[Snorlax94]

2 O Linemen, 1 D Lineman, a DB, A WR and an RB. The 2 linemen are Ivy League transfers, plus 4 more high school commits.

Only looked at the bio for the lineman from Harvard — preseason All Ivy league, lots of playing experience, no mention of rankings coming out of high school.

I’m sure the pessimists will find things to be pessimistic about but I’m excited. But this covers some Areas of need (although I’s still like to see some LBs). A lot more players than some people thought there would be. Players transferring in for the Spring. And most importantly — for the transfers, players proven on the football in college experience, even if it was in the Ivy League.

I am not claiming it’s an instant turnaround but I like the trend, the energy, the experience and the competition.

Stanford’s past transfers did remarkably well — I think there’s something to be said about proven players who come in and relish the opportunity to suit up at Stanford, and hope the trend can continue and grow in the era of the transfer portal.

[Snorlax94]

2 O Linemen, 1 D Lineman, a DB, A WR and an RB. The 2 linemen are Ivy League transfers, plus 4 more high school commits.

Only looked at the bio for the lineman from Harvard — preseason All Ivy league, lots of playing experience, no mention of rankings coming out of high school.

I’m sure the pessimists will find things to be pessimistic about but I’m excited. But this covers some Areas of need (although I’s still like to see some LBs). A lot more players than some people thought there would be. Players transferring in for the Spring. And most importantly — for the transfers, players proven on the football in college experience, even if it was in the Ivy League.

I am not claiming it’s an instant turnaround but I like the trend, the energy, the experience and the competition.

Stanford’s past transfers did remarkably well — I think there’s something to be said about proven players who come in and relish the opportunity to suit up at Stanford, and hope the trend can continue and grow in the era of the transfer portal.

[msqueri]

At the risk of being called a pessimist (realist or analyst would be more accurate).....

It's analytically unsound and unhelpful to treat the fact of people committing itself as meaningful. Proper analysis requires a qualitative dimension, or even just a comparative dimension. Is six new guys helpful if they're worse than what the teams we play are getting? Is it helpful if other teams are getting twice as many new guys?

It's not hard at all to find things to be pessimistic about with the guys you're touting. The Ivy League transfers never made the All Ivy League team and PFF ranked neither of them among the top 200 FCS or top 15 Ivy League OL (though I am happy to get Mayberry and think Bank is welcome for depth). The DL, DB, and RB are practically zero profile reaches far below the Stanford norm (though Ojarikre is relatively attractive compared to the other two). The WR isn't even a scholarship player (and as we saw with Hampton, Morris, Ojarikre, Thomason, Staples, Marceau-Olayinka, etc. the bar for being a scholarship player is as low as it's ever been at Stanford).

I can't get excited about filling "needs" if it's just bringing in people with a pulse. It's not what you think it is in terms of trend, energy, experience, or competition. This isn't 4th grade soccer and participation doesn't cut it. To make claims about trend, energy, experience, or competition you need to be comparing it to our actual competition. Today is a rough day from that vantage. May Taylor be all upswing from here.

[msqueri]

At the risk of being called a pessimist (realist or analyst would be more accurate).....

It's analytically unsound and unhelpful to treat the fact of people committing itself as meaningful. Proper analysis requires a qualitative dimension, or even just a comparative dimension. Is six new guys helpful if they're worse than what the teams we play are getting? Is it helpful if other teams are getting twice as many new guys?

It's not hard at all to find things to be pessimistic about with the guys you're touting. The Ivy League transfers never made the All Ivy League team and PFF ranked neither of them among the top 200 FCS or top 15 Ivy League OL (though I am happy to get Mayberry and think Bank is welcome for depth). The DL, DB, and RB are practically zero profile reaches far below the Stanford norm (though Ojarikre is relatively attractive compared to the other two). The WR isn't even a scholarship player (and as we saw with Hampton, Morris, Ojarikre, Thomason, Staples, Marceau-Olayinka, etc. the bar for being a scholarship player is as low as it's ever been at Stanford).

I can't get excited about filling "needs" if it's just bringing in people with a pulse. It's not what you think it is in terms of trend, energy, experience, or competition. This isn't 4th grade soccer and participation doesn't cut it. To make claims about trend, energy, experience, or competition you need to be comparing it to our actual competition. Today is a rough day from that vantage. May Taylor be all upswing from here.

[murky]

At the risk of being called a pessimist (realist or analyst would be more accurate).....

It's analytically unsound and unhelpful to treat the fact of people committing itself as meaningful. Proper analysis requires a qualitative dimension, or even just a comparative dimension. Is six new guys helpful if they're worse than what the teams we play are getting? Is it helpful if other teams are getting twice as many new guys?

It's not hard at all to find things to be pessimistic about with the guys you're touting. The Ivy League transfers never made the All Ivy League team and PFF ranked neither of them among the top 200 FCS or top 15 Ivy League OL (though I am happy to get Mayberry and think Bank is welcome for depth). The DL, DB, and RB are practically zero profile reaches far below the Stanford norm (though Ojarikre is relatively attractive compared to the other two). The WR isn't even a scholarship player (and as we saw with Hampton, Morris, Ojarikre, Thomason, Staples, Marceau-Olayinka, etc. the bar for being a scholarship player is as low as it's ever been at Stanford).

I can't get excited about filling "needs" if it's just bringing in people with a pulse. It's not what you think it is in terms of trend, energy, experience, or competition. This isn't 4th grade soccer and participation doesn't cut it. To make claims about trend, energy, experience, or competition you need to be comparing it to our actual competition. Today is a rough day from that vantage. May Taylor be all upswing from here.

I was going to say that, at least its encouraging that we are getting some transfers, independent of football quality.  But its not clear that we couldn't have always taken such transfers, if we wanted to.

[murky]

At the risk of being called a pessimist (realist or analyst would be more accurate).....

It's analytically unsound and unhelpful to treat the fact of people committing itself as meaningful. Proper analysis requires a qualitative dimension, or even just a comparative dimension. Is six new guys helpful if they're worse than what the teams we play are getting? Is it helpful if other teams are getting twice as many new guys?

It's not hard at all to find things to be pessimistic about with the guys you're touting. The Ivy League transfers never made the All Ivy League team and PFF ranked neither of them among the top 200 FCS or top 15 Ivy League OL (though I am happy to get Mayberry and think Bank is welcome for depth). The DL, DB, and RB are practically zero profile reaches far below the Stanford norm (though Ojarikre is relatively attractive compared to the other two). The WR isn't even a scholarship player (and as we saw with Hampton, Morris, Ojarikre, Thomason, Staples, Marceau-Olayinka, etc. the bar for being a scholarship player is as low as it's ever been at Stanford).

