Class of 2015 - 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 2015 (/thread-5157.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 2015 (/thread-5157.html)
Re: Class of 2015 - TrumpCard - 02-02-2015
(02-02-2015, 06:36 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Ross Donelly who wanted to go to Stanford but was denied admission is on his way to Oxford. Oxford, MS. He committed to Ole Miss today.
I wish him the best and am glad he's not playing for one of Stanford's regular opponents. I am a bit surprised that he chose Ole Miss over some of his more academically impressive offers. Was his interest in Stanford mostly related to the football program? If so, it's a brave new world.
Re: Class of 2015 - yvonne - 02-02-2015
Reid to Stanford.
https://twitter.com/gabereid90/status/562456349527662592
All Right Now! - Redrum - 02-02-2015
Hope "Reid commits to Stanford" echoes next week
Re: Class of 2015 - TrumpCard - 02-02-2015
Unlikely that they will delay NSD I next week. We should know one way or the other in about 36 hours.
Re: Class of 2015 - Papa John - 02-02-2015
Well, Redrum did say "echoes." Maybe there's a really, really long reverberation time...
Re: Class of 2015 - washingtonismoney - 02-03-2015
A scouting report on Reid: http://www.pacifictakes.com/2015/2/2/7968659/stanford-football-recruiting-scouting-gabe-reid
Re: Class of 2015 - JohnR34231 - 02-03-2015
(02-03-2015, 08:12 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:A scouting report on Reid: http://www.pacifictakes.com/2015/2/2/7968659/stanford-football-recruiting-scouting-gabe-reid
"His speed off the edge is phenomenal".
Did Shaw ghostwrite this?
Re: Class of 2015 - stupac2 - 02-03-2015
(02-03-2015, 09:10 AM)JPRI link Wrote:"His speed off the edge is phenomenal".
Did Shaw ghostwrite this?
I've been noticing lately that "phenomenal" is pretty heavily used in many areas of sports analysis, I don't think it's a uniquely Shaw-ian tic.
No more over-used, misused than "surreal" - Redrum - 02-03-2015
Practically anyone who is interviewed about something in or out of the ordinary describes their experience as "surreal". I'm thinking:Really? Like the interviews after the Oscars or HS players who have big commit ceremonies and are interviewed about it afterwards. But they never seem to be wandering around disoriented, or mention that the award presenter was a palm tree or talking about how everyone in the audience had animal heads. Now that would be surreal and I'd love to see.
Re: Class of 2015 - TrumpCard - 02-03-2015
This goes in the hopper with other predictions with no solid stated basis, but I'll re-post it because otherwise you might miss one of the billion pieces of information out there:
[tweet]562637185745428480[/tweet]
Re: Class of 2015 - chicard - 02-03-2015
Are we waiting on decisions from anyone else beside Meeks and Reid at this point? What is the timeframe for elder Scarlett?
Re: Class of 2015 - CowboyIndian - 02-03-2015
(02-03-2015, 09:29 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I don't think it's a uniquely Shaw-ian tic.
Folks call it "Shavian" when referring to George Bernard. Don't ask me why.
Re: Class of 2015 - PrinceLightfoot - 02-03-2015
(02-03-2015, 10:51 AM)chicard link Wrote:Are we waiting on decisions from anyone else beside Meeks and Reid at this point? What is the timeframe for elder Scarlett?
Unless there is a superstealth recruit out there, Meeks and Reid are the last ones. I am pretty confident we land Meeks but Reid hasn't revealed much recently that would indicate a clear lean.
No clue on Scarlett.
Re: Class of 2015 - oman - 02-03-2015
OHMYGOD TOMORROW IS NSD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Class of 2015 - washingtonismoney - 02-03-2015
Also, Dave Flemming offers this critique of our 'crooting efforts:
https://twitter.com/FlemmingDave/status/562409522971422720
https://twitter.com/FlemmingDave/status/562409799141179392
https://twitter.com/FlemmingDave/status/562414537001799680
https://twitter.com/FlemmingDave/status/562415031686426624
Re: Class of 2015 - oman - 02-03-2015
Well, in fairness, Hargadon almost lost me to an Ivy, what with his Pacific Time admissions decision procrastinations....
