[yvonne]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=9617.msg121910#msg121910 date=1436333435]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=9617.msg121901#msg121901 date=1436316782]
Demetris Robertson names Stanford and bama his top two: http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/pac12/in...t?id=88051

"Me and K.J. have been talking for the last two months or so, he's been on me hard," Robertson said. "I just like the atmosphere out there at Stanford. I know football isn't going to last that long, so I know I need a strong academic foundation."

What's Robertson's first language?

Somehow I've got this feeling that if all Stanford recruits were required to live up to the grammar standards promulgated by the CardBoard Grammar Police we wouldn't have much of a class.
[/quote][/quote]

Grammar police? He doesn't know a subject from an object! That's pretty basic. Me has been talking?

You guys are always bragging about how intelligent Stanford athletes are and yet they can't form a basic sentence at a five-year-old's level? You find that acceptable?

[yvonne]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=9617.msg121910#msg121910 date=1436333435]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=9617.msg121901#msg121901 date=1436316782]
Demetris Robertson names Stanford and bama his top two: http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/pac12/in...t?id=88051

"Me and K.J. have been talking for the last two months or so, he's been on me hard," Robertson said. "I just like the atmosphere out there at Stanford. I know football isn't going to last that long, so I know I need a strong academic foundation."

What's Robertson's first language?

Somehow I've got this feeling that if all Stanford recruits were required to live up to the grammar standards promulgated by the CardBoard Grammar Police we wouldn't have much of a class.
[/quote][/quote]

Grammar police? He doesn't know a subject from an object! That's pretty basic. Me has been talking?

You guys are always bragging about how intelligent Stanford athletes are and yet they can't form a basic sentence at a five-year-old's level? You find that acceptable?

[2 for 2028]

I think the highest recruiting ranking we have received was #5 from Rivals in 2012.

Costello is putting on a hell of a show at the Elite11 competition, but unfortunately the event is closed off to many recruiting sites. My guess is that he will earn a fifth star after his senior season if he continues to perform at a high level. Several other less evaluated players will hopefully receive a bump as well.

Finishing with a consensus top15 recruiting class seems almost a certainty. If we land both Kelly and Robertson along with Costello receiving a fifth star, that may push us to top5 territory. While the cumulative quality of recruits can be very good, putting together players with the right fit and skill set for an offense or defense is probably more important.

The results of recruiting rankings along with actual results is surprising. This article contains that comparison:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/...iting.html

Nine out of twenty five teams that had an average top25 recruiting class between 2010-2013 did not finish the 2013 season ranked in the top25. That seems like a high percentage of misses considering the amount of stacked talented. It is most likely explained by some coaching, injury, or position group deficiency factor.

Recall that our class of 2008 was not ranked in the top 25 but was retrospectively considered the third best class:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...ng-classes

[2 for 2028]

I think the highest recruiting ranking we have received was #5 from Rivals in 2012.

Costello is putting on a hell of a show at the Elite11 competition, but unfortunately the event is closed off to many recruiting sites. My guess is that he will earn a fifth star after his senior season if he continues to perform at a high level. Several other less evaluated players will hopefully receive a bump as well.

Finishing with a consensus top15 recruiting class seems almost a certainty. If we land both Kelly and Robertson along with Costello receiving a fifth star, that may push us to top5 territory. While the cumulative quality of recruits can be very good, putting together players with the right fit and skill set for an offense or defense is probably more important.

The results of recruiting rankings along with actual results is surprising. This article contains that comparison:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/...iting.html

Nine out of twenty five teams that had an average top25 recruiting class between 2010-2013 did not finish the 2013 season ranked in the top25. That seems like a high percentage of misses considering the amount of stacked talented. It is most likely explained by some coaching, injury, or position group deficiency factor.

Recall that our class of 2008 was not ranked in the top 25 but was retrospectively considered the third best class:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...ng-classes

[Durty Nelly]

Strong position with David Long.  We are recruiting him as a DB now.  Akina looks to be making us DBU (Defensive Back University).




http://www.scout.com/college/football/re...david-long

[Durty Nelly]

Strong position with David Long.  We are recruiting him as a DB now.  Akina looks to be making us DBU (Defensive Back University).




http://www.scout.com/college/football/re...david-long

[stupac2]

Grammar police? He doesn't know a subject from an object! That's pretty basic. Me has been talking?

