Class of 2013 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Class of 2013 (/thread-3419.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Class of 2013 (/thread-3419.html)
Re: Class of 2013 - washingtonismoney - 02-06-2013
Not sure if there are any more significant outstanding signings left, but here's how we stand on a per capita basis:
247:
Pac-12: 3rd (though 2-4th are probably indistinguishable)
Nationally: 18th
Rivals
Pac-12: 3rd (3rd-5th is a photo finish)
Nationally: 17th
ESPN:
Does not offer per capita functionality; however, they do like our class best of all four sites.
Scout:
Pac-12: 5th (4th/5th photo finish)
Nationally: 24th
Scout dislikes us most, due in part to their goofball rating of Ryan Burns. (it's also a bit hard for me to believe that Taijuan Thomas is the #229th WR; both on philosophical grounds -- your faux precision is unbecoming/hilarious -- and on individual grounds, i.e. he doesn't look like a two-star to me.) (Well, also, the idea that Sean Barton's a medium three-star is goofy to me too -- he's 6'3", 220+ and cracks 11 seconds on the 100m dash. That's...not any three star I've seen. But whatever.)
Looking at the class, I think we exaggerated our concerns about it a bit, probably because of the yucky taste of the close. Ranking between 17th and 24th per capita is pretty darn solid; however, it looks like the Pac-12 is starting to gain some escape velocity in recruiting. 2014 still looms as a big year, recruiting-wise.
Re: Class of 2013 - stupac2 - 02-06-2013
(02-06-2013, 04:13 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Looking at the class, I think we exaggerated our concerns about it a bit, probably because of the yucky taste of the close. Ranking between 17th and 24th per capita is pretty darn solid; however, it looks like the Pac-12 is starting to gain some escape velocity in recruiting. 2014 still looms as a big year, recruiting-wise.
I was never particularly worried, it was always clear that we were size-limited but did a reasonable job working with that size. Would it have been nice to get some of our misses? Yeah, but you can't do as well as we did last year every year.
2014 will certainly be an interesting class.
Re: Class of 2013 - larkinforever - 02-06-2013
Scout per capita ranking:
2013 24th
2012 11th
2011 14th
2010 20th
Rivals per capita ranking:
2013 17th
2012 4th
2011 17th
2010 29th
Half empty glass -- being worst per capita in the past four recruiting seasons per Scout and 3rd of 4 per Rivals is not that great, especially when we're coming off a 3rd consecutive BCS Bowl (something only two other schools (Oregon, Wisconsin) can claim). If the argument is that the payoff for the Rose Bowl win and 3rd consecutive BCS Bowl appearance is 2014, I guess I would have expected more of a payoff on a per capita basis for 2 consecutive BCS Bowl appearances (something only three others (Oregon, Wisconsin, VTech) could claim).
Half full -- on the other hand, being top 25 (other than Rivals' 2010 ranking) on a per capita basis for the past four years on the two major recruiting sites is pretty commendable. Still makes it tough to dream about the BCS when UCLA/U.SC/Oregon continue to recruit well and we have to go through all of them, but it's a far cry from the dark years of less than a decade ago...
Re: Class of 2013 - DC - 02-06-2013
It is unclear whether we had a decent-sized pool of admittable candidates this year. A lot of circumstantial evidence says that we didn't. I hope admissions hasn't decided that football has been successful enough and is clamping down the screws. I'm not saying they are doing that, only that I hope that isn't the case.
Re: Class of 2013 - Extra Point - 02-06-2013
" I hope admissions hasn't decided that football has been successful enough and is clamping down the screws. I'm not saying they are doing that, only that I hope that isn't the case."
It certainly wouldn't be the first time!
Re: Class of 2013 - OutsiderFan - 02-07-2013
Though this is possible, it seems unlikely. Hard to imagine Stanford not liking being at the top of the mountain in the most visible sport in the country. I remember reading an article before the Rose Bowl about how Stanford's football success was translating into good things for the university.Â
Moreover, it seems doubtful David Shaw would proclaim the goal is to be Top 5 academically and in football if his employer wasn't on board with it. And it seems Shaw wouldn't set the bar so high if he felt admissions was going to be too strict.
Another thing to consider is that it is possible admissions is looking at past performance of recruits and seeing that maybe the bar doesn't have to be set so high to have a football program that meets the university's standards for academic performance/progress. I mean Shaw said in his presser they could have given more offers, meaning he didn't bring in a couple shlubs just to fill out the class. If admissions were the issue, you'd have to think he would have.