I can't get excited about filling "needs" if it's just bringing in people with a pulse. It's not what you think it is in terms of trend, energy, experience, or competition. This isn't 4th grade soccer and participation doesn't cut it. To make claims about trend, energy, experience, or competition you need to be comparing it to our actual competition. Today is a rough day from that vantage. May Taylor be all upswing from here.

I was going to say that, at least its encouraging that we are getting some transfers, independent of football quality.  But its not clear that we couldn't have always taken such transfers, if we wanted to.

[Mick]

Says that Bank had All-Ivy recognition.  two year starter at left tackle, probably doesn't suck that badly.

Two Transfer Offensive Linemen - Stanford University Athletics (gostanford.com)

Of course, if you look deeper, he was "fourth team" all-Ivy -- which has eight teams.

Alec Bank - 2022 - Football - Harvard University (gocrimson.com)

[Mick]

Says that Bank had All-Ivy recognition.  two year starter at left tackle, probably doesn't suck that badly.

Two Transfer Offensive Linemen - Stanford University Athletics (gostanford.com)

Of course, if you look deeper, he was "fourth team" all-Ivy -- which has eight teams.

Alec Bank - 2022 - Football - Harvard University (gocrimson.com)

[msqueri]

They’re lying/cherry picking non-official sources. Bank did not make the official Ivy League team either of those years, not even honorable mention. I won’t go through the dozens of ways my posts are more accurate than the propaganda on the official site.

[msqueri]

They’re lying/cherry picking non-official sources. Bank did not make the official Ivy League team either of those years, not even honorable mention. I won’t go through the dozens of ways my posts are more accurate than the propaganda on the official site.

[SamuelMcF]

+1 to Matt.

Also, for those who think "Door #1 makes transferring in simply too difficult"...also propaganda. Trevor Mayberry has a 3.31 GPA at Penn. If you don't think there are dozens upon dozens of potentially-impactful transfers with 3.3+ GPAs out there that we could try to tap into, I have beachfront realty in Nebraska to sell you.

(To the new staff's credit, they seem to be making a big effort there right out the gate.)

[SamuelMcF]

+1 to Matt.

Also, for those who think "Door #1 makes transferring in simply too difficult"...also propaganda. Trevor Mayberry has a 3.31 GPA at Penn. If you don't think there are dozens upon dozens of potentially-impactful transfers with 3.3+ GPAs out there that we could try to tap into, I have beachfront realty in Nebraska to sell you.

(To the new staff's credit, they seem to be making a big effort there right out the gate.)

[needle]

Taylor gets a passing off-season grade if D. Bailey and E. Cooper suit up for Stanford in the fall.

But there is nothing I see to make me think that T.Taylor and crew are ace recruiters. And, most worrisome to me, it feels like the transfer door is only open for kids who would have likely qualified academically after high school OR the NIL dollars offered by other schools are way more plentiful than I would have suspected for your average transfer.

[needle]

Taylor gets a passing off-season grade if D. Bailey and E. Cooper suit up for Stanford in the fall.

But there is nothing I see to make me think that T.Taylor and crew are ace recruiters. And, most worrisome to me, it feels like the transfer door is only open for kids who would have likely qualified academically after high school OR the NIL dollars offered by other schools are way more plentiful than I would have suspected for your average transfer.

[lex24]

+1 to Matt.

Also, for those who think "Door #1 makes transferring in simply too difficult"...also propaganda. Trevor Mayberry has a 3.31 GPA at Penn. If you don't think there are dozens upon dozens of potentially-impactful transfers with 3.3+ GPAs out there that we could try to tap into, I have beachfront realty in Nebraska to sell you.

(To the new staff's credit, they seem to be making a big effort there right out the gate.)

I’ve always thought the transfer issue was more “University wide”.  In that Stanford doesn’t accept many transfers period.

[lex24]

+1 to Matt.

Also, for those who think "Door #1 makes transferring in simply too difficult"...also propaganda. Trevor Mayberry has a 3.31 GPA at Penn. If you don't think there are dozens upon dozens of potentially-impactful transfers with 3.3+ GPAs out there that we could try to tap into, I have beachfront realty in Nebraska to sell you.

(To the new staff's credit, they seem to be making a big effort there right out the gate.)

I’ve always thought the transfer issue was more “University wide”.  In that Stanford doesn’t accept many transfers period.

[82lsju]

+1 to Matt.

Also, for those who think "Door #1 makes transferring in simply too difficult"...also propaganda. Trevor Mayberry has a 3.31 GPA at Penn. If you don't think there are dozens upon dozens of potentially-impactful transfers with 3.3+ GPAs out there that we could try to tap into, I have beachfront realty in Nebraska to sell you.

(To the new staff's credit, they seem to be making a big effort there right out the gate.)

I’ve always thought the transfer issue was more “University wide”.  In that Stanford doesn’t accept many transfers period.

for 2021-22 the transfer admit rate was <2% (see page 16), 55 out of 3,265

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/07/stanford_cds_2021_2022_v3.pdf

looking at some other years, 

in 2020-21 there were 86 transfer admits

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2021/06/stanford_cds_2020_2021_v5.pdf

in 2019-20 there were 24 transfer admits

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/12/stanford-cds-2019.pdf

my class ('82) had about 200 transfers in, about half as juniors and half as sophomores, so about 200 a year way back when

you can look up more years here

https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/

[82lsju]

+1 to Matt.

Also, for those who think "Door #1 makes transferring in simply too difficult"...also propaganda. Trevor Mayberry has a 3.31 GPA at Penn. If you don't think there are dozens upon dozens of potentially-impactful transfers with 3.3+ GPAs out there that we could try to tap into, I have beachfront realty in Nebraska to sell you.

(To the new staff's credit, they seem to be making a big effort there right out the gate.)

I’ve always thought the transfer issue was more “University wide”.  In that Stanford doesn’t accept many transfers period.

for 2021-22 the transfer admit rate was <2% (see page 16), 55 out of 3,265

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/07/stanford_cds_2021_2022_v3.pdf

looking at some other years, 

in 2020-21 there were 86 transfer admits

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2021/06/stanford_cds_2020_2021_v5.pdf

in 2019-20 there were 24 transfer admits

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/12/stanford-cds-2019.pdf

my class ('82) had about 200 transfers in, about half as juniors and half as sophomores, so about 200 a year way back when

you can look up more years here

https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/

[Softball Fan]

Here is another source for undergrad transfer rate:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/...-deadline/

Quotes from article about transferring to Stanford:

In a typical year, only 1 in 100 or 2 in 100 Stanford transfer applicants will be successful.

In reality, Stanford is a “reach” for every student—even those with perfect grades and test scores.

