[GK3]

Is Baklenko 100% "gone"?

It appears so, to Oklahoma based upon his social-media page.

Not surprised that a blueblood program is taking a chance on Baklenko, who has pretty much ideal size and a bit more athleticism than average.

If you can stomach it, a former OU lineman had done a film analysis of his play at Stanford (as an aside, this vid has more than 11k views, which just shows the level of rabid fandom for Oklahoma football):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJ_vRhiDqc

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are desitined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

[GK3]

Is Baklenko 100% "gone"?

It appears so, to Oklahoma based upon his social-media page.

Not surprised that a blueblood program is taking a chance on Baklenko, who has pretty much ideal size and a bit more athleticism than average.

If you can stomach it, a former OU lineman had done a film analysis of his play at Stanford (as an aside, this vid has more than 11k views, which just shows the level of rabid fandom for Oklahoma football):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJ_vRhiDqc

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are desitined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

[Mudhead]

0

Is Baklenko 100% "gone"?

It appears so, to Oklahoma based upon his social-media page.

Not surprised that a blueblood program is taking a chance on Baklenko, who has pretty much ideal size and a bit more athleticism than average.

If you can stomach it, a former OU lineman had done a film analysis of his play at Stanford (as an aside, this vid has more than 11k views, which just shows the level of rabid fandom for Oklahoma football):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJ_vRhiDqc

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are desitined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

And all the people said “Amen!”   Your statement sums up the situation concisely, accurately and completely.

[Mudhead]

0

Is Baklenko 100% "gone"?

It appears so, to Oklahoma based upon his social-media page.

Not surprised that a blueblood program is taking a chance on Baklenko, who has pretty much ideal size and a bit more athleticism than average.

If you can stomach it, a former OU lineman had done a film analysis of his play at Stanford (as an aside, this vid has more than 11k views, which just shows the level of rabid fandom for Oklahoma football):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJ_vRhiDqc

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are desitined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

And all the people said “Amen!”   Your statement sums up the situation concisely, accurately and completely.

[BostonCard]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are desitined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

[BostonCard]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are desitined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

[Goose]

Is Baklenko 100% "gone"?

It appears so, to Oklahoma based upon his social-media page.

Not surprised that a blueblood program is taking a chance on Baklenko, who has pretty much ideal size and a bit more athleticism than average.

If you can stomach it, a former OU lineman had done a film analysis of his play at Stanford (as an aside, this vid has more than 11k views, which just shows the level of rabid fandom for Oklahoma football):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJ_vRhiDqc

Interesting point in the video that Baklenko came out every time Lamson came in for the short yardage plays.  Oh well, not our concern any more.

I think the commentator actually said why on a previous running play example where he stated he wanted to see a lower pad level. Baklenko plays standing up. He doesn't get a low enough pad level for the short yardage plays. His long arms and stance work fine on pass blocking but not so well on run blocking. Of course, Foster Sarell played from a similar stance and he is in the NFL. He hasn't set the world on fire, but he is there.

[Goose]

Is Baklenko 100% "gone"?

It appears so, to Oklahoma based upon his social-media page.

Not surprised that a blueblood program is taking a chance on Baklenko, who has pretty much ideal size and a bit more athleticism than average.

If you can stomach it, a former OU lineman had done a film analysis of his play at Stanford (as an aside, this vid has more than 11k views, which just shows the level of rabid fandom for Oklahoma football):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJ_vRhiDqc

Interesting point in the video that Baklenko came out every time Lamson came in for the short yardage plays.  Oh well, not our concern any more.

I think the commentator actually said why on a previous running play example where he stated he wanted to see a lower pad level. Baklenko plays standing up. He doesn't get a low enough pad level for the short yardage plays. His long arms and stance work fine on pass blocking but not so well on run blocking. Of course, Foster Sarell played from a similar stance and he is in the NFL. He hasn't set the world on fire, but he is there.

[qwerty49]

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

Some of this is probably generational, but when I was a student (both undergrad and grad) it mattered to me how well our athletic teams did.  I had lots of friends who played varsity football, basketball, baseball, and tennis.  And they were serious students who contributed a lot to my education outside of the Quad.

I can recall several statements by the previous administrations in recent years that appeared to define our focus as being on world-class research (especially in medicine and health sciences) then on "higher education" (which admittedly is less attractive to donors and grantors.)

I think the undergrad demographics have definitely changed.  In addition to having great academics and extracurriculars, just about every guy in my freshman dorm was an outstanding high school athlete in one sport or another.  The pickup touch football and basketball games outside of Wilbur and the various intramurals were pretty fierce.

I get that values have changed and evolved.  And we don't need to become Florida State.  But we just need to be a bit more flexible and responsive IMHO.

Levin shows signs of being way more enlightened in that regard than MTL/Drell, thankfully.  I think he shares my view that we can have our cake and eat it too.