You guys are always bragging about how intelligent Stanford athletes are and yet they can't form a basic sentence at a five-year-old's level? You find that acceptable?

I don't think that judging someone on their language use in incredibly informal situations (and for teenagers twitter is informal) makes any sense. People are incredibly flexible in the way they use language and tune it for their audience, if you're around friends who don't use language well you probably won't either. Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.

[stupac2]

Grammar police? He doesn't know a subject from an object! That's pretty basic. Me has been talking?

You guys are always bragging about how intelligent Stanford athletes are and yet they can't form a basic sentence at a five-year-old's level? You find that acceptable?

I don't think that judging someone on their language use in incredibly informal situations (and for teenagers twitter is informal) makes any sense. People are incredibly flexible in the way they use language and tune it for their audience, if you're around friends who don't use language well you probably won't either. Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.

[washingtonismoney]

NEXT ON CARDBOARD: How can Janis Joplin be a famous musical artist when she CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SUBJECT OR OBJECT in "Me and Bobby McGee"?


And don't get us started on Paul Simon's "Me And Julio Down At The Schoolyard." He MAY BE "Rhymin' Paul Simon" but he's certainly no "Grammatically Sound Simon", THAT'S FOR DARN SURE.

[washingtonismoney]

NEXT ON CARDBOARD: How can Janis Joplin be a famous musical artist when she CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SUBJECT OR OBJECT in "Me and Bobby McGee"?


And don't get us started on Paul Simon's "Me And Julio Down At The Schoolyard." He MAY BE "Rhymin' Paul Simon" but he's certainly no "Grammatically Sound Simon", THAT'S FOR DARN SURE.

[yvonne]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=9617.msg121931#msg121931 date=1436369213]Grammar police? He doesn't know a subject from an object! That's pretty basic. Me has been talking?

You guys are always bragging about how intelligent Stanford athletes are and yet they can't form a basic sentence at a five-year-old's level? You find that acceptable?

I don't think that judging someone on their language use in incredibly informal situations (and for teenagers twitter is informal) makes any sense. People are incredibly flexible in the way they use language and tune it for their audience, if you're around friends who don't use language well you probably won't either. Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.
[/quote]

What you really mean is "I don't value my own language enough to be able to speak it correctly." Have you ever wondered why the epithet "police" is never leveled at any other discipline? No one ever complains "oh, those damn math police keep insisting that one and one is two." You even celebrate people who know pi to a certain number of digits, yet you deride those who think Wnglish should be spoken at a level higher than a cave man's speech.

[yvonne]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=9617.msg121931#msg121931 date=1436369213]Grammar police? He doesn't know a subject from an object! That's pretty basic. Me has been talking?

You guys are always bragging about how intelligent Stanford athletes are and yet they can't form a basic sentence at a five-year-old's level? You find that acceptable?

I don't think that judging someone on their language use in incredibly informal situations (and for teenagers twitter is informal) makes any sense. People are incredibly flexible in the way they use language and tune it for their audience, if you're around friends who don't use language well you probably won't either. Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.
[/quote]

What you really mean is "I don't value my own language enough to be able to speak it correctly." Have you ever wondered why the epithet "police" is never leveled at any other discipline? No one ever complains "oh, those damn math police keep insisting that one and one is two." You even celebrate people who know pi to a certain number of digits, yet you deride those who think Wnglish should be spoken at a level higher than a cave man's speech.

[PrinceLightfoot]

You guys are always bragging about how intelligent Stanford athletes are and yet they can't form a basic sentence at a five-year-old's level? You find that acceptable?

Intelligence is not always captured by one's ability to speak using correct grammar; grammar is a set a rules and knowing rules is not a reflection of intelligence.

There is a difference between a high school student's speech and that same student's speech after a few years at Stanford. Environment and exposure are directly attributable to how one speaks. I never thought I would be utilizing something learned from my anthropology CIV classes in any form, but there you have it.