When the typical overall transfer admit rate is <2 per 100, the admissions department has to be willing to work with the football team/athletic department.  Also in my uneducated opinion the football coach has to think long and hard about who he wants to promote to admissions for transfer because he won't get all that many successful admits. Hopefully someone on the football staff understands exactly what a potential transfer needs in the way of academics.

I'm still not clear if the new Stanford transfer policy applies to all sports or just football and maybe MBB. I heard an undergrad WVB player has Stanford as a school of interest. If undergrad admissions doesn't work with the Olympic sports on transfers there's not much hope statistically of getting any transfers.

[Softball Fan]

Here is another source for undergrad transfer rate:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/...-deadline/

Quotes from article about transferring to Stanford:

In a typical year, only 1 in 100 or 2 in 100 Stanford transfer applicants will be successful.

In reality, Stanford is a “reach” for every student—even those with perfect grades and test scores.

When the typical overall transfer admit rate is <2 per 100, the admissions department has to be willing to work with the football team/athletic department.  Also in my uneducated opinion the football coach has to think long and hard about who he wants to promote to admissions for transfer because he won't get all that many successful admits. Hopefully someone on the football staff understands exactly what a potential transfer needs in the way of academics.

I'm still not clear if the new Stanford transfer policy applies to all sports or just football and maybe MBB. I heard an undergrad WVB player has Stanford as a school of interest. If undergrad admissions doesn't work with the Olympic sports on transfers there's not much hope statistically of getting any transfers.

[msqueri]

Reactions to the press conference:

* I'm still getting to know Taylor and can't yet read him like I feel I could read Shaw, so I don't know what to make of his declining to offer an opening statement and then sticking to pablum when initially asked about the class. I don't know whether he's understated, shy, privately un-enthused about the class, cannily speaking in generic sound bites knowing the purpose these quotes will ultimately be used for, or what. It does jump out to me that he's very far from the chest-thumping, energetic hype man. I just don't know if we can glean anything about his views on the class from that.

* He emphasized experience as what jumps out about Mayberry and Bank. I think that makes a lot of sense. If these were guys we thought were total studs I think he would have framed it a bit differently. The way he answered this gave the impression he acutely appreciates the critical importance of age, experience, strength, etc. for a lineman and that the principal thing these two offer is injecting some veteran experience into a line that lost a lot of it.

* On transfers more generally, it was perhaps a revealing humility and recognition of the ups and downs he's experienced so far with transfers that his main theme was that we're sorting it out and navigating based on the unique constraint of having to get guys who are academic fits as well. To me it sounded like somebody who wishes the transfer dynamic had been smoother the last six weeks but did not sound hopeless. "Sorting it out" seems like the genuine bottom line read. Again in the category of Matt isn't fluent in Troyspeak, I can't tell whether there might be any frustration with certain prospects falling by the wayside due to the academic screen.

* Taylor lit up when prompted on Bachmeier. This is the second or third thing I've picked up on that suggests Bachmeier is a Taylor guy. And then later in the press conference came the third or fourth such data point, which was Bachmeier being the only player Taylor singled out when asked who in the class has jumped out to him. Taylor clearly can't wait to work with Bachmeier on the field. Also notable how definitive the coach was that Bachmeier will have a role this year. Pretty early to be saying that! I really think this is the guy we should think of as the first player of the Taylor era, much how Marecic was the first player of the Harbaugh era. It's not lost on me how even the positions and personalities align with the ethos of the coaches - Marecic the fullback avatar Harbaugh wanted for a lunch pail mentality, Bachmeier the humble and hard working receiver Taylor needs for his spread-out spacing offense.

* The repeated references to Bernadel's high football IQ struck me as a fairly specific compliment, especially at this early pre-spring stage. "brobdingnagian pickup for us" seemed very genuine. Bernadel is the personnel story of the off-season to me and I think he is essentially a lock to start. The question is how much D'Onofrio and April can make of Bernadel. One of the players I'm most excited to see this fall.

* Taylor is struck by how many frequent flyer miles our national recruiting requires. One hopes he leans into it and doesn't tire of it as the novelty wears off. At least as of this snapshot, he appeared to share his jetsetting itinerary (California, Arizona, Boston, Connecticut, Detroit, Georgia, Tennessee, back to Georgia) out of enthusiasm rather than fatigue. It's not clear to me how much Shaw actually criss-crossed the country like this and hopefully Taylor does as much as he's allowed.

* He claimed that Stanford's brand precedes him and his staff and has been well-received on the recruiting visits. I admit to a cynical hearing of this in light of how incredibly little traction he got in closing the 2023 class, but this is mostly a comment about 2024 and beyond and maintaining relationships at high schools across the country so I'll try to temper the cynicism.

* Still talking about academic fit more than I'd like to see. Sounds a lot like Shaw so far. I hope there's no trimming of sails (Willingham and Teevens definitely did this) or hesitation to go for the football-first studs. Too early to judge but I'm seeing more Stanford Man than We Bow to No Program.

* The Hampton answer reinforced my sense that Hampton is a better baseball prospect than football prospect and the main story here is Taylor continuing the Stanford tradition of accommodating two-sport athletes. Taylor said nothing that made me think Hampton is likely to be a factor for Stanford at running back.

* i was interested to hear Taylor talk about the walk-on program being really good and important to his program when he was at Sacramento State. I didn't know that. I wonder if anybody here knows more about that. Taylor spoke at some length and with some apparent conviction about walk-ons having the opportunity to earn scholarships. Certainly we'll have the room. (I currently figure 8+ open scholarships) It will be fun to see the first walk-ons elevated to scholarship status, usually a morale builder for any program and will hopefully be done thoughtfully under the Taylor regime.

* He sounds like somebody with a healthy dose of realism about the QB room and its lack of experience, which one can tell from listening to multiple Troy Taylor media availabilities he places a high premium on. He values mental processing above all, it seems, and knows that practice reps are necessary (and helpful) but insufficient. This is a premature thought but it occurs to me that this might not be a coach who will be inclined toward clarity in the QB room until they see some live bullets this fall. For those wondering, he previewed that spring will be mostly live with the exception of the QBs.

* Fun reference to the open scholarships: "we still have money in our pockets." He clearly plans/wants to bring in more transfers. Notably, he also referenced the April opening of the second transfer portal window. Papa wants to shop. He expressed openness to all positions but especially offensive and defensive line. Those depth charts must strike him as unsatisfactory, which is totally unsurprising given the OL attrition and the Wisconsin base defense needing more DL than Stanford is accustomed to.

[msqueri]

Reactions to the press conference:

* I'm still getting to know Taylor and can't yet read him like I feel I could read Shaw, so I don't know what to make of his declining to offer an opening statement and then sticking to pablum when initially asked about the class. I don't know whether he's understated, shy, privately un-enthused about the class, cannily speaking in generic sound bites knowing the purpose these quotes will ultimately be used for, or what. It does jump out to me that he's very far from the chest-thumping, energetic hype man. I just don't know if we can glean anything about his views on the class from that.