Re: Class of 2013 - Bruce Wang - 02-07-2013
Articles in the Bay Area papers are old news to us, but this tidbit in the Mercury News I found interesting:
"For the first time in decades -- and perhaps ever -- Stanford signed players from the state's traditional northern and southern private school powers: De La Salle (Hooper) and Mater Dei (offensive lineman David Bright)."Â [garvin, can you confirm whether this is true?]
Hooper and Bright fulfilling and exceeding their promise bodes well for establishing a pipeline from these powerhouses.
Re: Class of 2013 - Bruce Wang - 02-07-2013
This is the other tidbit that I liked:
"His high school coach calls Peter Kalambayi 'the only kid I've ever known whose GPA and 40 time are the same: 4.4.'"
http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/Stanford-football-recruits-show-promise-4254381.php
Re: Class of 2013 - FarmBoy - 02-08-2013
Ted Miller is calling Stanford out at the Biggest Loser on NSD
Quote:Biggest loser: Stanford's class ranked seventh in the Pac-12, according to ESPN recruiting, but nearly every other recruiting service rated the Cardinal 11th in the Pac-12. Most of that is numbers: 12. Stanford's roster didn't allow for a large class. But this is the Rose Bowl champion, a team that has played in three consecutive BCS games. Other than QB Ryan Burns, Stanford didn't sign any player ranked among the top 15 at his position. Last year, in a class of 22, they signed six such players, and that doesn't include Aziz Shittu, the No. 17 defensive tackle.
I have to say, I kind of agree with the overall sentiments. I know a lot of people here think that the class is justified by size restrictions or that somehow fewer of the top athletes were quality students, but Ted Miller's point about quality can't be ignored. Maybe he's using ESPN ratings that don't account for some of the high ratings on other boards, but a 3 time BCS team should be able to land a few more elite prospects.
Still, in Shaw we trust, and may our 2014 cup overflow with top-300 players.
Re: Class of 2013 - oman - 02-08-2013
We are getting quality. The fact that there is some sense that we could have ranked higher only shows that expectations have grown. These kids understand that and it is part of an overall quality increase in the program. Winning and a continuation of a Stanford brand of football will keep the pipeline going.
Re: Class of 2013 - washingtonismoney - 02-08-2013
(02-08-2013, 07:42 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Ted Miller is calling Stanford out at the Biggest Loser on NSD
Quote:Biggest loser: Stanford's class ranked seventh in the Pac-12, according to ESPN recruiting, but nearly every other recruiting service rated the Cardinal 11th in the Pac-12. Most of that is numbers: 12. Stanford's roster didn't allow for a large class. But this is the Rose Bowl champion, a team that has played in three consecutive BCS games. Other than QB Ryan Burns, Stanford didn't sign any player ranked among the top 15 at his position. Last year, in a class of 22, they signed six such players, and that doesn't include Aziz Shittu, the No. 17 defensive tackle.
I have to say, I kind of agree with the overall sentiments. I know a lot of people here think that the class is justified by size restrictions or that somehow fewer of the top athletes were quality students, but Ted Miller's point about quality can't be ignored. Maybe he's using ESPN ratings that don't account for some of the high ratings on other boards, but a 3 time BCS team should be able to land a few more elite prospects.
Still, in Shaw we trust, and may our 2014 cup overflow with top-300 players.
Top fifteen is an arbitrary standard though (if Miller's going to give a break to Shittu, why not give a break to Kalambayi, who's #17 OLB and Taboada, who's #17 ATH according to ESPN) To use another arbitrary standard, let's try your top 300 players one -- in that (using ESPN's standards), nearly half the class is compromised of such players and as such actually looks pretty solid. (That would tie us with UW and Oregon for third in the conference -- SC and UCLA are, naturally, first and second by that metric.)
What would settle this much better would be average star ratings, but ESPN in its infinite wisdom has not made such a commonsense feature available.
(The problem, by the way, isn't so much that the class is bad, it's not it's not good -- middle of the pack by definition means other teams are ahead of you. Still, this scarcely means you're the biggest loser.)
Re: Class of 2013 - stan01 - 02-08-2013
Any news on preferred walk-ons? Drukarev recently wrote an article about potential walk-on Chandler Dorrell, who took an official to the Farm on 1/18: http://stanford.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=&script=content.asp&cid=1464626&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=Â
Re: Class of 2013 - FarmBoy - 02-08-2013
Biggest loser is taking it too far. Clearly, the class has a lot of quality guys in it. It's just short on "elite" prospects. Now, maybe David Shaw is a much better talent evaluator than the various services, though I tend to be a beliver in market efficiency and that in the long run, Rivals, Scout, etc, will identify the top talents, on average, better than one coaching staff on their own. There's always opportunities for arbitrage, but in the long run, you need to sign lots of stars. I think the point is that it feels a tad like a wasted opportunity to build on the elite standing of the program with an elite, though small, class.
