[2 for 2028]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=6741.msg64475#msg64475 date=1374254595]
[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6741.msg64474#msg64474 date=1374254247]
Do we have any OL commitments? This worries me.

Fanaika at OG.

Tucker and Pierschbacher look like strong possibilities.

If we ever offer Andrew Mike and/or Austin Hall, they would probably rush to commit. Nolan Kelleher is another possibility with an offer (he's visiting this month.)

Considering we'll probably shoot for a class of four total, we're in decent shape.
[/quote]

Maybe if Mike was showing less interest in Stanford the staff would have offered him by now. 

[/quote]

I would hope that our staff does not operate like this.

[2 for 2028]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=6741.msg64475#msg64475 date=1374254595]
[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6741.msg64474#msg64474 date=1374254247]
Do we have any OL commitments? This worries me.

Fanaika at OG.

Tucker and Pierschbacher look like strong possibilities.

If we ever offer Andrew Mike and/or Austin Hall, they would probably rush to commit. Nolan Kelleher is another possibility with an offer (he's visiting this month.)

Considering we'll probably shoot for a class of four total, we're in decent shape.
[/quote]

Maybe if Mike was showing less interest in Stanford the staff would have offered him by now. 

[/quote]

I would hope that our staff does not operate like this.

[washingtonismoney]

I would hope that our staff does not operate like this.

Why? It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

[washingtonismoney]

I would hope that our staff does not operate like this.

Why? It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

[2 for 2028]

[quote author=2 for 2018 link=topic=6741.msg64480#msg64480 date=1374262021]
I would hope that our staff does not operate like this.

Why? It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
[/quote]

Withholding an offer BECAUSE a recruit is open about the fact that he wants to be a Cardinal does not sit right with me.  Plus, had Andrew Mike been offered by UNC and committed, I doubt it would have affected Bentley's Spain decision.  These kids don't seem to think that way.

[2 for 2028]

[quote author=2 for 2018 link=topic=6741.msg64480#msg64480 date=1374262021]
I would hope that our staff does not operate like this.

Why? It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
[/quote]

Withholding an offer BECAUSE a recruit is open about the fact that he wants to be a Cardinal does not sit right with me.  Plus, had Andrew Mike been offered by UNC and committed, I doubt it would have affected Bentley's Spain decision.  These kids don't seem to think that way.

[washingtonismoney]

Withholding an offer BECAUSE a recruit is open about the fact that he wants to be a Cardinal does not sit right with me. 

Why?

[washingtonismoney]

Withholding an offer BECAUSE a recruit is open about the fact that he wants to be a Cardinal does not sit right with me. 

Why?

[Hank 91]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=6741.msg64482#msg64482 date=1374262193]
[quote author=2 for 2018 link=topic=6741.msg64480#msg64480 date=1374262021]
I would hope that our staff does not operate like this.

Why? It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
[/quote]

Withholding an offer BECAUSE a recruit is open about the fact that he wants to be a Cardinal does not sit right with me.
[/quote]

They're clearly not withholding the offer BECAUSE he badly wants it, they're withholding the offer because there are better options available -- this is the only way they can play it. The alternative -- the SEC model -- would be to offer Mike now as a safety net because they know he'll accept, wait for better players to accept an offer, and then pull Mike's offer at the last minute when they need it for the better player. How would that sit with you?

[Hank 91]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=6741.msg64482#msg64482 date=1374262193]
[quote author=2 for 2018 link=topic=6741.msg64480#msg64480 date=1374262021]
I would hope that our staff does not operate like this.

Why? It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
[/quote]

Withholding an offer BECAUSE a recruit is open about the fact that he wants to be a Cardinal does not sit right with me.
[/quote]

They're clearly not withholding the offer BECAUSE he badly wants it, they're withholding the offer because there are better options available -- this is the only way they can play it. The alternative -- the SEC model -- would be to offer Mike now as a safety net because they know he'll accept, wait for better players to accept an offer, and then pull Mike's offer at the last minute when they need it for the better player. How would that sit with you?

[2 for 2028]

[quote author=2 for 2018 link=topic=6741.msg64483#msg64483 date=1374262702]
Withholding an offer BECAUSE a recruit is open about the fact that he wants to be a Cardinal does not sit right with me. 

Why?
[/quote]

For one--and I obviously don't know what is going on in Andrew Mike's head-- let's just assume a recruit walks away from his Stanford visit or camp with the indication that an offer is on its way, which he wants to accept.  One week goes by, a month, two months, three months and nothing.  Let's say he visits another program and it blows him away and they tell him that he has a real shot at getting PT as a frosh.  Now he sees that Stanford gets spurned by some other OL recruits and then an offer finally comes in.  If I were him, I wouldn't be jumping at it. 