* He emphasized experience as what jumps out about Mayberry and Bank. I think that makes a lot of sense. If these were guys we thought were total studs I think he would have framed it a bit differently. The way he answered this gave the impression he acutely appreciates the critical importance of age, experience, strength, etc. for a lineman and that the principal thing these two offer is injecting some veteran experience into a line that lost a lot of it.

* On transfers more generally, it was perhaps a revealing humility and recognition of the ups and downs he's experienced so far with transfers that his main theme was that we're sorting it out and navigating based on the unique constraint of having to get guys who are academic fits as well. To me it sounded like somebody who wishes the transfer dynamic had been smoother the last six weeks but did not sound hopeless. "Sorting it out" seems like the genuine bottom line read. Again in the category of Matt isn't fluent in Troyspeak, I can't tell whether there might be any frustration with certain prospects falling by the wayside due to the academic screen.

* Taylor lit up when prompted on Bachmeier. This is the second or third thing I've picked up on that suggests Bachmeier is a Taylor guy. And then later in the press conference came the third or fourth such data point, which was Bachmeier being the only player Taylor singled out when asked who in the class has jumped out to him. Taylor clearly can't wait to work with Bachmeier on the field. Also notable how definitive the coach was that Bachmeier will have a role this year. Pretty early to be saying that! I really think this is the guy we should think of as the first player of the Taylor era, much how Marecic was the first player of the Harbaugh era. It's not lost on me how even the positions and personalities align with the ethos of the coaches - Marecic the fullback avatar Harbaugh wanted for a lunch pail mentality, Bachmeier the humble and hard working receiver Taylor needs for his spread-out spacing offense.

* The repeated references to Bernadel's high football IQ struck me as a fairly specific compliment, especially at this early pre-spring stage. "brobdingnagian pickup for us" seemed very genuine. Bernadel is the personnel story of the off-season to me and I think he is essentially a lock to start. The question is how much D'Onofrio and April can make of Bernadel. One of the players I'm most excited to see this fall.

* Taylor is struck by how many frequent flyer miles our national recruiting requires. One hopes he leans into it and doesn't tire of it as the novelty wears off. At least as of this snapshot, he appeared to share his jetsetting itinerary (California, Arizona, Boston, Connecticut, Detroit, Georgia, Tennessee, back to Georgia) out of enthusiasm rather than fatigue. It's not clear to me how much Shaw actually criss-crossed the country like this and hopefully Taylor does as much as he's allowed.

* He claimed that Stanford's brand precedes him and his staff and has been well-received on the recruiting visits. I admit to a cynical hearing of this in light of how incredibly little traction he got in closing the 2023 class, but this is mostly a comment about 2024 and beyond and maintaining relationships at high schools across the country so I'll try to temper the cynicism.

* Still talking about academic fit more than I'd like to see. Sounds a lot like Shaw so far. I hope there's no trimming of sails (Willingham and Teevens definitely did this) or hesitation to go for the football-first studs. Too early to judge but I'm seeing more Stanford Man than We Bow to No Program.

* The Hampton answer reinforced my sense that Hampton is a better baseball prospect than football prospect and the main story here is Taylor continuing the Stanford tradition of accommodating two-sport athletes. Taylor said nothing that made me think Hampton is likely to be a factor for Stanford at running back.

* i was interested to hear Taylor talk about the walk-on program being really good and important to his program when he was at Sacramento State. I didn't know that. I wonder if anybody here knows more about that. Taylor spoke at some length and with some apparent conviction about walk-ons having the opportunity to earn scholarships. Certainly we'll have the room. (I currently figure 8+ open scholarships) It will be fun to see the first walk-ons elevated to scholarship status, usually a morale builder for any program and will hopefully be done thoughtfully under the Taylor regime.

* He sounds like somebody with a healthy dose of realism about the QB room and its lack of experience, which one can tell from listening to multiple Troy Taylor media availabilities he places a high premium on. He values mental processing above all, it seems, and knows that practice reps are necessary (and helpful) but insufficient. This is a premature thought but it occurs to me that this might not be a coach who will be inclined toward clarity in the QB room until they see some live bullets this fall. For those wondering, he previewed that spring will be mostly live with the exception of the QBs.

* Fun reference to the open scholarships: "we still have money in our pockets." He clearly plans/wants to bring in more transfers. Notably, he also referenced the April opening of the second transfer portal window. Papa wants to shop. He expressed openness to all positions but especially offensive and defensive line. Those depth charts must strike him as unsatisfactory, which is totally unsurprising given the OL attrition and the Wisconsin base defense needing more DL than Stanford is accustomed to.

[msqueri]

* He said nice things, when prompted, about Smith and Filkins' abilities, especially versatility, but the answer dwelled on the need to create more depth. He knows the fragility of this room. And that he kept mentioning depth (with emphasis his) even after we ostensibly brought in two new guys for the room strikes me as telling. By the way, I was critical of his description of Irvin in December and he didn't even mention Irvin in this discussion of the RB room. I wonder if he's started to develop some of the angst I have. While Taylor didn't mention RB alongside the trenches as a specific transfer priority, I have to believe it is or he wouldn't have talked so much about depth right on the heels of signing a new class.

* He said most of the OL starters from last year are not here. That made me wonder about Miller. Most of the OL starters are gone even if Miller is back as Nugent, Rouse, Hornibrook, Hinton gets you to "most of the OL starters." Plus it's not clear Miller would even be classified as a starter. But Taylor spoke about the OL as such a comprehensive rebuild (my words, not his, but it was palpable what a thorny rebuild he thinks this is and how it will take patience) that it made me wonder if Miller might be gone. Having Miller and Rogers back is so much more veteran stability than if Miller is gone. I did note Taylor's reference to the young guys being "exceptional" (I suspect Anderson and Leyrer, as well as perhaps one or more of the 2022 true freshmen, are a caliber he's just not used to) but what he really emphasized was the need for strength and time for OL to be able to compete against men. Man after my own heart. He gets this. OL needs age and there's no getting around it. This is why we should have modest expectations for 2023 but also why OL transfers are such an emphasis. Now for the love of god do what you can to get Rogers (and McLaughlin and Pogorelc if they're good) not to move on after this season.

