't think Joe Burrow and Josh Allen are more talented than Luck, but they'll probably end up with better careers. I think we're kidding ourselves if we don't think guys like those I mentioned retiring early and/or otherwise showing they're not all in on football has an impact on how at least some NFL teams think.

Your Davis Mills example is awful - he was the #1 QB recruit in the country out of high school, possesses mouth-watering physical/mental/processing skills, and as a rookie immediately showed he was drafted far too low, yet he went with the 67th overall pick. If he went #1 overall you could laugh at me for thinking some teams are skeptical of Stanford Men. As it happened, it's plainly obvious teams were skeptical of Mills for a variety of reasons. It's hard to know what those reasons all were. For what it's worth, I don't think there is anywhere close to evidence Mills isn't all-in on football as there was with Luck. Luck committed to Stanford, a team that hadn't been to a bowl in half a decade; Mills committed to Stanford, a team that had played in the Rose Bowl two and a half months prior and been to three of the last four Rose Bowls, clearly one of the top programs in America. Luck committed to a first-time major college football coach; Mills committed to a coach with the two most recent QBs in the NFL. Luck decided to come back to college for the college experience despite the likelihood of being the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft; Mills left college early to be a Day 2 draft pick even though he had a ceiling that obviously screamed top of draft potential had he come back to college. Luck exudes nerdiness, majoring in architectural design and starting book clubs; Mills majored in Science, Technology, and Society, one of the closer degrees to Jocks-R-Us on the Stanford roster. Luck retired from football despite being viewed as one of the top QBs in the sport, an announcement that shocked the sports world; as it was a shocking announcement there wasn't much precedent at all for it and one would assume Mills will play longer if he has the goods.

On culture, I share your fear that Stanford has lost the "us" factor. I think it's possible that a focus on academics/Stanford Men/40 year decisions contributes to that but I think it has much more to do with changes in the zeitgeist more generally. It's an era in which players are acutely aware of the business aspect of the game and view their labor as transactional for longer-term individual ends, not to mention an era in which rules allow/encourage players to shop around/bifurcate their college experience across multiple programs based on the best fit. For a Stanford that tells players it's all about the 40 year decision, they can make the 40 year decision, go see if the football pastures are greener on the other side (or even just go have an adventure/different experience/be closer to family/take a shot at the NFL/retire from football to get on with their life/etc.), and not be in it for the long haul with their brothers. Indeed, we've redefined "long haul" as four years rather than five. I think you are absolutely right about one of the unintended consequences of what this has wrought: teams "go out there, do their best, and if that isn't enough they accept it." After all, they're here for the degree and the 40 year decision.

My view, which you may not agree with, is that Shaw's very essence encourages all of this. Given that these changes we're talking about are, IMHO, related to an overall zeitgeist, I view one of the biggest differentiators in college football today as the ability for coaches to navigate these shoals. That, of course, includes all of the recruiting, retention, and transfer dynamics but it also includes motivation and culture building. Many of our fans don't want to hear it, but when I listen to Saban/Day/Swinney and others, as well as their players, I get much more of the "us" vibe than I do with Stanford. There is a perception some of our fans have of factories being comprised of "mercenaries." Not so. They build inspirational, dynamic, learning/evolving football cultures. That's part of their success and part of how they can sustain it. If it were all about recruiting and winning Stanford post-2015 would have looked different.

[Giants]

At least “we’ll always have Pasadena” Ingrid Bergman.

Not many Cal fans alive who can say that.

Hey, it wasn’t that long ago. Everyone who is covered by Medicare can say it was within their lifetime. :)

[Giants]

At least “we’ll always have Pasadena” Ingrid Bergman.

Not many Cal fans alive who can say that.

Hey, it wasn’t that long ago. Everyone who is covered by Medicare can say it was within their lifetime. :)

[TrumpCard]

Stanford has two RBs in this class so I’m not terribly concerned, but I do note than Nolan Ray chose Maryland. Best wishes to him. Hopefully a case where Stanford decided that it had what it needed at Ray’s position and that the program can recruit a class of 20 without him.

[TrumpCard]

Stanford has two RBs in this class so I’m not terribly concerned, but I do note than Nolan Ray chose Maryland. Best wishes to him. Hopefully a case where Stanford decided that it had what it needed at Ray’s position and that the program can recruit a class of 20 without him.