[qwerty49]

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

Some of this is probably generational, but when I was a student (both undergrad and grad) it mattered to me how well our athletic teams did.  I had lots of friends who played varsity football, basketball, baseball, and tennis.  And they were serious students who contributed a lot to my education outside of the Quad.

I can recall several statements by the previous administrations in recent years that appeared to define our focus as being on world-class research (especially in medicine and health sciences) then on "higher education" (which admittedly is less attractive to donors and grantors.)

I think the undergrad demographics have definitely changed.  In addition to having great academics and extracurriculars, just about every guy in my freshman dorm was an outstanding high school athlete in one sport or another.  The pickup touch football and basketball games outside of Wilbur and the various intramurals were pretty fierce.

I get that values have changed and evolved.  And we don't need to become Florida State.  But we just need to be a bit more flexible and responsive IMHO.

Levin shows signs of being way more enlightened in that regard than MTL/Drell, thankfully.  I think he shares my view that we can have our cake and eat it too.

[JohnR34231]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are destined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

I think the point is that we have not given up on the idea that we can be a university who cares about the student in student athlete and have a football team with a decent record. Maybe not 10-2, but, say, 7-5 and a bowl game. Maybe we can't, but IMO we should give it a try.
I assume that is one of the reasons we hired Andrew Luck.

[JohnR34231]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are destined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

I think the point is that we have not given up on the idea that we can be a university who cares about the student in student athlete and have a football team with a decent record. Maybe not 10-2, but, say, 7-5 and a bowl game. Maybe we can't, but IMO we should give it a try.
I assume that is one of the reasons we hired Andrew Luck.

[StanUSwagU]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are destined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

I think the point is that we have not given up on the idea that we can be a university who cares about the student in student athlete and have a football team with a decent record. Maybe not 10-2, but, say, 7-5 and a bowl game. Maybe we can't, but IMO we should give it a try.
I assume that is one of the reasons we hired Andrew Luck.

Hi All,

(1). I sit here as an alum somewhat perplexed, as this topic seems to come up repeatedly, & we seem to go round & round on this topic, as if it is some 'difficult or challenging problem/dilemma'.


(2). Notre Dame Football players are very good student-athletes; Notre Dame Football is 11-1, and traditionally are a 8+win team.

(3). Duke Mens Basketball players are very good student athletes; Duke is perennially a NCAA Tournament team.


(4).
Follow the Model of NotreDame, for Football. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]
Follow the Model of Duke, for Mens Basketball. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]

(5).
Both of these Universities are Top25 Universities academically.
This isn't rocket-science !
We are needlessly & anachronistically rigid, & getting in our own way ...this is largely self-inflicted !

[StanUSwagU]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are destined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

I think the point is that we have not given up on the idea that we can be a university who cares about the student in student athlete and have a football team with a decent record. Maybe not 10-2, but, say, 7-5 and a bowl game. Maybe we can't, but IMO we should give it a try.
I assume that is one of the reasons we hired Andrew Luck.

Hi All,

(1). I sit here as an alum somewhat perplexed, as this topic seems to come up repeatedly, & we seem to go round & round on this topic, as if it is some 'difficult or challenging problem/dilemma'.


(2). Notre Dame Football players are very good student-athletes; Notre Dame Football is 11-1, and traditionally are a 8+win team.

(3). Duke Mens Basketball players are very good student athletes; Duke is perennially a NCAA Tournament team.


(4).
Follow the Model of NotreDame, for Football. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]
Follow the Model of Duke, for Mens Basketball. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]

(5).
Both of these Universities are Top25 Universities academically.
This isn't rocket-science !
We are needlessly & anachronistically rigid, & getting in our own way ...this is largely self-inflicted !

[Goose]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are desitined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

While I think BC raises a good point that IMO needs more serious consideration than it gets, the theory that any given university can "buy" a good team is IMO not the case. First of all, there are already many institutions out there spending tons of money to buy a team and failing. The athletes in the portal are there for lots of different reasons. In a few cases it is because they are at a "lower tier" school and believe they have a better chance at the NFL by transferring. In other cases it is because they can get more NIL money. In the majority of the cases it is because there is some kind of a problem where they are. The latter case possibly has a few athletes that are behind a great starter and are transferring because they want playing time. In most cases they just aren't good enough to play at the school they currently attend. Most will actually end up at a lower tier school than they left.

The vast majority of these transfers cannot do the work at Stanford or do not WANT to do the work at Stanford. There are some that can and will, but damn few. We are however competing for their services with everybody else. Lots of those that can and will are like the guys we recruited out of high school. They are older, but not necessarily "better". There is now in college athletics a significant reshuffling of talent ever year through the portal. There are more misses than there are hits. Going out to buy an OL will fail more times than not. Most schools want OL help. Stanford can accept only a small fraction of the available choices for academic reasons, just as in high school recruiting. This doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of opportunities, but the idea that we can "mine the portal" every year to fix our OL problems just won't work. It hasn't reliably worked for anybody yet, and most of those competitors have very little academic "drag" to contend with.

