[yvonne]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8494.msg69663#msg69663 date=1380627084]
I have never been a fan of the notion that you have to hire someone right away to avoid messing up your recruiting class. Better take your time and make sure you have the right person rather than rush out and get someone. Even if your recruiting class is below par because you took too long, subpar recruiting classes are easier to recover from than hiring subpar coaches.

That would be true in normal circumstances, but Under Stanford Control is losing right now because they do not have enough people.  At the end of this year probably 20 players will leave the program.  Under Stanford Control can sign 15(+4), so Under Stanford Control will definitely be worse off next year, the question is how bad will it be.  Numbers are central to the problem, and essential to the solution.

Normally, you don't tell juniors to hit the road to sign more freshman, but that happened in 2011.
Normally, you don't load up with sub-standard talent just to max out the roster, but that happened in 2011.
Normally, you don't recruit kids specifically because they can start college in January, but that happened in 2012 & 2013.

....

SC is in a world of hurt for 2014.  The plan had to be for Daniel Tosh's evil twin to recruit a big class AND THEN get fired.  Kiff really Kiff-ed SC by losing to Wazzu.

Kiff Kiff-ed the Raiders for years after he left.  Kiff Kiff-ed the Vols for years now too.  Both of those programs were rather respectable before Kiff, and have been a complete joke since he left.  Now, it looks like Kiff has Kiff-ed SC too.
[/quote]

I don't think I'm following you here. SC's scholarship reductions ended last year (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/10/...t-20100611), but due to back dating, they had been able to have a full complement of players. This recruiting cycle, they will be able to sign a full class, but probably not an extra large class (not any room to backdate).

How would the numbers situation continue to hurt them?

[yvonne]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8494.msg69663#msg69663 date=1380627084]
I have never been a fan of the notion that you have to hire someone right away to avoid messing up your recruiting class. Better take your time and make sure you have the right person rather than rush out and get someone. Even if your recruiting class is below par because you took too long, subpar recruiting classes are easier to recover from than hiring subpar coaches.

That would be true in normal circumstances, but Under Stanford Control is losing right now because they do not have enough people.  At the end of this year probably 20 players will leave the program.  Under Stanford Control can sign 15(+4), so Under Stanford Control will definitely be worse off next year, the question is how bad will it be.  Numbers are central to the problem, and essential to the solution.

Normally, you don't tell juniors to hit the road to sign more freshman, but that happened in 2011.
Normally, you don't load up with sub-standard talent just to max out the roster, but that happened in 2011.
Normally, you don't recruit kids specifically because they can start college in January, but that happened in 2012 & 2013.

....

SC is in a world of hurt for 2014.  The plan had to be for Daniel Tosh's evil twin to recruit a big class AND THEN get fired.  Kiff really Kiff-ed SC by losing to Wazzu.

Kiff Kiff-ed the Raiders for years after he left.  Kiff Kiff-ed the Vols for years now too.  Both of those programs were rather respectable before Kiff, and have been a complete joke since he left.  Now, it looks like Kiff has Kiff-ed SC too.
[/quote]

I don't think I'm following you here. SC's scholarship reductions ended last year (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/10/...t-20100611), but due to back dating, they had been able to have a full complement of players. This recruiting cycle, they will be able to sign a full class, but probably not an extra large class (not any room to backdate).

How would the numbers situation continue to hurt them?