[PrinceLightfoot]

You guys are always bragging about how intelligent Stanford athletes are and yet they can't form a basic sentence at a five-year-old's level? You find that acceptable?

Intelligence is not always captured by one's ability to speak using correct grammar; grammar is a set a rules and knowing rules is not a reflection of intelligence.

There is a difference between a high school student's speech and that same student's speech after a few years at Stanford. Environment and exposure are directly attributable to how one speaks. I never thought I would be utilizing something learned from my anthropology CIV classes in any form, but there you have it.

[OutsiderFan]

Request for new thread on grammar policing!

[OutsiderFan]

Request for new thread on grammar policing!

[Spiny_Norman]

NEXT ON CARDBOARD: How can Janis Joplin be a famous musical artist when she CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SUBJECT OR OBJECT in "Me and Bobby McGee"?

Ha!  That song was written by Kris Kristoffersen, a Rhodes Scholar at Pomona.  I don't think we can equate a Rhodes Scholar and Hall of Fame songwriter with a high school recruit.  But Kristoffersen's college football career was undistinguished.  Robinson - we'll see.

[Spiny_Norman]

NEXT ON CARDBOARD: How can Janis Joplin be a famous musical artist when she CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SUBJECT OR OBJECT in "Me and Bobby McGee"?

Ha!  That song was written by Kris Kristoffersen, a Rhodes Scholar at Pomona.  I don't think we can equate a Rhodes Scholar and Hall of Fame songwriter with a high school recruit.  But Kristoffersen's college football career was undistinguished.  Robinson - we'll see.

[washingtonismoney]

Ha!  That song was written by Kris Kristoffersen, a Rhodes Scholar at Pomona.  I don't think we can equate a Rhodes Scholar and Hall of Fame songwriter with a high school recruit.  But Kristoffersen's college football career was undistinguished.  Robinson - we'll see.

Well, I think that proves my point: if a Rhodes Scholar/all-time-great songwriter uses and abuses grammatical uses for his own convenience, why should the rest of us bother?

We speak, and write, differently according to circumstance. For instance my previous ALL CAPS LOCK writing is commonly accepted on the internet for emphasis or sarcasm; but you'd never get away with it at the New York Times. I will swear for a joke in front of my friends; but I won't even bother with the joke -- let alone the swearing -- with my grandmother. Anyone who's being honest with themselves knows they behave the same way.


Furthermore, we know what the purpose of grammar is: it's to provide an agreed-upon framework to organize language and make it mutually comprehensible. Everyone knew exactly what was meant by "Me and K.J."; who cares if he expressed it "K.J. and I"? So I'm a bit bemused that anyone has the energy to care about this.


ADDITION: I also find it hard to believe that anyone thinks Robertson doesn't know the grammatical rule in question. Anyone prone to using "atmosphere" and "academic foundation" in a sentence probably has a sufficient grammatical grasp to get this.

[washingtonismoney]

Ha!  That song was written by Kris Kristoffersen, a Rhodes Scholar at Pomona.  I don't think we can equate a Rhodes Scholar and Hall of Fame songwriter with a high school recruit.  But Kristoffersen's college football career was undistinguished.  Robinson - we'll see.

Well, I think that proves my point: if a Rhodes Scholar/all-time-great songwriter uses and abuses grammatical uses for his own convenience, why should the rest of us bother?

We speak, and write, differently according to circumstance. For instance my previous ALL CAPS LOCK writing is commonly accepted on the internet for emphasis or sarcasm; but you'd never get away with it at the New York Times. I will swear for a joke in front of my friends; but I won't even bother with the joke -- let alone the swearing -- with my grandmother. Anyone who's being honest with themselves knows they behave the same way.


Furthermore, we know what the purpose of grammar is: it's to provide an agreed-upon framework to organize language and make it mutually comprehensible. Everyone knew exactly what was meant by "Me and K.J."; who cares if he expressed it "K.J. and I"? So I'm a bit bemused that anyone has the energy to care about this.


ADDITION: I also find it hard to believe that anyone thinks Robertson doesn't know the grammatical rule in question. Anyone prone to using "atmosphere" and "academic foundation" in a sentence probably has a sufficient grammatical grasp to get this.