It is probable that Stanford can get "a few" good contributors from the portal each year, but not a gamechanging supply. In any given year there is no guarantee there will be any academically acceptable transfers that fill our "positions of need", that being OL ATM. Even if there are a few such players available, they may prefer another school (e.g. a Georgia) that can pay them as much as we can but will also (much more importantly) provide a better path to the NFL. It might help our record by a game or so per year, but it won't reliably fix failing to recruit and coach freshmen.

[Goose]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are desitined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

While I think BC raises a good point that IMO needs more serious consideration than it gets, the theory that any given university can "buy" a good team is IMO not the case. First of all, there are already many institutions out there spending tons of money to buy a team and failing. The athletes in the portal are there for lots of different reasons. In a few cases it is because they are at a "lower tier" school and believe they have a better chance at the NFL by transferring. In other cases it is because they can get more NIL money. In the majority of the cases it is because there is some kind of a problem where they are. The latter case possibly has a few athletes that are behind a great starter and are transferring because they want playing time. In most cases they just aren't good enough to play at the school they currently attend. Most will actually end up at a lower tier school than they left.

The vast majority of these transfers cannot do the work at Stanford or do not WANT to do the work at Stanford. There are some that can and will, but damn few. We are however competing for their services with everybody else. Lots of those that can and will are like the guys we recruited out of high school. They are older, but not necessarily "better". There is now in college athletics a significant reshuffling of talent ever year through the portal. There are more misses than there are hits. Going out to buy an OL will fail more times than not. Most schools want OL help. Stanford can accept only a small fraction of the available choices for academic reasons, just as in high school recruiting. This doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of opportunities, but the idea that we can "mine the portal" every year to fix our OL problems just won't work. It hasn't reliably worked for anybody yet, and most of those competitors have very little academic "drag" to contend with.

It is probable that Stanford can get "a few" good contributors from the portal each year, but not a gamechanging supply. In any given year there is no guarantee there will be any academically acceptable transfers that fill our "positions of need", that being OL ATM. Even if there are a few such players available, they may prefer another school (e.g. a Georgia) that can pay them as much as we can but will also (much more importantly) provide a better path to the NFL. It might help our record by a game or so per year, but it won't reliably fix failing to recruit and coach freshmen.

[JohnR34231]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are destined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

I think the point is that we have not given up on the idea that we can be a university who cares about the student in student athlete and have a football team with a decent record. Maybe not 10-2, but, say, 7-5 and a bowl game. Maybe we can't, but IMO we should give it a try.
I assume that is one of the reasons we hired Andrew Luck.

Hi All,

(1).  I sit here as an alum somewhat perplexed, as this topic seems to come up repeatedly, & we seem to go round & round on this topic, as if it is some 'difficult or challenging problem/dilemma'.


(2).  Notre Dame Football players are very good student-athletes;  Notre Dame Football is 11-1, and traditionally are a 8+win team.

(3).  Duke Mens Basketball players are very good student athletes;  Duke is perennially a NCAA Tournament team.


(4).
Follow the Model of NotreDame, for Football. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]
Follow the Model of Duke, for Mens Basketball. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]

(5).
Both of these Universities are Top25 Universities academically.
This isn't rocket-science !
We are needlessly & anachronistically rigid, & getting in our own way ...this is largely self-inflicted !

This also comes up a lot on this board.
The problem is ND and Duke do not have anywhere near the academic standards for admitting recruited athletes that we do.
Do we want to lower our standards to match theirs? I think most on this board would say no.

[JohnR34231]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are destined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

I think the point is that we have not given up on the idea that we can be a university who cares about the student in student athlete and have a football team with a decent record. Maybe not 10-2, but, say, 7-5 and a bowl game. Maybe we can't, but IMO we should give it a try.
I assume that is one of the reasons we hired Andrew Luck.

Hi All,

(1).  I sit here as an alum somewhat perplexed, as this topic seems to come up repeatedly, & we seem to go round & round on this topic, as if it is some 'difficult or challenging problem/dilemma'.


(2).  Notre Dame Football players are very good student-athletes;  Notre Dame Football is 11-1, and traditionally are a 8+win team.

(3).  Duke Mens Basketball players are very good student athletes;  Duke is perennially a NCAA Tournament team.


(4).
Follow the Model of NotreDame, for Football. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]
Follow the Model of Duke, for Mens Basketball. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]

(5).
Both of these Universities are Top25 Universities academically.
This isn't rocket-science !
We are needlessly & anachronistically rigid, & getting in our own way ...this is largely self-inflicted !

This also comes up a lot on this board.
The problem is ND and Duke do not have anywhere near the academic standards for admitting recruited athletes that we do.
Do we want to lower our standards to match theirs? I think most on this board would say no.

[SamuelMcF]

Cool talk, everyone. Can an admin please create a mega-thread for the same never-ending round and round debate?