One the other hand, what's the downside of getting a solid verbal commitment from a four-star recruit?  Just seems like a bad game to play to me.  If the kid has earned an offer, give him it.

[2 for 2028]

[quote author=2 for 2018 link=topic=6741.msg64483#msg64483 date=1374262702]
Withholding an offer BECAUSE a recruit is open about the fact that he wants to be a Cardinal does not sit right with me. 

Why?
[/quote]

For one--and I obviously don't know what is going on in Andrew Mike's head-- let's just assume a recruit walks away from his Stanford visit or camp with the indication that an offer is on its way, which he wants to accept.  One week goes by, a month, two months, three months and nothing.  Let's say he visits another program and it blows him away and they tell him that he has a real shot at getting PT as a frosh.  Now he sees that Stanford gets spurned by some other OL recruits and then an offer finally comes in.  If I were him, I wouldn't be jumping at it. 

One the other hand, what's the downside of getting a solid verbal commitment from a four-star recruit?  Just seems like a bad game to play to me.  If the kid has earned an offer, give him it.

[washingtonismoney]

For one--and I obviously don't know what is going on in Andrew Mike's head-- let's just assume a recruit walks away from his Stanford visit or camp with the indication that an offer is on its way, which he wants to accept.  One week goes by, a month, two months, three months and nothing.  Let's say he visits another program and it blows him away and they tell him that he has a real shot at getting PT as a frosh.  Now he sees that Stanford gets spurned by some other OL recruits and then an offer finally comes in.  If I were him, I wouldn't be jumping at it. 

One the other hand, what's the downside of getting a solid verbal commitment from a four-star recruit?  Just seems like a bad game to play to me.  If the kid has earned an offer, give him it.

OK, I thought you were making an ethical or moral argument. Look, "earning" the offer is the wrong way to look at this. There are only 20 or so spots to give out in a given year. Even with Stanford's constricted recruiting pool, there are probably more guys that could "earn" -- as in is a good player with good academics -- an offer than actually get one. And that's fine. In this case, Mike may be a perfectly good player, but if the coaches preferred Spain and Tucker at tackles, they need to proceed in a way that can achieve their Plan A while preserving their Plan B.

The judgment the coaches may or may not have made is that they could slow play Mike and get him later. While you might have looked askance on that play, if Mike's interviews/actions (coming up to camp again in June) are to be believed, he doesn't see it that way. We'll see if they end up offering him.

[washingtonismoney]

For one--and I obviously don't know what is going on in Andrew Mike's head-- let's just assume a recruit walks away from his Stanford visit or camp with the indication that an offer is on its way, which he wants to accept.  One week goes by, a month, two months, three months and nothing.  Let's say he visits another program and it blows him away and they tell him that he has a real shot at getting PT as a frosh.  Now he sees that Stanford gets spurned by some other OL recruits and then an offer finally comes in.  If I were him, I wouldn't be jumping at it. 

One the other hand, what's the downside of getting a solid verbal commitment from a four-star recruit?  Just seems like a bad game to play to me.  If the kid has earned an offer, give him it.

OK, I thought you were making an ethical or moral argument. Look, "earning" the offer is the wrong way to look at this. There are only 20 or so spots to give out in a given year. Even with Stanford's constricted recruiting pool, there are probably more guys that could "earn" -- as in is a good player with good academics -- an offer than actually get one. And that's fine. In this case, Mike may be a perfectly good player, but if the coaches preferred Spain and Tucker at tackles, they need to proceed in a way that can achieve their Plan A while preserving their Plan B.

The judgment the coaches may or may not have made is that they could slow play Mike and get him later. While you might have looked askance on that play, if Mike's interviews/actions (coming up to camp again in June) are to be believed, he doesn't see it that way. We'll see if they end up offering him.

[2 for 2028]

I completely understand, but I don't understand why under this scenario the staff would give him an offer if he were LESS outwardly interested in playing at Stanford.

[2 for 2028]

I completely understand, but I don't understand why under this scenario the staff would give him an offer if he were LESS outwardly interested in playing at Stanford.

[washingtonismoney]

I completely understand, but I don't understand why under this scenario the staff would give him an offer if he were LESS outwardly interested in playing at Stanford.

Because they wouldn't be as certain that he'd still be there in the Plan B scenario.

[washingtonismoney]

I completely understand, but I don't understand why under this scenario the staff would give him an offer if he were LESS outwardly interested in playing at Stanford.