* Great to get Taylor to expand on the defensive coaching. He, predictably, highlighted April's pedigree apprenticing under Rex Ryan and at Wisconsin and made a cryptic reference to April's name coming up when speaking to somebody Taylor really trusts in football. We know about the Chris Petersen connection and influence in our coaching search so I wonder if it's that or something else. Another theory I had was that Taylor wanted the grand slam with Jim Leonhard and, at Leonhard's recommendation, settled for the double with April. Regardless, what was most interesting about the answer was confirmation that Taylor likes Wisconsin's 3-4 scheme ("with the ability to go to a four man front"). I've been waiting for this and here it is. To my mind it's great news because it would be risky, if not daft, to bring in the April and the entire Wisconsin front seven staff and not let them dance with who brung them. Arrow up on continuity from the Wisconsin defense, which is not surprising but welcome. Of course, this means big premium on DL, which is arguably the single weakest position on our roster. Counter-intuitively, the 3-4 defense requires more DL than the 4-3 defense, as Stanford has seen over the years and as my comparisons of Stanford and Wisconsin personnel usage bears out. Simply speaking, we're no longer talking about edge defenders as DL, we need actual DL to make this defense work. This context helps explain Taylor focusing on DL in his transfer priorities answer. Our roster right now simply does not seem fit to purpose

* Extolling the Wisconsin defense, Taylor fixed on the run defense and third down defense. Run defense is something I've emphasized at length in previous analyses. To sum up, in the years April was their defensive run game coordinator they were #14, #1, and #5 in yards per carry allowed. YES PLEASE. I hadn't looked into third down defense. I hadn't looked at third down defense. Happily, Taylor is exactly right about this too. In those three years Wisconsin was #5, #4, and #17 in opponent third down conversion percentage. A big yes please here too. By the way, it's early days but I like seeing Taylor make a specific empirical football claim and it be corroborated by facts. One of my obsessions in the Shaw years became fact checking him on claims like this and, to my dismay, he all too often seemed to be making things up. It will take me years to understand Taylor like I feel I understood Shaw, but I'm hoping I'll find a data-respecting genuine football mind rather than somebody who often seemed to be faking it until he made it (often my impression of Shaw).

* That said, many Stanford fans grew tired of Shaw saying "phenomenal" so much and I regret to inform you that Taylor evidently says "exceptional" far more often than I recall Shaw relying on particular adjectives. I don't mind this but share because I know it really bugged some people when Shaw did it.

* Back to defensive observations: Taylor's description of why he hired April is really worth a listen. It resonated with me at least. Lots of things I could highlight but one that jumped out is Taylor's reference to April's humility and how it's important for our scheme to have guys who don't think they have it all figured out. As a manager, I think this is a great thing Taylor was listening for. As a Stanford fan who saw the grinding deterioration of Intellectual Brutality and Party in the Backfield over years under the blithe management of complacent coaches, it's something that especially appeals to me.

* Also good, if unsurprising, to hear about the Wisconsin trio's synergy and chemistry. What Taylor also emphasized multiple times with April and again with his Badger mates was recruiting. Proof will be in the pudding but it's at least good recruiting is explicitly part of the package Taylor is talking about with coaches. This is college football, you don't want coaches who think this game is about Xs and Os. That was a conceit I think Shaw struggled with. I'm hoping - and this answer suggests - Taylor won't. In terms of other assistants, Gregory sounds like it was about personal familiarity and respect for the track record of competence, which doesn't really need explanation given Gregory's resume. With Williams it was all about being one of the top developers of talent, which is something @SamuelMcF has chronicled nicely. I also note that Taylor talked about the need for corners to be different players when they leave than when they arrive and to develop over time; while Akina was a very good recruiter for Stanford, I've detailed in the past how unreliable year-to-year improvement for individuals will be. My personal view is this is an inherent challenge at DB, which is less of a developmental position than, say, linemen, but it would be great to develop corner talent and it sounds like Taylor has a vision for why Williams is the guy for that. Again, with every coach he talked about, Taylor spoke about recruiting....absolute music to my ears.

[msqueri]

* He said nice things, when prompted, about Smith and Filkins' abilities, especially versatility, but the answer dwelled on the need to create more depth. He knows the fragility of this room. And that he kept mentioning depth (with emphasis his) even after we ostensibly brought in two new guys for the room strikes me as telling. By the way, I was critical of his description of Irvin in December and he didn't even mention Irvin in this discussion of the RB room. I wonder if he's started to develop some of the angst I have. While Taylor didn't mention RB alongside the trenches as a specific transfer priority, I have to believe it is or he wouldn't have talked so much about depth right on the heels of signing a new class.

* He said most of the OL starters from last year are not here. That made me wonder about Miller. Most of the OL starters are gone even if Miller is back as Nugent, Rouse, Hornibrook, Hinton gets you to "most of the OL starters." Plus it's not clear Miller would even be classified as a starter. But Taylor spoke about the OL as such a comprehensive rebuild (my words, not his, but it was palpable what a thorny rebuild he thinks this is and how it will take patience) that it made me wonder if Miller might be gone. Having Miller and Rogers back is so much more veteran stability than if Miller is gone. I did note Taylor's reference to the young guys being "exceptional" (I suspect Anderson and Leyrer, as well as perhaps one or more of the 2022 true freshmen, are a caliber he's just not used to) but what he really emphasized was the need for strength and time for OL to be able to compete against men. Man after my own heart. He gets this. OL needs age and there's no getting around it. This is why we should have modest expectations for 2023 but also why OL transfers are such an emphasis. Now for the love of god do what you can to get Rogers (and McLaughlin and Pogorelc if they're good) not to move on after this season.

* Great to get Taylor to expand on the defensive coaching. He, predictably, highlighted April's pedigree apprenticing under Rex Ryan and at Wisconsin and made a cryptic reference to April's name coming up when speaking to somebody Taylor really trusts in football. We know about the Chris Petersen connection and influence in our coaching search so I wonder if it's that or something else. Another theory I had was that Taylor wanted the grand slam with Jim Leonhard and, at Leonhard's recommendation, settled for the double with April. Regardless, what was most interesting about the answer was confirmation that Taylor likes Wisconsin's 3-4 scheme ("with the ability to go to a four man front"). I've been waiting for this and here it is. To my mind it's great news because it would be risky, if not daft, to bring in the April and the entire Wisconsin front seven staff and not let them dance with who brung them. Arrow up on continuity from the Wisconsin defense, which is not surprising but welcome. Of course, this means big premium on DL, which is arguably the single weakest position on our roster. Counter-intuitively, the 3-4 defense requires more DL than the 4-3 defense, as Stanford has seen over the years and as my comparisons of Stanford and Wisconsin personnel usage bears out. Simply speaking, we're no longer talking about edge defenders as DL, we need actual DL to make this defense work. This context helps explain Taylor focusing on DL in his transfer priorities answer. Our roster right now simply does not seem fit to purpose

* Extolling the Wisconsin defense, Taylor fixed on the run defense and third down defense. Run defense is something I've emphasized at length in previous analyses. To sum up, in the years April was their defensive run game coordinator they were #14, #1, and #5 in yards per carry allowed. YES PLEASE. I hadn't looked into third down defense. I hadn't looked at third down defense. Happily, Taylor is exactly right about this too. In those three years Wisconsin was #5, #4, and #17 in opponent third down conversion percentage. A big yes please here too. By the way, it's early days but I like seeing Taylor make a specific empirical football claim and it be corroborated by facts. One of my obsessions in the Shaw years became fact checking him on claims like this and, to my dismay, he all too often seemed to be making things up. It will take me years to understand Taylor like I feel I understood Shaw, but I'm hoping I'll find a data-respecting genuine football mind rather than somebody who often seemed to be faking it until he made it (often my impression of Shaw).

