[Mick]

Take a naive approach to analyzing this. Stanford's signed 53 players during Shaw's tenure; 56 were admitted. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sarao, Carlisle and Winston were admitted but went elsewhere.) So if you knew nothing else about a recruit other than his admissions status, you'd have an excellent chance of predicting whether he's coming or not. My assumption, then, is that any player who fills out the application and gets admitted is going to Stanford.

I know a young Ivy coach (Director's Cup sport, not at my son's school) who gets three LOIs every year, or what the Ivies refer to as "likely" letters.  The Ivies came up with these alternatives in order to address the letters of intent that D1 schools give, in order to attract athletes.  The letters are informal, but essentially state "If you keep your grades up, don't drop any classes and don't get arrested, you will be admitted to (Ivy) University."  The likely letters are granted out parsimoniously; in other words, the coach must receive the strongest possible oral commitment from the athletes, in order to preserve the highest possible yield of matriculating students against admitted students, and it is similarly important that these individuals remain on the team once admitted, given that the number of "likely" letters are roughly half the number typically offered in each sport.  So the Ivies actually do depend on walk-ons to a significant degree (the Ivies do not give scholarships outside of regular financial assistance, but most have very generous financing/scholarship programs for regular students, so the athletes benefit to a strong degree.  Athletes do receive academic consideration).

In this coach's first year, she gave out three likely letters to three academically gifted and athletically adequate students; all three accepted and to this date are still on the team and on track to graduate.  None are full-time starters.  In her next season, she offered three likely letters to superb athletes who were reasonably strong academically.  All three accepted the letters, but two of the three reneged on their oral commitments (one to Stanford who offered a last minute, end-of-the-bench partial ride).  This was nearly disastrous, and the coach had a conversation with admissions who strongly discouraged her use of likely letters for the following year, and instead allowed her to "endorse" athletes, a much iffier proposition.  When a coach endorses an athlete (versus using a likely letter), the admissions office takes the coach's recommendations into effect and will admit three candidates, but admissions makes the decisions in the normal course of time, and the coach can't make promises.  So the coach might "endorse" five athletes, with the expectation that three will be admitted.  She can even endorse in order of preference, but will not necessarily find his preferred candidate accepted.

Well this coach had a disastrous year, when, in effect, her first choice at a critical position (think quarterback) was rejected by admissions, as was her third choice, so she had to take 2, 4 and 5.  Not great for the coach's reputation in her field.  She's since rebounded, but had several challenging recruiting years.

[Mick]

Take a naive approach to analyzing this. Stanford's signed 53 players during Shaw's tenure; 56 were admitted. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sarao, Carlisle and Winston were admitted but went elsewhere.) So if you knew nothing else about a recruit other than his admissions status, you'd have an excellent chance of predicting whether he's coming or not. My assumption, then, is that any player who fills out the application and gets admitted is going to Stanford.

I know a young Ivy coach (Director's Cup sport, not at my son's school) who gets three LOIs every year, or what the Ivies refer to as "likely" letters.  The Ivies came up with these alternatives in order to address the letters of intent that D1 schools give, in order to attract athletes.  The letters are informal, but essentially state "If you keep your grades up, don't drop any classes and don't get arrested, you will be admitted to (Ivy) University."  The likely letters are granted out parsimoniously; in other words, the coach must receive the strongest possible oral commitment from the athletes, in order to preserve the highest possible yield of matriculating students against admitted students, and it is similarly important that these individuals remain on the team once admitted, given that the number of "likely" letters are roughly half the number typically offered in each sport.  So the Ivies actually do depend on walk-ons to a significant degree (the Ivies do not give scholarships outside of regular financial assistance, but most have very generous financing/scholarship programs for regular students, so the athletes benefit to a strong degree.  Athletes do receive academic consideration).

In this coach's first year, she gave out three likely letters to three academically gifted and athletically adequate students; all three accepted and to this date are still on the team and on track to graduate.  None are full-time starters.  In her next season, she offered three likely letters to superb athletes who were reasonably strong academically.  All three accepted the letters, but two of the three reneged on their oral commitments (one to Stanford who offered a last minute, end-of-the-bench partial ride).  This was nearly disastrous, and the coach had a conversation with admissions who strongly discouraged her use of likely letters for the following year, and instead allowed her to "endorse" athletes, a much iffier proposition.  When a coach endorses an athlete (versus using a likely letter), the admissions office takes the coach's recommendations into effect and will admit three candidates, but admissions makes the decisions in the normal course of time, and the coach can't make promises.  So the coach might "endorse" five athletes, with the expectation that three will be admitted.  She can even endorse in order of preference, but will not necessarily find his preferred candidate accepted.

Well this coach had a disastrous year, when, in effect, her first choice at a critical position (think quarterback) was rejected by admissions, as was her third choice, so she had to take 2, 4 and 5.  Not great for the coach's reputation in her field.  She's since rebounded, but had several challenging recruiting years.