Because they wouldn't be as certain that he'd still be there in the Plan B scenario.

[OutsiderFan]

Because if he showed less interest the coaching staff would have to go further to entice him to keep Stanford as an option.  Ergo, in the situation you describe, the staff would feel there is more of a chance Mike would commit elsewhere if Stanford didn't extend him an offer.

As it is now, he's made it evident that even with other offers, he's holding out for a Stanford one, so why should Stanford offer him when they feel they can get him if their more coveted prospects chose other options?

[OutsiderFan]

Because if he showed less interest the coaching staff would have to go further to entice him to keep Stanford as an option.  Ergo, in the situation you describe, the staff would feel there is more of a chance Mike would commit elsewhere if Stanford didn't extend him an offer.

As it is now, he's made it evident that even with other offers, he's holding out for a Stanford one, so why should Stanford offer him when they feel they can get him if their more coveted prospects chose other options?

[stupac2]

As it is now, he's made it evident that even with other offers, he's holding out for a Stanford one, so why should Stanford offer him when they feel they can get him if their more coveted prospects chose other options?

Because making it clear that he's option #2 could backfire.

[stupac2]

As it is now, he's made it evident that even with other offers, he's holding out for a Stanford one, so why should Stanford offer him when they feel they can get him if their more coveted prospects chose other options?

Because making it clear that he's option #2 could backfire.

[Bruce Wang]

Because making it clear that he's option #2 could backfire.

Speaking as somebody who was on the waiting list and was therefore option #1615, once I got in there was no way I wasn't going.  And I never held a grudge about it.  Now getting wait listed again at the GSB, that's another story.

[Bruce Wang]

Because making it clear that he's option #2 could backfire.

Speaking as somebody who was on the waiting list and was therefore option #1615, once I got in there was no way I wasn't going.  And I never held a grudge about it.  Now getting wait listed again at the GSB, that's another story.

[stupac2]

Speaking as somebody who was on the waiting list and was therefore option #1615, once I got in there was no way I wasn't going.  And I never held a grudge about it.  Now getting wait listed again at the GSB, that's another story.

General college admissions aren't nearly as personal as recruiting. This is a lot closer to being slow-played by a love interest than being wait-listed as a regular applicant. And there are more than enough after-school movies about how well THAT goes to understand why it's a dangerous game to play.

Of course, I don't particularly care what the coaching staff do (as long as it's not those SEC-style shenagians with oversigning and such), I was just answering OutsiderFan's question about why one would be concerned about it.

[stupac2]

Speaking as somebody who was on the waiting list and was therefore option #1615, once I got in there was no way I wasn't going.  And I never held a grudge about it.  Now getting wait listed again at the GSB, that's another story.

General college admissions aren't nearly as personal as recruiting. This is a lot closer to being slow-played by a love interest than being wait-listed as a regular applicant. And there are more than enough after-school movies about how well THAT goes to understand why it's a dangerous game to play.

Of course, I don't particularly care what the coaching staff do (as long as it's not those SEC-style shenagians with oversigning and such), I was just answering OutsiderFan's question about why one would be concerned about it.

[cardcoug]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=6741.msg64496#msg64496 date=1374273421]Speaking as somebody who was on the waiting list and was therefore option #1615, once I got in there was no way I wasn't going.  And I never held a grudge about it.  Now getting wait listed again at the GSB, that's another story.

General college admissions aren't nearly as personal as recruiting. This is a lot closer to being slow-played by a love interest than being wait-listed as a regular applicant.
[/quote]

I think the wait list analogy is actually a really good one. And if you feel the general undergrad admissions process is too impersonal, consider graduate admissions. I felt the exact same way as Publius when I was waitlisted at my first choice for a Ph.D. program, and I was in frequent contact with some of the faculty, had met all the current students, sat in on some classes, etc..., all of which seems very much like camping at a football program, getting to know the coaches and current players, and so forth. It was very clear to me, even in personal conversation with some faculty members, that they had a few other students whom they preferred to me, but that is just the nature of how the process works. I wasn't the #1 student; ok. I was still hoping to finally get the offer, and I still would have gone there even if the offer came on the very last possible day.

(In retrospect its a great thing the offer never did come. After being unhappy at a fallback option, I applied for another round and ended up at a new first choice: Stanford.)

Unless the recruit has major ego issues, I would think he would just pick the school and football program that best fits with what he wants out of his college experience, once all the offers are in. The recruits likely know that recruiting hype and pecking order goes out the window anyway - if you want playing time, you're going to have to earn it in practice. I saw a quote recently from Ertz (I think) saying something like "you're all zero star players now" to the new players. I hope Stanford's focus on character in recruiting weeds out the recruits who don't realize that is how it works.