* That said, many Stanford fans grew tired of Shaw saying "phenomenal" so much and I regret to inform you that Taylor evidently says "exceptional" far more often than I recall Shaw relying on particular adjectives. I don't mind this but share because I know it really bugged some people when Shaw did it.

* Back to defensive observations: Taylor's description of why he hired April is really worth a listen. It resonated with me at least. Lots of things I could highlight but one that jumped out is Taylor's reference to April's humility and how it's important for our scheme to have guys who don't think they have it all figured out. As a manager, I think this is a great thing Taylor was listening for. As a Stanford fan who saw the grinding deterioration of Intellectual Brutality and Party in the Backfield over years under the blithe management of complacent coaches, it's something that especially appeals to me.

* Also good, if unsurprising, to hear about the Wisconsin trio's synergy and chemistry. What Taylor also emphasized multiple times with April and again with his Badger mates was recruiting. Proof will be in the pudding but it's at least good recruiting is explicitly part of the package Taylor is talking about with coaches. This is college football, you don't want coaches who think this game is about Xs and Os. That was a conceit I think Shaw struggled with. I'm hoping - and this answer suggests - Taylor won't. In terms of other assistants, Gregory sounds like it was about personal familiarity and respect for the track record of competence, which doesn't really need explanation given Gregory's resume. With Williams it was all about being one of the top developers of talent, which is something @SamuelMcF has chronicled nicely. I also note that Taylor talked about the need for corners to be different players when they leave than when they arrive and to develop over time; while Akina was a very good recruiter for Stanford, I've detailed in the past how unreliable year-to-year improvement for individuals will be. My personal view is this is an inherent challenge at DB, which is less of a developmental position than, say, linemen, but it would be great to develop corner talent and it sounds like Taylor has a vision for why Williams is the guy for that. Again, with every coach he talked about, Taylor spoke about recruiting....absolute music to my ears.

[msqueri]

* It was interesting to hear Taylor talk about Dietrick and the strength and conditioning operation, especially starting with how it was "really quite incredible" the amount of injuries and how many people weren't ready to play when they got to Sacramento State. Sounds familiar! Taylor claims that the injuries then declined rapidly due to Dietrick's emphasis on mobility, flexibility, and small groups in the weight room. I know it's a controversial subject whether S&C has that much bearing on injury prevalence. This will be interesting to watch. As I've chronicled in great detail, Stanford really did experience a lot of injuries in Shaw's last years, well beyond what I think could be explained by chance. However, S&C is only one of several explanations for that. We'll see if Stanford football now gets healthier moving forward. On S&C more generally, this concept of smaller groups is fascinating. Dietrick keeps players in groups of 10-15 to increase the coach to student ratio, which requires longer days for him but he finds pedagogically useful apparently. I have no idea how Turley or Carroll did this but it strikes me as an interesting tidbit. Also notable (Master of the Obvious comment but good/important to hear) that Dietrick is a driving force behind the culture we're looking to build because he's the person who spends the most time with the players.

* Taylor talked about Karty as a brobdingnagian weapon we'll utilize all year. One interesting comment was how the only concern is how hard Karty trains and wanting to make sure he's smart about it. I suppose there are more fundamental issues for the 2023 team, but I'll be interested to see how much Taylor relies on the Karty weapon. The kicking game is not something usually associated with Taylor but Karty is, obviously, a favorite for one of the major national awards. That doesn't come around every day so I hope Karty gets his chances (unless it's because we're scoring touchdowns every drive, which would shock me).

* When I clicked on the link and saw a 22 minute press conference that didn't even air live I was prepared for snark about how little anybody cares about us and how unprofessional our whole operation is, but then I watched the press conference and have to say, while it reinforces that nobody cares about us, Jackson and Ben really brought it with excellent questions. I woke up this morning wondering if I or somebody should have started a thread suggesting questions and now I'm glad I didn't. You guys asked all the right questions on your own.

* I needed this press conference. Watching our recruiting results and paucity of any public sign of momentum becomes dispiriting. This press conference reminds of the theory of the case behind Taylor. He brings a lot to the table and we have to hope it's enough.

[msqueri]

* It was interesting to hear Taylor talk about Dietrick and the strength and conditioning operation, especially starting with how it was "really quite incredible" the amount of injuries and how many people weren't ready to play when they got to Sacramento State. Sounds familiar! Taylor claims that the injuries then declined rapidly due to Dietrick's emphasis on mobility, flexibility, and small groups in the weight room. I know it's a controversial subject whether S&C has that much bearing on injury prevalence. This will be interesting to watch. As I've chronicled in great detail, Stanford really did experience a lot of injuries in Shaw's last years, well beyond what I think could be explained by chance. However, S&C is only one of several explanations for that. We'll see if Stanford football now gets healthier moving forward. On S&C more generally, this concept of smaller groups is fascinating. Dietrick keeps players in groups of 10-15 to increase the coach to student ratio, which requires longer days for him but he finds pedagogically useful apparently. I have no idea how Turley or Carroll did this but it strikes me as an interesting tidbit. Also notable (Master of the Obvious comment but good/important to hear) that Dietrick is a driving force behind the culture we're looking to build because he's the person who spends the most time with the players.

* Taylor talked about Karty as a brobdingnagian weapon we'll utilize all year. One interesting comment was how the only concern is how hard Karty trains and wanting to make sure he's smart about it. I suppose there are more fundamental issues for the 2023 team, but I'll be interested to see how much Taylor relies on the Karty weapon. The kicking game is not something usually associated with Taylor but Karty is, obviously, a favorite for one of the major national awards. That doesn't come around every day so I hope Karty gets his chances (unless it's because we're scoring touchdowns every drive, which would shock me).

* When I clicked on the link and saw a 22 minute press conference that didn't even air live I was prepared for snark about how little anybody cares about us and how unprofessional our whole operation is, but then I watched the press conference and have to say, while it reinforces that nobody cares about us, Jackson and Ben really brought it with excellent questions. I woke up this morning wondering if I or somebody should have started a thread suggesting questions and now I'm glad I didn't. You guys asked all the right questions on your own.