We are now up to 4 silent transfer commits and had at least 6 transfers visit so far (I'm sure there have been more).

[SamuelMcF]

Cool talk, everyone. Can an admin please create a mega-thread for the same never-ending round and round debate?

We are now up to 4 silent transfer commits and had at least 6 transfers visit so far (I'm sure there have been more).

[Hurlburt88]

great news, SAm!

[Hurlburt88]

great news, SAm!

[midnight21]

2nd public commit. He had visited campus last week. SF native: https://x.com/J12_neal/status/1869492135801831894

[midnight21]

2nd public commit. He had visited campus last week. SF native: https://x.com/J12_neal/status/1869492135801831894

[Sunnysideup]

This also comes up a lot on this board.
The problem is ND and Duke do not have anywhere near the academic standards for admitting recruited athletes that we do.
Do we want to lower our standards to match theirs? I think most on this board would say no.

I don't know if I agree. For some? Maybe. For all? Definitely not.

Looked at some recent 2025 signees to Duke. Saw lots of guys with Ivy offers. My assumption is that we would not consider a kid who has a competing offer to Harvard or Yale to be "reduced academic standards." Or would we?

Bradley Gompers -- 4-star two-sport athlete lineman out of Pittsburgh Catholic who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Vanderbilt, University of Michigan, Northwestern, UVA, and Boston College, among others. Did Stanford look at him? For Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern to all offer, assuming he must be somewhat academically capable (and looking for academic rigor)? For Penn State and Michigan to both offer, assuming he has athletic chops?

Sampson Onuoha -- 3-star edge out of Belmont Hill who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, Wake Forest, Syracuse, and Minnesota, among others. 

Roman Fina - 3-star offensive tackle out of Salpointe Catholic who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Dartmouth and UPenn, among others.

Andrew Pellicotta - 3-star safety out of Malvern Prep who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Harvard, Brown, Columbia, Princeton, and Yale, among others. 

Cole Allen - 3-star tackle out of Jackson Prep who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Yale and Dartmouth, among others.

Kai Jacobowitz - 3-star offensive tackle out of Carlsbad who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Columbia, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, UNC, and, interestingly, San Jose State (but no Stanford?), among others.

[Sunnysideup]

This also comes up a lot on this board.
The problem is ND and Duke do not have anywhere near the academic standards for admitting recruited athletes that we do.
Do we want to lower our standards to match theirs? I think most on this board would say no.

I don't know if I agree. For some? Maybe. For all? Definitely not.

Looked at some recent 2025 signees to Duke. Saw lots of guys with Ivy offers. My assumption is that we would not consider a kid who has a competing offer to Harvard or Yale to be "reduced academic standards." Or would we?

Bradley Gompers -- 4-star two-sport athlete lineman out of Pittsburgh Catholic who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Vanderbilt, University of Michigan, Northwestern, UVA, and Boston College, among others. Did Stanford look at him? For Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern to all offer, assuming he must be somewhat academically capable (and looking for academic rigor)? For Penn State and Michigan to both offer, assuming he has athletic chops?

Sampson Onuoha -- 3-star edge out of Belmont Hill who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, Wake Forest, Syracuse, and Minnesota, among others. 

Roman Fina - 3-star offensive tackle out of Salpointe Catholic who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Dartmouth and UPenn, among others.

Andrew Pellicotta - 3-star safety out of Malvern Prep who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Harvard, Brown, Columbia, Princeton, and Yale, among others. 

Cole Allen - 3-star tackle out of Jackson Prep who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Yale and Dartmouth, among others.

Kai Jacobowitz - 3-star offensive tackle out of Carlsbad who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Columbia, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, UNC, and, interestingly, San Jose State (but no Stanford?), among others.

[Sunnysideup]

Because I am bored, I was just curious how many Stanford 2025 signees also had Ivy offers.

Was surprised to see far fewer (anecdotally) compared to Duke.

I didn't conduct a scientific study, but saw at least 1 guy where Stanford is by the academic outlier in terms of other offers (one kid only had offers from Marshall, Charlotte, VTech, and Stanford, FWIW).

Maybe admissions has been more flexible this year because of team performance?

[Sunnysideup]

Because I am bored, I was just curious how many Stanford 2025 signees also had Ivy offers.

Was surprised to see far fewer (anecdotally) compared to Duke.

I didn't conduct a scientific study, but saw at least 1 guy where Stanford is by the academic outlier in terms of other offers (one kid only had offers from Marshall, Charlotte, VTech, and Stanford, FWIW).

Maybe admissions has been more flexible this year because of team performance?

[jacket3ree]

(Lots of time in the PT waiting room at Mills these days.)

"We need to win the ACC championship next year. UNC with Belichick and Stanford with Andrew Luck are going to be very formidable in 2 to 3 years. Very fortunate that FSU [is dead]."

"Bullshit. Unless Belichick has 30 year old Tom Brady at QB, UNC will suck as always."

