Class of 2016 - 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 2016 (/thread-6799.html)

---

Re: Class of 2016 - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 04-21-2015

Shaw & Co.'s deliberate, methodical recruiting strategy doesn't seem conducive to over-offering, but I may be wrong

---

Re: Class of 2016 - Hank 91 - 04-21-2015

As mentioned earlier in this thread, Shaw has always been adamant that Stanford offers are genuine offers.

---

Re: Class of 2016 - socalstanfan1 - 04-22-2015

i have no doubt Stanford offers are legitimate. But lets just do the math. How many offers do Shaw and company have out already?  More than 25 I suppose. What if a significantly higher percentage of kids accept than expected? What if we offer 10 DBs expecting half to go elsewhere, but we end up with far ore accepting? At some point you would have to start telling some of the kids that they need to wait to see how the rest of the class shapes up, right? Unless there are a lot of offers already rejected that we don't know about (very possible, I admit) before we extend new offers, then we have a chance of over-offering.

BTW, I don't think this is necessarily unethical, as long as the coaches are honest with everyone that is being offered, letting them know where things stand as things move forward.

---

Re: Class of 2016 - dabomb1227 - 04-22-2015

Even with over-committing, there is the possibility that not all of the commits pass Admissions (also the possibility, though I doubt it, that Admissions purposely dings some commits to reduce the numbers). 

While we don't want some disproportionately large classes as it will mean we have a smaller class next year and it is better to balance out the classes in terms of number, we should be able to take a very large class.  I believe there are currently about 4-5 unused scholarships, 9 5th yr seniors, 6th Seniors who have exhausted eligibility, plus the possibility that many other Seniors will not be asked back (Watkins, Lohn, Dontonio, Crane, Harrell)

---

Re: Class of 2016 - slide - 04-22-2015

we've not had problems with over commitments or too much traction through too many offers.  our problems generally have just been the opposite: not enough early offers, not enough early traction and a late close to classes. 

before an offered recruit signs with us, he has significant hurdles: maintain or improve GPA and class standing, ACT/SAT retakes, AP classes, challenging 7th semester course load, continued on field development, receipt of an application, application and then admission.  sometimes summer camp with us is added.  compared with other schools, the above is not insubstantial and it makes keeping a robust recruit board challenging.

---

Re: Class of 2016 - TrumpCard - 04-22-2015

After watching Long's highlights on hudl, I have no concern about the offer to this guy.  He's incredibly agile and has great acceleration.  A Terrence Alexander type cover corner or a WR that has skills the team can't replicate.  There is no way that Shaw can land 25 guys of this caliber.

---

Re: Class of 2016 - SUBuddha - 04-22-2015

Currently ESPN shows 42 Stanford offers out that are not currently committed to Stanford or another institution. If we land half of that puts 26 in this class. Our biggest class since 2009 has been 22 players (taken 3 times).

---

Re: Class of 2016 - TrumpCard - 04-22-2015

On the possibility of excessive offers, you can go back to the mini chart that I prepared.  http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=12025.0
Hulk gave comments on some specific players, but didn't dispute the overall tenor.
If you add up the commits, locks, likely, and good shot recruits who have offers, you get something like 20, even if you include Fehoko who I understand is going on a mission.  Then add Long, and you're at 21.  Four spots for elite recruits who are "a shot" or "long shot" is plenty.  The reality is that Stanford will have to offer more guys at almost every position.  If Stanford gets incredibly lucky, it will "have to" take an extra elite recruit beyond the team's level of need at one or two positions.  For example, worst case, Stanford is forced to take Long, Robertson, Crawford and McKinley at WR.  If that happens, I would not be concerned about finding room.  There will be room for those guys.

---

Re: Class of 2016 - Hulk01 - 04-22-2015

If we don't see at least three new offers in the next three weeks, it seems a signal that the staff thinks they are very close.

My guess is if our staff's current offer list somehow yields 20 commitments--a yield without precedent--they will stick and hold for next year.  The exception would be at OL.

OL be.ars watching because we know that Bloomgren is working on John Raridon and Matt Farniok, who visits next month.  He feels great about landing Devery Hamilton.  If he felt shaky about both Raridon and Farniok. I'd expect to have seen one or more two offers at OL by now.  And perhaps he feels he has a good shot at Bredeson, too. 

A second possibility: He has cued by his second tier of offers and alerted them--perhaps including Mike Alves--that he loves them but needs to wait on the three guys above, and perhaps even Parker Braun.  (Chris Owens and Mike Menet are now out, of course.)

I also imagine the coaches are sticking close to Koby Quansah, at either LB or big back.  He's impressive and loves Stanford.

---

Re: Class of 2016 - CrazedZooChimp - 04-22-2015

Hulk, you don't expect we would see another wave of offers after the camps in the early summer (there's usually a June camp, right?)?  I figure if we had a lot of guys on the tier below those offered, some would receive offers from good camp performances in a couple months.  Isn't that pretty typical?

---

Re: Class of 2016 - TrumpCard - 04-22-2015

Simi Fehoko took a lesson in marketing from Curtis Robinson.  If you want to maximize the buzz from a commitment announcement, first announce that you're going to publish a top 5 list, then publish a top 5 list, then announce a date in the future when you are going to decide, then make the commitment announcement.  Four separate events, and each gives an opportunity to generate press.  If Robinson's timeline is any indication, Fehoko will progress through the four events and announce for Stanford around May 1.  Anyway, here's event #2:  [tweet]591002097274867712[/tweet]

---

Re: Class of 2016 - washingtonismoney - 04-22-2015

https://twitter.com/Rivals/status/591074056062914561

---

Re: Class of 2016 - yvonne - 04-22-2015

basically, since David was about 9.