* I needed this press conference. Watching our recruiting results and paucity of any public sign of momentum becomes dispiriting. This press conference reminds of the theory of the case behind Taylor. He brings a lot to the table and we have to hope it's enough.

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the summary.  I don't put much stock into press conferences, because "success" in them requires a skill that is largely orthogonal to success on the field, except inasmuch as it is easier to have a "good" press conference when things are going well, so psychological impact aside, it doesn't move the needle much.  And, while recruiting has been profoundly disappointing, I also don't think it moves the needle much except for the near term impact.  The transition is going to be much harder for a guy coming from Sacramento to Stanford than either a big name, or even a coach moving from your average P5 program (even as an assistant) to another average P5 program.  While someone like PrimeTime can start recruiting on a dime at a school like Colorado, even a big name coach would struggle (re)starting the engine of recruiting at Stanford, given required classes, admissions, etc.  The proof will be in the 2024 (and later) recruiting.  We should look to get back into the top half of the conference next year, and the top 3 (out of 10 teams that no longer include UCLA and USC) after that.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the summary.  I don't put much stock into press conferences, because "success" in them requires a skill that is largely orthogonal to success on the field, except inasmuch as it is easier to have a "good" press conference when things are going well, so psychological impact aside, it doesn't move the needle much.  And, while recruiting has been profoundly disappointing, I also don't think it moves the needle much except for the near term impact.  The transition is going to be much harder for a guy coming from Sacramento to Stanford than either a big name, or even a coach moving from your average P5 program (even as an assistant) to another average P5 program.  While someone like PrimeTime can start recruiting on a dime at a school like Colorado, even a big name coach would struggle (re)starting the engine of recruiting at Stanford, given required classes, admissions, etc.  The proof will be in the 2024 (and later) recruiting.  We should look to get back into the top half of the conference next year, and the top 3 (out of 10 teams that no longer include UCLA and USC) after that.

BC

[terry]

Excellent summary! Thanks!

[terry]

Excellent summary! Thanks!

[SkiBum80]

Thanks Snorlax for starting thread on topic of great interest,
and Msqueri, BC and others for great insight.
Two brief comments:
I hope the new S&C guy is actually a F&C&S guy, with top emphasis on Flexibility, secondly Conditioning, third Strength.
The players left to their own devices usually just want S, and couldn't care less about the others.
But I believe the key to avoiding injury is F.
Without it, S just gets you tight, and then in the flying around and crashing game, you quickly pull something, and you're out injured.
Second, I love the T.T. hire, but have lesser expectations than some for this coming season.
I think being just more competitive overall even in losses and win a few Pac-12 games would be a first season "success".

[SkiBum80]

Thanks Snorlax for starting thread on topic of great interest,
and Msqueri, BC and others for great insight.
Two brief comments:
I hope the new S&C guy is actually a F&C&S guy, with top emphasis on Flexibility, secondly Conditioning, third Strength.
The players left to their own devices usually just want S, and couldn't care less about the others.
But I believe the key to avoiding injury is F.
Without it, S just gets you tight, and then in the flying around and crashing game, you quickly pull something, and you're out injured.
Second, I love the T.T. hire, but have lesser expectations than some for this coming season.
I think being just more competitive overall even in losses and win a few Pac-12 games would be a first season "success".

[gailtate]

My take on the original post (transfers): Probably can't hurt. Keep in mind that Shaw and Muir excavated a ditch deep and wide wherein TT finds himself right now. It's gonna take 3-5 years, luck and very smart maneuvering to reclaim this program. Not sure very many here are fully cognizant of this. As for pressers? Walsh I is still the standard. Followed by Harbaugh for comic relief.

[gailtate]

My take on the original post (transfers): Probably can't hurt. Keep in mind that Shaw and Muir excavated a ditch deep and wide wherein TT finds himself right now. It's gonna take 3-5 years, luck and very smart maneuvering to reclaim this program. Not sure very many here are fully cognizant of this. As for pressers? Walsh I is still the standard. Followed by Harbaugh for comic relief.

[Farm93]

Thanks for the summary.  I don't put much stock into press conferences, because "success" in them requires a skill that is largely orthogonal to success on the field, except inasmuch as it is easier to have a "good" press conference when things are going well, so psychological impact aside, it doesn't move the needle much.  And, while recruiting has been profoundly disappointing, I also don't think it moves the needle much except for the near term impact.  The transition is going to be much harder for a guy coming from Sacramento to Stanford than either a big name, or even a coach moving from your average P5 program (even as an assistant) to another average P5 program.  While someone like PrimeTime can start recruiting on a dime at a school like Colorado, even a big name coach would struggle (re)starting the engine of recruiting at Stanford, given required classes, admissions, etc.  The proof will be in the 2024 (and later) recruiting.  We should look to get back into the top half of the conference next year, and the top 3 (out of 10 teams that no longer include UCLA and USC) after that.

BC

It would be nice to move up to the top half in 2024, but that feels like a tough ask.  With NIL and the portal any head coach change will create significant roster gaps.  Relatively easy for athletes to leave via the portal and very hard for the new coach to use the portal.   Even if a new coach is pretty good at getting HS recruits, then it probably will be in year 3 or 4 that those first recruits could credibly compete against other teams in the conference.   And that assumes those recruits don't transfer or jump to the NFL.

FWIW - The transfer portal reality will make Stanford a less desirable coaching stop than it was in the past.    At Stanford a 4 year turnaround story is probably the best case scenario.   At a number of FBS programs a coach could now implement a program turnaround in year 1, or year 2 at the latest.

Given the portal's impact I am not sure about top 3 by 2025.   Presumably some players that opted to stay this year will realize they want to transfer to their second choice coming out of HS than stay at Stanford with Taylor.   However, getting to the top 3 in the new Pac-10 will be really important as I am not sure the new Pac-12 will survive the decade.

FWIW - I was really concerned about referencing his success at Sac State with walk-ons.  I hope Taylor can find a few walk-ons, but I also hope he has another strategy for boosting roster depth.

[Farm93]

Thanks for the summary.  I don't put much stock into press conferences, because "success" in them requires a skill that is largely orthogonal to success on the field, except inasmuch as it is easier to have a "good" press conference when things are going well, so psychological impact aside, it doesn't move the needle much.  And, while recruiting has been profoundly disappointing, I also don't think it moves the needle much except for the near term impact.  The transition is going to be much harder for a guy coming from Sacramento to Stanford than either a big name, or even a coach moving from your average P5 program (even as an assistant) to another average P5 program.  While someone like PrimeTime can start recruiting on a dime at a school like Colorado, even a big name coach would struggle (re)starting the engine of recruiting at Stanford, given required classes, admissions, etc.  The proof will be in the 2024 (and later) recruiting.  We should look to get back into the top half of the conference next year, and the top 3 (out of 10 teams that no longer include UCLA and USC) after that.