"Stanford will win if the billionaires get involved."

"Stanford with Andrew Luck? May I direct your attention to Stanford with Bill Walsh."

"The case, Flood v. Kuhn, (407 U.S. 258), eventually...."

"Mistresses are a dime a dozen. But edge rushers who have the ability to disrupt a QB and keep him from getting in rhythm are truly special."

[jacket3ree]

(Lots of time in the PT waiting room at Mills these days.)

"We need to win the ACC championship next year. UNC with Belichick and Stanford with Andrew Luck are going to be very formidable in 2 to 3 years. Very fortunate that FSU [is dead]."

"Bullshit. Unless Belichick has 30 year old Tom Brady at QB, UNC will suck as always."

"Stanford will win if the billionaires get involved."

"Stanford with Andrew Luck? May I direct your attention to Stanford with Bill Walsh."

"The case, Flood v. Kuhn, (407 U.S. 258), eventually...."

"Mistresses are a dime a dozen. But edge rushers who have the ability to disrupt a QB and keep him from getting in rhythm are truly special."

[StanUSwagU]

This also comes up a lot on this board.
The problem is ND and Duke do not have anywhere near the academic standards for admitting recruited athletes that we do.
Do we want to lower our standards to match theirs? I think most on this board would say no.

I don't know if I agree. For some? Maybe. For all? Definitely not.

Looked at some recent 2025 signees to Duke. Saw lots of guys with Ivy offers. My assumption is that we would not consider a kid who has a competing offer to Harvard or Yale to be "reduced academic standards." Or would we?

Bradley Gompers -- 4-star two-sport athlete lineman out of Pittsburgh Catholic who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Vanderbilt, University of Michigan, Northwestern, UVA, and Boston College, among others. Did Stanford look at him? For Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern to all offer, assuming he must be somewhat academically capable (and looking for academic rigor)? For Penn State and Michigan to both offer, assuming he has athletic chops?

Sampson Onuoha -- 3-star edge out of Belmont Hill who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, Wake Forest, Syracuse, and Minnesota, among others. 

Roman Fina - 3-star offensive tackle out of Salpointe Catholic who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Dartmouth and UPenn, among others.

Andrew Pellicotta - 3-star safety out of Malvern Prep who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Harvard, Brown, Columbia, Princeton, and Yale, among others. 

Cole Allen - 3-star tackle out of Jackson Prep who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Yale and Dartmouth, among others.

Kai Jacobowitz - 3-star offensive tackle out of Carlsbad who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Columbia, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, UNC, and, interestingly, San Jose State (but no Stanford?), among others.

********************************

Hi Sunnysideup,

(1). Thanks for this data, I had surmised as much.

(2). Many Stanford people think our Stanford Academic Standards are significantly better than places like Duke, Cal, NotreDame, UCLA, Northwestern etc, ....but I think this is because their definition of 'academic standards' or 'standards for admissions' or 'what constitutes good scholarship', is both narrow & out of date, and primarily focused on Standardized Test Scores & GPA.

(3). What is an 'academic or admissions standard' .... or more importantly what should it be ? Hopefully folks thinking our academic standards are somehow 'laudable, & desirable' are not primarily using GPA & Test Scores as the 'standard' ...cause that would be very narrow-minded, & myopic.

(4). I hear some on this board with the talk/sentiment that if we were to become more like NotreDame in Football or Duke in Mens Basketball that we would be 'lowering our Academic Standards'; This is decidedly a very narrow interpretation. One could & probably should understand that those schools (like Duke & ND) just have a broader definition of what an 'academic standard' should entail, that may actually be better & more accurate & desirable than ours here at Stanford.

(5). Out in the real-world, companies & organizations aren't only looking for 'GPA & Standardized Test Nerds' or how many esoteric AP courses one took; Their measure of intellect, aptitude, & ability to 'inspire & lead' is much broader & pragmatic ...and it would be wise & almost imperative that Stanford-Admissions update its definition of what makes a 'well-rounded student, who projects to making lasting meaningful positive contributions to our Society & the World !'; So, rather than viewing things as 'lowering academic standards' , I dare say aligning our Undergraduate & Transfer Admissions more with NotreDame & Duke, would be 'broadening, improving, & modernizing our academic standards' from their current backwards, anachronistic, out of date position.

(6). Also, frequently out in the real-world, Non-Stanford people from Places like Duke, Notre-Dame, Cal, UCLA, Michigan, etc ...dont see Stanford as 'academically superior or exceptional' ...they see us as being 'delusional, myopic, narrow-minded professional nerds, with very little broad-based, in the trenches, real-world experience'.

(7). Lastly, and I hope this doesnt violate the terms of this board, but before us 'Stanford Folks' start getting too 'high & mighty' about 'our high academic standards', realize that non-Stanford folks sometimes think we are delusional in thinking we are somehow 'academically better than other universities like Duke, NotreDame, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc' ...what with all the 'academic scandals' our university has had over the last 15years.