---

Re: Class of 2016 - TrumpCard - 04-23-2015

Andy's post from last week seems like a good prediction:
[tweet]587637450840739841[/tweet]
[tweet]587736421827391488[/tweet]

---

Re: Class of 2016 - CompSci87 - 04-23-2015

(04-22-2015, 05:33 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:i have no doubt Stanford offers are legitimate. But lets just do the math. How many offers do Shaw and company have out already?  More than 25 I suppose. What if a significantly higher percentage of kids accept than expected? What if we offer 10 DBs expecting half to go elsewhere, but we end up with far ore accepting? At some point you would have to start telling some of the kids that they need to wait to see how the rest of the class shapes up, right? Unless there are a lot of offers already rejected that we don't know about (very possible, I admit) before we extend new offers, then we have a chance of over-offering.

BTW, I don't think this is necessarily unethical, as long as the coaches are honest with everyone that is being offered, letting them know where things stand as things move forward.

(04-22-2015, 12:10 PM)SUBuddha link Wrote:Currently ESPN shows 42 Stanford offers out that are not currently committed to Stanford or another institution. If we land half of that puts 26 in this class. Our biggest class since 2009 has been 22 players (taken 3 times).

Isn't over-offering -- that is, "offering" but then later pulling the offer when (or before or after) the recruit tries to commit -- exactly what Shaw has said he doesn't do?

Possibly those 42 ESPN offer reports are not all correct. Or I suppose some could be real offers that the recruit has turned down and Shaw moved on to offer someone else instead.

---

Re: Class of 2016 - TrumpCard - 04-23-2015

(04-23-2015, 01:25 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Isn't over-offering -- that is, "offering" but then later pulling the offer when (or before or after) the recruit tries to commit -- exactly what Shaw has said he doesn't do?

I think this all came up in the context of extending an offer to David Long.  I'll note that ESPN just came out with its 2016 ratings (which may be of general interest to this board) and put him in the Top 100 overall.  That rating may be on the high side, but this kid can play ball, so I don't think he's the best example of an imprudent offer. 

More generally, even though the current number of offers to recruits who are technically uncommitted is larger than the number of slots in the class, it is safe to say that Stanford can/will make room for any current offeree who want to come and gets admitted.  This process is similar to Stanford University's general admissions process, in which more students gain admission than there are spaces for the entering freshman class.  In the case of football recruits, however, we have even better data because these kids post their favorites on social media.  Some of the recruits may have told Stanford they aren't interested.  Some of the recruits may have admissions issues.  As Hulk said, it would be unprecedented to get even 20 signees out of all the current commits and offers.  The only issue with the current number of offers is that it leaves the staff less flexibility to make additional offers based on performance in summer camps or based on performance in the senior year.  Since kids are committing earlier than ever, however, the staff may have concluded that it is impractical to wait for those additional data points before making offers. 

---

Re: Class of 2016 - socalstanfan1 - 04-23-2015

I don't think the offer to David Long is imprudent, but I also don't think that the quality of the athlete necessarily determines that fact. We have long heard that Shaw only makes serious, legitimate offers and, perhaps I have assumed, that means Shaw doesn't want to get in a situation where a student accepts, makes it through admissions, and then has to be told that there is no room for him on the team.

Part of my thinking when I posted the comments that got this started related to a discussion about QBs and comments made by others (sorry, don't recall who, and I'm a bit lazy to go back and track it down) that they believed good recruiters were clear about informing students where they stood in the recruiting pecking order.  That, plus the fact that we had a lot of top offers out, and an unprecedented number of early acceptances raised this issue, at least for me.

Taking the coaches stated policies seriously, (no reason not to) this means that a lot of the offers have been, essentially, turned down, or the coaches have determined that the student may not be serious enough about the academics side to attend Stanford.  I guess a student who is not comfortable just telling a coach "no" could just not sign up for two AP courses in their senior year.  Voila! And since coaches cannot say anything about recruiting until NSD, we are stuck here reading between the lines.

In Shaw & Co. we trust.  Looking forward to one of the best recruiting classes in Stanford history, and big, positive momentum for the class of 2017.

---

Re: Class of 2016 - TrumpCard - 04-23-2015

QB is unique.  Shaw wanted only 1 so he made an offer to only 1 at a time. 

For the rest of the class, the numbers aren't so strict and it's reasonable to make educated guesses about the number at each position who will accept.  For example, look at the WR position (and exclude Fehoko because he's going on a mission).  Shaw can extend offers to Robertson, Duvernay, McKinley, Crawford, Imatorbhebhe and Long, knowing that there is essentially no chance that all 6 of them will get admitted and choose to come.  The embarrassment of riches scenario is what happened with the OL in 2012.  Shaw took 6 (plus Faniaka who was going on a mission) and I bet Shaw was thrilled to do it.  When something like that happens, the sacrifice is foregoing a Plan B offer for a 4th LB or a 5th DL or a 6th DB, which is not so terrible.  I guess it is theoretically possible that Shaw could end up with an embarrassment of riches at every position, but it is a pretty far fetched scenario based on historical experience. 

---

Re: Class of 2016 - StanfordMatt - 04-23-2015

[tweet]591383624894717952[/tweet]

---

Re: Class of 2016 - washingtonismoney - 04-23-2015

https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1760203

---