[CompSci87]

NEXT ON CARDBOARD: How can Janis Joplin be a famous musical artist when she CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SUBJECT OR OBJECT in "Me and Bobby McGee"?

The lyric is "Feeling good was good enough for me, good enough for me and Bobby McGee." "Me" looks like the object of a preposition to me, professor.

[CompSci87]

NEXT ON CARDBOARD: How can Janis Joplin be a famous musical artist when she CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SUBJECT OR OBJECT in "Me and Bobby McGee"?

The lyric is "Feeling good was good enough for me, good enough for me and Bobby McGee." "Me" looks like the object of a preposition to me, professor.

[washingtonismoney]

The lyric is "Feeling good was good enough for me, good enough for me and Bobby McGee." "Me" looks like the object of a preposition to me, professor.

A reasonable reading should differentiate between the use of the the phrase in the lyric and the use of the phrase in the title.

[washingtonismoney]

The lyric is "Feeling good was good enough for me, good enough for me and Bobby McGee." "Me" looks like the object of a preposition to me, professor.

A reasonable reading should differentiate between the use of the the phrase in the lyric and the use of the phrase in the title.

[stupac2]

What you really mean is "I don't value my own language enough to be able to speak it correctly." Have you ever wondered why the epithet "police" is never leveled at any other discipline? No one ever complains "oh, those damn math police keep insisting that one and one is two." You even celebrate people who know pi to a certain number of digits, yet you deride those who think Wnglish should be spoken at a level higher than a cave man's speech.

That's because the language police are almost always either:

1) Themselves ignorant/incorrect. Or
2) Making much ado about nothing.

Like here, for instance, why on god's green earth do you care about what a recruit says in a tweet? The fact that you're judging him on it says more about you than the tweet does about him.

[stupac2]

What you really mean is "I don't value my own language enough to be able to speak it correctly." Have you ever wondered why the epithet "police" is never leveled at any other discipline? No one ever complains "oh, those damn math police keep insisting that one and one is two." You even celebrate people who know pi to a certain number of digits, yet you deride those who think Wnglish should be spoken at a level higher than a cave man's speech.

That's because the language police are almost always either:

1) Themselves ignorant/incorrect. Or
2) Making much ado about nothing.

Like here, for instance, why on god's green earth do you care about what a recruit says in a tweet? The fact that you're judging him on it says more about you than the tweet does about him.

[Nan3cy]

The whole "me" vs "I" thing is getting more and more muddled over time, it seems to me. For example, does anyone say "It's I" any more, when self-identifying? I consider myself at least an unpaid auxiliary member of the grammar police, but I think everyone I know would say "it's me" -- and I don't  complain. That's what I say too. That's how language changes, isn't it? -- improper usage becomes so widely used that eventually it's just the way it is. And eventually the new improper usage becomes the thing that the defenders of the language demand (maybe after a few generations, of course).


Now, the use of "which" when I think it should be "that" -- that gets to me. I'm reading David Halberstam's The Children, and he constantly uses "which" when I think he should be using "that." I think he was a terrific writer, but I think he messed up on that one.

[Nan3cy]

The whole "me" vs "I" thing is getting more and more muddled over time, it seems to me. For example, does anyone say "It's I" any more, when self-identifying? I consider myself at least an unpaid auxiliary member of the grammar police, but I think everyone I know would say "it's me" -- and I don't  complain. That's what I say too. That's how language changes, isn't it? -- improper usage becomes so widely used that eventually it's just the way it is. And eventually the new improper usage becomes the thing that the defenders of the language demand (maybe after a few generations, of course).


Now, the use of "which" when I think it should be "that" -- that gets to me. I'm reading David Halberstam's The Children, and he constantly uses "which" when I think he should be using "that." I think he was a terrific writer, but I think he messed up on that one.

[CrazedZooChimp]

What you really mean is "I don't value my own language enough to be able to speak it correctly." Have you ever wondered why the epithet "police" is never leveled at any other discipline? No one ever complains "oh, those damn math police keep insisting that one and one is two." You even celebrate people who know pi to a certain number of digits, yet you deride those who think Wnglish should be spoken at a level higher than a cave man's speech.