But I look forward to seeing all these young men in cardinal and white (and black once a year) to prove Mr Miller to be a fool.
Re: Class of 2013 - washingtonismoney - 02-09-2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ7dUgSu1Ow&feature=youtu.be
Love Francis's tape. Very interested to see him play.
Re: Class of 2013 - washingtonismoney - 02-10-2013
Per capita in the Pac-12, reality according to ESPN*:
SC: 4
UCLA: 3.64
STAN: 3.5
Oregon: 3.36
UW: 3.22
59ers: 3.19
And so on downwards from there. Clear 3rd place according to ESPN.
Re: Class of 2013 - Gauss - 02-10-2013
What people have to realize is that last year's class was very special in the number of available elite players that had the right characteristics that Stanford seeks (academics among those).
Shaw said as much in his 2012 press conference.
I think that our average recruiting class should somewhat better than this year's, if we keep the winning.
But, probably, we just won't be reaching last year's heights in a consistent manner, given the restricted pool of players that Stanford goes after.
Re: Class of 2013 - DC - 02-10-2013
We should be thankful that we didn't have many scholarships available this year. If we had a "regular" availability of, say, 22 scholarships, we wouldn't have been able to fill them with quality players who could get admitted. In fact, while we don't know whether Smythe, Allen and Cunningham were admitted, there is a reasonable chance that we couldn't even fill 14 or 15 spots with quality players who could get in this year. Having a lot of scholarships available would have been a disaster. I think this is because somehow, this class just didn't have a large pool of athletes who could qualify academically. Â
Re: Class of 2013 - washingtonismoney - 02-10-2013
(02-10-2013, 10:18 PM)DC link Wrote:We should be thankful that we didn't have many scholarships available this year. If we had a "regular" availability of, say, 22 scholarships, we wouldn't have been able to fill them with quality players who could get admitted. In fact, while we don't know whether Smythe, Allen and Cunningham were admitted, there is a reasonable chance that we couldn't even fill 14 or 15 spots with quality players who could get in this year. Having a lot of scholarships available would have been a disaster. I think this is because somehow, this class just didn't have a large pool of athletes who could qualify academically.Â
It's hard to untangle causality here. Here's a possible counterfactual: we offer more guys in the beginning because we know we have more spots, and hence we end up with more guys.
SC had a similar problem as we did with finishing the class -- there are a fair number of guys, in retrospect, I think they'd wished they'd offered. It may be hard to manage a smaller class, because you're relatively worried about overshooting.
Re: Class of 2013 - DC - 02-10-2013
(02-10-2013, 10:23 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=DC link=topic=6031.msg58653#msg58653 date=1360559907]
We should be thankful that we didn't have many scholarships available this year. If we had a "regular" availability of, say, 22 scholarships, we wouldn't have been able to fill them with quality players who could get admitted. In fact, while we don't know whether Smythe, Allen and Cunningham were admitted, there is a reasonable chance that we couldn't even fill 14 or 15 spots with quality players who could get in this year. Having a lot of scholarships available would have been a disaster. I think this is because somehow, this class just didn't have a large pool of athletes who could qualify academically.Â
It's hard to untangle causality here. Here's a possible counterfactual: we offer more guys in the beginning because we know we have more spots, and hence we end up with more guys.
SC had a similar problem as we did with finishing the class -- there are a fair number of guys, in retrospect, I think they'd wished they'd offered. It may be hard to manage a smaller class, because you're relatively worried about overshooting.
[/quote]
Who else could we have offered? It didn't seem that many blue-chips were within our reach.
Max Browne or another QB probably. But beyond that it gets hard. We lost out on a highly rated, top-5 type TE who went I think to Arkansas. 4-star CB John Johnson reportedly didn't have the grades. 4-5 star LB Isaac Salivanera (sp) committed to us, then changed his mind, as did another less highly rated LB who changed his mind a lot. Who else could we have offered that was both a blue-chip, interested in us, and was admittable? And how many of those type of guys were there - enough to get to a normal sized class?
Re: Class of 2013 - StannyBoy - 02-11-2013
Who else could we have offered? There were some good recruits with good to very good grades interested in offers. Shaw passed on offering Chans Cox, Scott Quessenberry, Sean Dowling, Corey Robinson, Cameron Hunt, Torii Hunter just to name a few. But I'm perfectly ok with not offering any of these guys and having a few extra scholarships. They can go to walk-ons for now and then given to someone next year. The next class is going to be top notch.