(8). I could specifically list the names of our 'Stanford Academic scandals' of the last 15years, but I won't ...as most of us alums can easily name 5 to 10 of them; I dont say this to be mean-spirited, just to mention that maybe our 'academic standards' or the 'results of our academic standards' or 'admissions standards' aren't really things to brag about or hold up as 'high standards' or some 'great model' that we need to 'rigidly cling onto' ; In fact maybe its time we 'modified & modernized some of these academic standards' to ensure we get 'more altruistic, less nerdy, more worldly, servant-leader students, faculty, & administrators,... and fewer 'nerdy, narrow-focused, snobby, rightmost 3% of the academic GPA, Standardized test-score normal distribution curve' type applicants & staff. To remain fair & objective, I do realize almost every university has its 'academic scandals' so I am not singling us out, merely pointing it out lest any of us is wrapped up too deeply in the 'Stanford Exceptionalism, Only Here' mythology.

(9). Also, I believe another poster mentioned this, and perhaps someone can confirm:
Stanford in its History did not always have such 'exacting narrow academic admissions criteria requirements as it has today in 2024'. For example in the 1930s, 1940s, & 1950s, ...I believe Stanford's 'admissions criteria' may have been less narrow and more broad-based as far as the student's academic resumes; I say this to make the point that maybe a component of being true to our Stanford Roots, is to return to having 'more broad-based admissions requirements (like ND & Duke have today) & less narrow academic resume requirements, like we have here at Stanford today in 2024.


(10). Above, I am generalizing & stereotyping quite a bit, and dont mean to offend anyone, but only 'sketching this rough portrait', to get the point across that it might not be the worst thing if we were to adopt NotreDame's model, infrastructure, & admissions criteria for Football (with greater NIL opportunities than ND) ..& Duke's Mens Basketball model, infrastructure & admissions criteria for Mens Basketball (with greater NIL opportunities than Duke). Actually, this might be a very good adjustment for Stanford University, for reasons far beyond & far more impactful than just Football & Mens Basketball, for its admissions to capture a slightly broader segment of humanity & student-athlete.

(11). Lastly, as I and a few others on this board have proposed, if the leadership at Stanford can work with the County, we should increase our undergraduate population by 1000 undergraduates, so broadening our admissions & transfers criteria, wouldn't take away from our existing number of 'traditional admits'; it would be additive.


Long live 'Texas Branner' & 'Outsider Fan', and thanks Mick (I believe) for describing the 'Flutie Effect on College Applicants & Admissions'.

[StanUSwagU]

This also comes up a lot on this board.
The problem is ND and Duke do not have anywhere near the academic standards for admitting recruited athletes that we do.
Do we want to lower our standards to match theirs? I think most on this board would say no.

I don't know if I agree. For some? Maybe. For all? Definitely not.

Looked at some recent 2025 signees to Duke. Saw lots of guys with Ivy offers. My assumption is that we would not consider a kid who has a competing offer to Harvard or Yale to be "reduced academic standards." Or would we?

Bradley Gompers -- 4-star two-sport athlete lineman out of Pittsburgh Catholic who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Vanderbilt, University of Michigan, Northwestern, UVA, and Boston College, among others. Did Stanford look at him? For Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern to all offer, assuming he must be somewhat academically capable (and looking for academic rigor)? For Penn State and Michigan to both offer, assuming he has athletic chops?

Sampson Onuoha -- 3-star edge out of Belmont Hill who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, Wake Forest, Syracuse, and Minnesota, among others. 

Roman Fina - 3-star offensive tackle out of Salpointe Catholic who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Dartmouth and UPenn, among others.

Andrew Pellicotta - 3-star safety out of Malvern Prep who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Harvard, Brown, Columbia, Princeton, and Yale, among others. 

Cole Allen - 3-star tackle out of Jackson Prep who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Yale and Dartmouth, among others.

Kai Jacobowitz - 3-star offensive tackle out of Carlsbad who committed to Duke. Was also offered by Columbia, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, UNC, and, interestingly, San Jose State (but no Stanford?), among others.

********************************

Hi Sunnysideup,

(1). Thanks for this data, I had surmised as much.

(2). Many Stanford people think our Stanford Academic Standards are significantly better than places like Duke, Cal, NotreDame, UCLA, Northwestern etc, ....but I think this is because their definition of 'academic standards' or 'standards for admissions' or 'what constitutes good scholarship', is both narrow & out of date, and primarily focused on Standardized Test Scores & GPA.

(3). What is an 'academic or admissions standard' .... or more importantly what should it be ? Hopefully folks thinking our academic standards are somehow 'laudable, & desirable' are not primarily using GPA & Test Scores as the 'standard' ...cause that would be very narrow-minded, & myopic.