Oh, if someone were to consistently correct my rounding of Pi by saying "it's 3.14159... not 3.14, how did you ever graduate college" I would be just as likely to call them an ass as I am someone who yells at me for ending a sentence with a preposition.  It's just most engineers and scientists don't give a shit enough to bother doing that on the internet...


Seriously though, can we keep the stuff that isn't directly about the class of 2016 out of the thread.  In order to help with that, looks like Fehoko is going to announce soon, seems very likely to be us:


[tweet]618636443133415424[/tweet]


And it looks like 4 star DB Treyjohn Butler is going to be committing relatively soon (mid-August) as well.  I imagine we're in a good spot for him too:


[tweet]618262831587196928[/tweet]

[CrazedZooChimp]

What you really mean is "I don't value my own language enough to be able to speak it correctly." Have you ever wondered why the epithet "police" is never leveled at any other discipline? No one ever complains "oh, those damn math police keep insisting that one and one is two." You even celebrate people who know pi to a certain number of digits, yet you deride those who think Wnglish should be spoken at a level higher than a cave man's speech.

Oh, if someone were to consistently correct my rounding of Pi by saying "it's 3.14159... not 3.14, how did you ever graduate college" I would be just as likely to call them an ass as I am someone who yells at me for ending a sentence with a preposition.  It's just most engineers and scientists don't give a shit enough to bother doing that on the internet...


Seriously though, can we keep the stuff that isn't directly about the class of 2016 out of the thread.  In order to help with that, looks like Fehoko is going to announce soon, seems very likely to be us:


[tweet]618636443133415424[/tweet]


And it looks like 4 star DB Treyjohn Butler is going to be committing relatively soon (mid-August) as well.  I imagine we're in a good spot for him too:


[tweet]618262831587196928[/tweet]

[TrumpCard]

Now they are just teasing us:


http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/ncfrecru...t?id=69869


He'll never come to Stanford, but I suppose it's nice that Stanford has generated enough positive buzz to be part of the conversation.

[TrumpCard]

Now they are just teasing us:


http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/ncfrecru...t?id=69869


He'll never come to Stanford, but I suppose it's nice that Stanford has generated enough positive buzz to be part of the conversation.

[ChicagoCard]

Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.

Did anybody catch this from earlier in this thread? Was this a result of the auto-correction program?

[ChicagoCard]

Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.

Did anybody catch this from earlier in this thread? Was this a result of the auto-correction program?

[StanfordMatt]

Let's not be so quick to judge our prospects in this way. It has an air of superiority with the sense of looking down one's nose. Robertson reports a 3.8 GPA, thus he is on the Stanford recruiting radar.

Let's remove the qualifiers and call a spade a spade. The criticisms of Robertson's comments are snobbish and unwarranted especially given the informal nature of Robertson's interview.

[StanfordMatt]

Let's not be so quick to judge our prospects in this way. It has an air of superiority with the sense of looking down one's nose. Robertson reports a 3.8 GPA, thus he is on the Stanford recruiting radar.

Let's remove the qualifiers and call a spade a spade. The criticisms of Robertson's comments are snobbish and unwarranted especially given the informal nature of Robertson's interview.

[yvonne]

If the ability to speak one's native language above the level of "me is going to the store" is snobbish, then count me in. The reality is that most of the posters on this board don't value being able to speak and write correctly. No one here would consider it snobbish if a recruit were to say that he, Bob, and Joe had committed, so we had a total of two commitments. You don't give a damn whether these guys can read and write, as long as they can catch a ball.

[yvonne]

If the ability to speak one's native language above the level of "me is going to the store" is snobbish, then count me in. The reality is that most of the posters on this board don't value being able to speak and write correctly. No one here would consider it snobbish if a recruit were to say that he, Bob, and Joe had committed, so we had a total of two commitments. You don't give a damn whether these guys can read and write, as long as they can catch a ball.

[Langdude]

Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.

Did anybody catch this from earlier in this thread? Was this a result of the auto-correction program?

Yes. No and yes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupertino_effect


-m.

[Langdude]

Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.

Did anybody catch this from earlier in this thread? Was this a result of the auto-correction program?

Yes. No and yes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupertino_effect


-m.