Re: Class of 2015 - dabomb1227 - 02-03-2015
While Flemming's criticism is fair and probably well-founded, I have a belief that the lack of aggressiveness is a necessary evil of dealing with the Stanford admissions requirement and that being more aggressive might have negative consequences.
A reason for hesitance on our recruiting might be that they do not want to deal with athletes who have either not provided enough information to allow us to gauge their admissibility or who we do not believe will be admitted. Having a player commit and then have to de-commit because of academics must be painful for both the players and coaching staff and hinders Stanford's ability to monitor its class while also providing recruits a reason to distrust Stanford.
The Shaw era of recruitment and limiting offers to somewhere around 100 seems to be a better long-term strategy than Harbaugh offering 300 athletes, most of which who have no chance of being admitted. Having a bunch of players rejected by the school and then having to de-commit would be a big negative for Stanford among HS coaches and players who often speak to each other.Â
Re: Class of 2015 - FarmBoy - 02-03-2015
Can Stanford be more aggressive without offering? Perhaps they could pursue more elite recruits, while still providing the caveat that admissions is a requirement. Maybe Shaw has gotten more cautious about not getting a kids' hopes up who he thinks is borderline than Harbaugh had.
It seems like we get 1-2 kids a year who are eager to don the Cardinal and White that the coaches have pursued who are then denied admission. Would we be okay with that number increasing to 3-5 kids rejected late in the process and the hurt fillings and ill will it creates, if that put us 5-10 places higher in the recruiting rankings each year? I'm not sure I would. Of course, these kids get hurt feelings all the time by being rejected for the lack of athletic ranking when a top recruit takes their spot, so why should we care more if we cause late rejections due to academics?
Re: Class of 2015 - OutsiderFan - 02-03-2015
I think Fleming is off his rocker. Iman Marshall, Rasheem Green, Soso Jamabo, Christian Wilkins, Christian Kirk, Porter Gustin, Osa Masina. These are just a few of the elite recruits Stanford offered this class, and there were more. Only Wilkins of all these guys took an OV to Stanford.
In general, the elite recruits are not interested in doing all the extra stuff to get into Stanford. Pursuing more of them to seek commitments, only to increase the numbers who get denied admission, is a terrible idea, IMO. Stanford could potentially make more committable offers contingent on admission. Maybe that's what Fleming's suggestion is, to offer more guys but not actually except commitments from them until they have demonstrated a high probability of doing what it takes to be admitted.
I'd be perfectly OK with such a strategy.
O.F. is mixing up recruits who eliminate Stanford... - Redrum - 02-03-2015
from OUR necessary larger, more-inclusive development of an interested pool of recruits.
So what if, picking someone at random...say, Rasheem Green, showed no interest despite an offer. OK, next man up. Porter Gustin? No interest? OK, next man up. In a sense, you want those guys to self-select. Their opting out is a necessary advantage, allowing us to spend quality recruiting time on those who do show legit interest...but in the hunt we want to turn over as many gems or worthwhile risks as we can . Of the top 100 players, will it yield one commit at the end? Is that worth the effort? Is the number 1 in 200? 300?. If I understand it, Flemming's point is if we arbitrarily cut off efforts early in the game we limit our options when the final class comes together. The selection process will do its own winnowing. Some of the big fish will tell us in understandable, unequivocal ways they're not interested. OK. Time saved there if one knows that early in the cycle. Some might have interest and a look at the grades / test scores will sort them out. Mostly out if the laws of statistics still apply. And on goes the winnowing process.
I think Flemming's point is: talk about a "sweet spot" of effort vs. results makes one wonder: If recruiting is running efficiently [ effort per recruit] are we then failing to optimize (or missing) opportunities? I don't think number of Montag rejections is the proper metric on which to focus. We don't want to burn our admissions bridges by sending up too many rejection-bait apps. But if there are players out there who could have been interested and arguably could have been admitted, that's the offer number we want to optimize. Flemming thinks we're not doing that. I'm sure Shaw and Anderson disagree.