(4). I hear some on this board with the talk/sentiment that if we were to become more like NotreDame in Football or Duke in Mens Basketball that we would be 'lowering our Academic Standards'; This is decidedly a very narrow interpretation. One could & probably should understand that those schools (like Duke & ND) just have a broader definition of what an 'academic standard' should entail, that may actually be better & more accurate & desirable than ours here at Stanford.

(5). Out in the real-world, companies & organizations aren't only looking for 'GPA & Standardized Test Nerds' or how many esoteric AP courses one took; Their measure of intellect, aptitude, & ability to 'inspire & lead' is much broader & pragmatic ...and it would be wise & almost imperative that Stanford-Admissions update its definition of what makes a 'well-rounded student, who projects to making lasting meaningful positive contributions to our Society & the World !'; So, rather than viewing things as 'lowering academic standards' , I dare say aligning our Undergraduate & Transfer Admissions more with NotreDame & Duke, would be 'broadening, improving, & modernizing our academic standards' from their current backwards, anachronistic, out of date position.

(6). Also, frequently out in the real-world, Non-Stanford people from Places like Duke, Notre-Dame, Cal, UCLA, Michigan, etc ...dont see Stanford as 'academically superior or exceptional' ...they see us as being 'delusional, myopic, narrow-minded professional nerds, with very little broad-based, in the trenches, real-world experience'.

(7). Lastly, and I hope this doesnt violate the terms of this board, but before us 'Stanford Folks' start getting too 'high & mighty' about 'our high academic standards', realize that non-Stanford folks sometimes think we are delusional in thinking we are somehow 'academically better than other universities like Duke, NotreDame, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc' ...what with all the 'academic scandals' our university has had over the last 15years.



(8). I could specifically list the names of our 'Stanford Academic scandals' of the last 15years, but I won't ...as most of us alums can easily name 5 to 10 of them; I dont say this to be mean-spirited, just to mention that maybe our 'academic standards' or the 'results of our academic standards' or 'admissions standards' aren't really things to brag about or hold up as 'high standards' or some 'great model' that we need to 'rigidly cling onto' ; In fact maybe its time we 'modified & modernized some of these academic standards' to ensure we get 'more altruistic, less nerdy, more worldly, servant-leader students, faculty, & administrators,... and fewer 'nerdy, narrow-focused, snobby, rightmost 3% of the academic GPA, Standardized test-score normal distribution curve' type applicants & staff. To remain fair & objective, I do realize almost every university has its 'academic scandals' so I am not singling us out, merely pointing it out lest any of us is wrapped up too deeply in the 'Stanford Exceptionalism, Only Here' mythology.

(9). Also, I believe another poster mentioned this, and perhaps someone can confirm:
Stanford in its History did not always have such 'exacting narrow academic admissions criteria requirements as it has today in 2024'. For example in the 1930s, 1940s, & 1950s, ...I believe Stanford's 'admissions criteria' may have been less narrow and more broad-based as far as the student's academic resumes; I say this to make the point that maybe a component of being true to our Stanford Roots, is to return to having 'more broad-based admissions requirements (like ND & Duke have today) & less narrow academic resume requirements, like we have here at Stanford today in 2024.


(10). Above, I am generalizing & stereotyping quite a bit, and dont mean to offend anyone, but only 'sketching this rough portrait', to get the point across that it might not be the worst thing if we were to adopt NotreDame's model, infrastructure, & admissions criteria for Football (with greater NIL opportunities than ND) ..& Duke's Mens Basketball model, infrastructure & admissions criteria for Mens Basketball (with greater NIL opportunities than Duke). Actually, this might be a very good adjustment for Stanford University, for reasons far beyond & far more impactful than just Football & Mens Basketball, for its admissions to capture a slightly broader segment of humanity & student-athlete.

(11). Lastly, as I and a few others on this board have proposed, if the leadership at Stanford can work with the County, we should increase our undergraduate population by 1000 undergraduates, so broadening our admissions & transfers criteria, wouldn't take away from our existing number of 'traditional admits'; it would be additive.


Long live 'Texas Branner' & 'Outsider Fan', and thanks Mick (I believe) for describing the 'Flutie Effect on College Applicants & Admissions'.

[SamuelMcF]

2nd public commit. He had visited campus last week. SF native: https://x.com/J12_neal/status/1869492135801831894

Neal was solid at Fresno State and should immediately start at CB2 opposite Wright.

This is the most relevant post in this thread by a mile. Why has there been no discussion about it?

[SamuelMcF]

2nd public commit. He had visited campus last week. SF native: https://x.com/J12_neal/status/1869492135801831894

Neal was solid at Fresno State and should immediately start at CB2 opposite Wright.

This is the most relevant post in this thread by a mile. Why has there been no discussion about it?

[CompSci87]

This thread started as transfer portal exits. Maybe folks aren't looking for transfers in here? Just a guess.

[CompSci87]

This thread started as transfer portal exits. Maybe folks aren't looking for transfers in here? Just a guess.

[PalmTree]

This thread started as transfer portal exits. Maybe folks aren't looking for transfers in here? Just a guess.