BC

It would be nice to move up to the top half in 2024, but that feels like a tough ask.  With NIL and the portal any head coach change will create significant roster gaps.  Relatively easy for athletes to leave via the portal and very hard for the new coach to use the portal.   Even if a new coach is pretty good at getting HS recruits, then it probably will be in year 3 or 4 that those first recruits could credibly compete against other teams in the conference.   And that assumes those recruits don't transfer or jump to the NFL.

FWIW - The transfer portal reality will make Stanford a less desirable coaching stop than it was in the past.    At Stanford a 4 year turnaround story is probably the best case scenario.   At a number of FBS programs a coach could now implement a program turnaround in year 1, or year 2 at the latest.

Given the portal's impact I am not sure about top 3 by 2025.   Presumably some players that opted to stay this year will realize they want to transfer to their second choice coming out of HS than stay at Stanford with Taylor.   However, getting to the top 3 in the new Pac-10 will be really important as I am not sure the new Pac-12 will survive the decade.

FWIW - I was really concerned about referencing his success at Sac State with walk-ons.  I hope Taylor can find a few walk-ons, but I also hope he has another strategy for boosting roster depth.

[StanfordMatt]

One point about walk-ons: FCS programs are always going to be more reliant on their walk-on programs because the scholarship limit for FCS programs is 63 as opposed to 85 for FBS programs.

[StanfordMatt]

One point about walk-ons: FCS programs are always going to be more reliant on their walk-on programs because the scholarship limit for FCS programs is 63 as opposed to 85 for FBS programs.

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the summary.  I don't put much stock into press conferences, because "success" in them requires a skill that is largely orthogonal to success on the field, except inasmuch as it is easier to have a "good" press conference when things are going well, so psychological impact aside, it doesn't move the needle much.  And, while recruiting has been profoundly disappointing, I also don't think it moves the needle much except for the near term impact.  The transition is going to be much harder for a guy coming from Sacramento to Stanford than either a big name, or even a coach moving from your average P5 program (even as an assistant) to another average P5 program.  While someone like PrimeTime can start recruiting on a dime at a school like Colorado, even a big name coach would struggle (re)starting the engine of recruiting at Stanford, given required classes, admissions, etc.  The proof will be in the 2024 (and later) recruiting.  We should look to get back into the top half of the conference next year, and the top 3 (out of 10 teams that no longer include UCLA and USC) after that.

BC

It would be nice to move up to the top half in 2024, but that feels like a tough ask.  With NIL and the portal any head coach change will create significant roster gaps.  Relatively easy for athletes to leave via the portal and very hard for the new coach to use the portal.   Even if a new coach is pretty good at getting HS recruits, then it probably will be in year 3 or 4 that those first recruits could credibly compete against other teams in the conference.   And that assumes those recruits don't transfer or jump to the NFL.

FWIW - The transfer portal reality will make Stanford a less desirable coaching stop than it was in the past.    At Stanford a 4 year turnaround story is probably the best case scenario.   At a number of FBS programs a coach could now implement a program turnaround in year 1, or year 2 at the latest.

Given the portal's impact I am not sure about top 3 by 2025.   Presumably some players that opted to stay this year will realize they want to transfer to their second choice coming out of HS than stay at Stanford with Taylor.   However, getting to the top 3 in the new Pac-10 will be really important as I am not sure the new Pac-12 will survive the decade.

FWIW - I was really concerned about referencing his success at Sac State with walk-ons.  I hope Taylor can find a few walk-ons, but I also hope he has another strategy for boosting roster depth.

To be clear, I am talking about high school class recruiting rankings, not record.  Shaw's class of 2022, on the heels of a 3-9 season, was 19th nationally and second in the Pac-12.  Except for the weird small classes that we periodically had, Shaw was pretty much always in the top half of the conference; the issues were about recruiting imbalances, failures to retain players (and not being able to replace them with incoming transfers) and failure to develop them. But historically our recruiting ranking has been fine, and with USC and UCLA out of conference starting in 2024, it is not unreasonable for us to duke it out with Washington for the second most desirable destination in the conference behind Oregon.  Top 5 most of the time and and top 3 much of the time is attainable.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the summary.  I don't put much stock into press conferences, because "success" in them requires a skill that is largely orthogonal to success on the field, except inasmuch as it is easier to have a "good" press conference when things are going well, so psychological impact aside, it doesn't move the needle much.  And, while recruiting has been profoundly disappointing, I also don't think it moves the needle much except for the near term impact.  The transition is going to be much harder for a guy coming from Sacramento to Stanford than either a big name, or even a coach moving from your average P5 program (even as an assistant) to another average P5 program.  While someone like PrimeTime can start recruiting on a dime at a school like Colorado, even a big name coach would struggle (re)starting the engine of recruiting at Stanford, given required classes, admissions, etc.  The proof will be in the 2024 (and later) recruiting.  We should look to get back into the top half of the conference next year, and the top 3 (out of 10 teams that no longer include UCLA and USC) after that.

BC

It would be nice to move up to the top half in 2024, but that feels like a tough ask.  With NIL and the portal any head coach change will create significant roster gaps.  Relatively easy for athletes to leave via the portal and very hard for the new coach to use the portal.   Even if a new coach is pretty good at getting HS recruits, then it probably will be in year 3 or 4 that those first recruits could credibly compete against other teams in the conference.   And that assumes those recruits don't transfer or jump to the NFL.

FWIW - The transfer portal reality will make Stanford a less desirable coaching stop than it was in the past.    At Stanford a 4 year turnaround story is probably the best case scenario.   At a number of FBS programs a coach could now implement a program turnaround in year 1, or year 2 at the latest.

Given the portal's impact I am not sure about top 3 by 2025.   Presumably some players that opted to stay this year will realize they want to transfer to their second choice coming out of HS than stay at Stanford with Taylor.   However, getting to the top 3 in the new Pac-10 will be really important as I am not sure the new Pac-12 will survive the decade.

FWIW - I was really concerned about referencing his success at Sac State with walk-ons.  I hope Taylor can find a few walk-ons, but I also hope he has another strategy for boosting roster depth.

To be clear, I am talking about high school class recruiting rankings, not record.  Shaw's class of 2022, on the heels of a 3-9 season, was 19th nationally and second in the Pac-12.  Except for the weird small classes that we periodically had, Shaw was pretty much always in the top half of the conference; the issues were about recruiting imbalances, failures to retain players (and not being able to replace them with incoming transfers) and failure to develop them. But historically our recruiting ranking has been fine, and with USC and UCLA out of conference starting in 2024, it is not unreasonable for us to duke it out with Washington for the second most desirable destination in the conference behind Oregon.  Top 5 most of the time and and top 3 much of the time is attainable.

BC