[cardcoug]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=6741.msg64496#msg64496 date=1374273421]Speaking as somebody who was on the waiting list and was therefore option #1615, once I got in there was no way I wasn't going.  And I never held a grudge about it.  Now getting wait listed again at the GSB, that's another story.

General college admissions aren't nearly as personal as recruiting. This is a lot closer to being slow-played by a love interest than being wait-listed as a regular applicant.
[/quote]

I think the wait list analogy is actually a really good one. And if you feel the general undergrad admissions process is too impersonal, consider graduate admissions. I felt the exact same way as Publius when I was waitlisted at my first choice for a Ph.D. program, and I was in frequent contact with some of the faculty, had met all the current students, sat in on some classes, etc..., all of which seems very much like camping at a football program, getting to know the coaches and current players, and so forth. It was very clear to me, even in personal conversation with some faculty members, that they had a few other students whom they preferred to me, but that is just the nature of how the process works. I wasn't the #1 student; ok. I was still hoping to finally get the offer, and I still would have gone there even if the offer came on the very last possible day.

(In retrospect its a great thing the offer never did come. After being unhappy at a fallback option, I applied for another round and ended up at a new first choice: Stanford.)

Unless the recruit has major ego issues, I would think he would just pick the school and football program that best fits with what he wants out of his college experience, once all the offers are in. The recruits likely know that recruiting hype and pecking order goes out the window anyway - if you want playing time, you're going to have to earn it in practice. I saw a quote recently from Ertz (I think) saying something like "you're all zero star players now" to the new players. I hope Stanford's focus on character in recruiting weeds out the recruits who don't realize that is how it works.

[fullmetal]

I hope the Stanford coaches give as much guidance as they can to the recruits who don't get offers--where they might go, programs where the Stanford coaches might be able to put in a good word, etc.  Time is a zero sum game, but if Stanford can be the good guys to students who don't make the cut...well, that kind of goodwill can go a long way with high school coaches and parents.

But I have no idea how things are normally done.

[fullmetal]

I hope the Stanford coaches give as much guidance as they can to the recruits who don't get offers--where they might go, programs where the Stanford coaches might be able to put in a good word, etc.  Time is a zero sum game, but if Stanford can be the good guys to students who don't make the cut...well, that kind of goodwill can go a long way with high school coaches and parents.

But I have no idea how things are normally done.

[socalstanfan1]

Does anyone know the academic situation for Mike? I wondered if the coaches told him he needed to show a certain amount of improvement on that end before earning an offer. At a place like Stanford, withholding a scholarship offer from a player who is on the fence academically (or may appear to be close to the fence but has a bit of work to do) would be a responsible action, for both the school and the recruit.

[socalstanfan1]

Does anyone know the academic situation for Mike? I wondered if the coaches told him he needed to show a certain amount of improvement on that end before earning an offer. At a place like Stanford, withholding a scholarship offer from a player who is on the fence academically (or may appear to be close to the fence but has a bit of work to do) would be a responsible action, for both the school and the recruit.

[JohnR34231]

I hope the Stanford coaches give as much guidance as they can to the recruits who don't get offers--where they might go, programs where the Stanford coaches might be able to put in a good word, etc.  Time is a zero sum game, but if Stanford can be the good guys to students who don't make the cut...well, that kind of goodwill can go a long way with high school coaches and parents.

But I have no idea how things are normally done.

I really doubt if anyone does this. At least not in my experience. Frankly, I think it might be seen as a little patronizing. "Well, you're not good enough for us, but here are some places you might be good enough for."

[JohnR34231]

I hope the Stanford coaches give as much guidance as they can to the recruits who don't get offers--where they might go, programs where the Stanford coaches might be able to put in a good word, etc.  Time is a zero sum game, but if Stanford can be the good guys to students who don't make the cut...well, that kind of goodwill can go a long way with high school coaches and parents.

But I have no idea how things are normally done.

I really doubt if anyone does this. At least not in my experience. Frankly, I think it might be seen as a little patronizing. "Well, you're not good enough for us, but here are some places you might be good enough for."

[Bruce Wang]

Nice interview of Phillips by Drukarev:
http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1527165

This was the most amusing part:

"CSR: Let's say I'm 'Joe Recruit' from some random state and I'm calling you up to talk about Stanford. How would you recruit me? What would your pitch be?