I'm checking this thread for names of both exits and incoming transfers - in re the latter, besides their initial recruiting offer lists, I just hadn't been able to find too much info online on either of the admits mentioned here (# of starts, strengths, weaknesses, etc) based on their play at their former schools to be able to offer anything.

[PalmTree]

This thread started as transfer portal exits. Maybe folks aren't looking for transfers in here? Just a guess.

I'm checking this thread for names of both exits and incoming transfers - in re the latter, besides their initial recruiting offer lists, I just hadn't been able to find too much info online on either of the admits mentioned here (# of starts, strengths, weaknesses, etc) based on their play at their former schools to be able to offer anything.

[82lsju]

This thread started as transfer portal exits. Maybe folks aren't looking for transfers in here? Just a guess.

I'm checking this thread for names of both exits and incoming transfers - in re the latter, besides their initial recruiting offer lists, I just hadn't been able to find too much info online on either of the admits mentioned here (# of starts, strengths, weaknesses, etc) based on their play at their former schools to be able to offer anything.

on Neal

Stanford landed Neal's commitment over transfer offers from Cincinnati, Kansas State, Nebraska, Northwestern, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington State and Utah State. 

Neal spent four seasons at Fresno State and has one year of eligibility remaining. He saw his most action yet during the 2024 season, starting four games and playing in all 12. The 6-foot-2 and 200-pound corner finished with 35 tackles, 2 interceptions, 1 sack, and 5 pass deflections. 

In 2023, Neal played in 11 games with 9 tackles - 6 of which came in the Bulldogs' New Mexico Bowl victory. Neal redshirted in 2021 with a total of seven games played over his first two years.

https://247sports.com/college/transfer-p...242408528/

on Ruffins

NEVADA CAREERRS FRESHMAN (2024): Named Mountain West Freshman of the Week after his performance in the opener against SMU (Aug. 24) ... Appeared in 11 games, making nine starts at guard ... Missed two games due to injury.

FRESHMAN (2023): Appeared in four games, utilizing his redshirt ... Made two starts, at Utah State (Nov. 11) and at Colorado State (Nov. 18).

HIGH SCHOOL CAREER
Three-star recruit as ranked by 247Sports and Rivals … Played on both offensive and defensive lines at Long Beach Poly during his varsity career … Participated in both the All-American Bowl and the Polynesian Bowl as part of prep showcases … Named to All-CIF Southern Section Division I Team on the offensive line as a senior (2022) … Three-time All-Moore League selection … Selection to the Long Beach Press-Telegram Dream Team … Long Beach Poly went 10-1 overall and won the Moore league title at 7-0 in 2022 … Helped lead the Jackrabbits to the CIF-SS Division IV title in 2021.

https://nevadawolfpack.com/sports/footba...fins/11476

[82lsju]

This thread started as transfer portal exits. Maybe folks aren't looking for transfers in here? Just a guess.

I'm checking this thread for names of both exits and incoming transfers - in re the latter, besides their initial recruiting offer lists, I just hadn't been able to find too much info online on either of the admits mentioned here (# of starts, strengths, weaknesses, etc) based on their play at their former schools to be able to offer anything.

on Neal

Stanford landed Neal's commitment over transfer offers from Cincinnati, Kansas State, Nebraska, Northwestern, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington State and Utah State. 

Neal spent four seasons at Fresno State and has one year of eligibility remaining. He saw his most action yet during the 2024 season, starting four games and playing in all 12. The 6-foot-2 and 200-pound corner finished with 35 tackles, 2 interceptions, 1 sack, and 5 pass deflections. 

In 2023, Neal played in 11 games with 9 tackles - 6 of which came in the Bulldogs' New Mexico Bowl victory. Neal redshirted in 2021 with a total of seven games played over his first two years.

https://247sports.com/college/transfer-p...242408528/

on Ruffins

NEVADA CAREERRS FRESHMAN (2024): Named Mountain West Freshman of the Week after his performance in the opener against SMU (Aug. 24) ... Appeared in 11 games, making nine starts at guard ... Missed two games due to injury.

FRESHMAN (2023): Appeared in four games, utilizing his redshirt ... Made two starts, at Utah State (Nov. 11) and at Colorado State (Nov. 18).

HIGH SCHOOL CAREER
Three-star recruit as ranked by 247Sports and Rivals … Played on both offensive and defensive lines at Long Beach Poly during his varsity career … Participated in both the All-American Bowl and the Polynesian Bowl as part of prep showcases … Named to All-CIF Southern Section Division I Team on the offensive line as a senior (2022) … Three-time All-Moore League selection … Selection to the Long Beach Press-Telegram Dream Team … Long Beach Poly went 10-1 overall and won the Moore league title at 7-0 in 2022 … Helped lead the Jackrabbits to the CIF-SS Division IV title in 2021.

https://nevadawolfpack.com/sports/footba...fins/11476