HP: Well, if you were a 17-year-old kid just like me, what I'd try to (recruit you with), is I compare schools to girls. You don't want just a girlfriend to really fool around with or whatever that's just got all the looks, maybe has a big fanbase, is real pretty or something like that. Well at Stanford, they've got the great looks and she has smarts. And her family's rich. It sets you up for all the good stuff. That's 17-year-old talk, but you don't want to get married to, maybe she's a 10, but she might not have the brains. Where here at Stanford, she's a 10 and she has the brains. That's the type of woman you want to get married to and she'll be the best woman to you because she has the most to offer. That's kind of what I do when I'm sitting down thinking about it. Because a lot of times it is hard. People talk about fans and stadiums and colors and Adidas or NIKE, they think way too much about it. It should be bottom line, at least it was for me, what puts you in the best position for success and you can't tell me that Stanford's not No. 1 on that list. If it's NFL success, if it's with relationship success, networking, education, they have to be the top of the bar for everything."

So I guess that makes Oregon the beautiful clotheshorse with no brains and a sugar daddy richer than Croesus?

[Bruce Wang]

Nice interview of Phillips by Drukarev:
http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1527165

This was the most amusing part:

"CSR: Let's say I'm 'Joe Recruit' from some random state and I'm calling you up to talk about Stanford. How would you recruit me? What would your pitch be?

HP: Well, if you were a 17-year-old kid just like me, what I'd try to (recruit you with), is I compare schools to girls. You don't want just a girlfriend to really fool around with or whatever that's just got all the looks, maybe has a big fanbase, is real pretty or something like that. Well at Stanford, they've got the great looks and she has smarts. And her family's rich. It sets you up for all the good stuff. That's 17-year-old talk, but you don't want to get married to, maybe she's a 10, but she might not have the brains. Where here at Stanford, she's a 10 and she has the brains. That's the type of woman you want to get married to and she'll be the best woman to you because she has the most to offer. That's kind of what I do when I'm sitting down thinking about it. Because a lot of times it is hard. People talk about fans and stadiums and colors and Adidas or NIKE, they think way too much about it. It should be bottom line, at least it was for me, what puts you in the best position for success and you can't tell me that Stanford's not No. 1 on that list. If it's NFL success, if it's with relationship success, networking, education, they have to be the top of the bar for everything."

So I guess that makes Oregon the beautiful clotheshorse with no brains and a sugar daddy richer than Croesus?

[Redrum]

the klutzy girl who flirts to the best of her ability but always manages to spill a drink all over herself just as the party gets going.

Or, maybe, analogies of college football programs to women are best left to high-school football recruits, and left behind in high school where they belong.

Anyway, to play along with Phillips for a second, there was this girl in HS (mid sixties) who walked around with long black hair, no discernable makeup and a totally pulled-into-herself affect.  But she had big lips and unconventional face so in HS guy culture, so her nickname was the Rolling Stone because she did look somewhat Jaggeresque.  Well, you can guess the sequel.  Come the 20 year reunion she pops up in her little black dress looking absolutely, smashingly fabulous.  Director of a  museum, confident and moving through the reunion crowd like she was working big-ticket donors.  Which goes to show you how much HS guys know about women.

[Redrum]

the klutzy girl who flirts to the best of her ability but always manages to spill a drink all over herself just as the party gets going.

Or, maybe, analogies of college football programs to women are best left to high-school football recruits, and left behind in high school where they belong.

Anyway, to play along with Phillips for a second, there was this girl in HS (mid sixties) who walked around with long black hair, no discernable makeup and a totally pulled-into-herself affect.  But she had big lips and unconventional face so in HS guy culture, so her nickname was the Rolling Stone because she did look somewhat Jaggeresque.  Well, you can guess the sequel.  Come the 20 year reunion she pops up in her little black dress looking absolutely, smashingly fabulous.  Director of a  museum, confident and moving through the reunion crowd like she was working big-ticket donors.  Which goes to show you how much HS guys know about women.

[washingtonismoney]

Come the 20 year reunion she pops up in her little black dress looking absolutely, smashingly fabulous.  Director of a  museum, confident and moving through the reunion crowd like she was working big-ticket donors.  Which goes to show you how much HS guys know about women.

You were in a real-life car ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_FzGLSuepo&noredirect=1

[washingtonismoney]

Come the 20 year reunion she pops up in her little black dress looking absolutely, smashingly fabulous.  Director of a  museum, confident and moving through the reunion crowd like she was working big-ticket donors.  Which goes to show you how much HS guys know about women.

You were in a real-life car ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_FzGLSuepo&noredirect=1