[TreesAndBirds]

So currently 8th in Pac12 per 24/7, and (only) 5th in quality ( we usually do better in quality). USC only team with a 5star. USC and Ucla are 1 and 2 in quality.

Rankings of course are what they are, but if not a very good year, it prompts the question.....just not a year where many top guys can get into Stanford, or are we getting a lesser percentage of them? Of course the final results arent in, but not hearing rumors of big changes.

https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Footba...nce=Pac-12

[TreesAndBirds]

So currently 8th in Pac12 per 24/7, and (only) 5th in quality ( we usually do better in quality). USC only team with a 5star. USC and Ucla are 1 and 2 in quality.

Rankings of course are what they are, but if not a very good year, it prompts the question.....just not a year where many top guys can get into Stanford, or are we getting a lesser percentage of them? Of course the final results arent in, but not hearing rumors of big changes.

https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Footba...nce=Pac-12

[washingtonismoney]

The coaches did a poor job this year: offered way too few, way too late, and weren't able to convince many of the people they did offer. It shows in the results.

[washingtonismoney]

The coaches did a poor job this year: offered way too few, way too late, and weren't able to convince many of the people they did offer. It shows in the results.

[SamuelMcF]

The coaches did a poor job this year: offered way too few, way too late, and weren't able to convince many of the people they did offer. It shows in the results.

Yep. Just looking at number of offers per 247sports:
2014 80
2015 78
2016 83
2017 67 (smaller class of 14)
2018 54...
2019 29 (is this good compared to years past at this point?)

[SamuelMcF]

The coaches did a poor job this year: offered way too few, way too late, and weren't able to convince many of the people they did offer. It shows in the results.

Yep. Just looking at number of offers per 247sports:
2014 80
2015 78
2016 83
2017 67 (smaller class of 14)
2018 54...
2019 29 (is this good compared to years past at this point?)

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12112.msg221219#msg221219 date=1515871626]
The coaches did a poor job this year: offered way too few, way too late, and weren't able to convince many of the people they did offer. It shows in the results.

Yep. Just looking at number of offers per 247sports:
2014 80
2015 78
2016 83
2017 67 (smaller class of 14)
2018 54...
2019 29 (is this good compared to years past at this point?)
[/quote]

Not a good way of knowing, but the stats dont preclude that there was just a small group eligible. If we are offering less, there may be a reason (less Stanford types available this year), if our offerees are going elsewhere, that says something different.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12112.msg221219#msg221219 date=1515871626]
The coaches did a poor job this year: offered way too few, way too late, and weren't able to convince many of the people they did offer. It shows in the results.

Yep. Just looking at number of offers per 247sports:
2014 80
2015 78
2016 83
2017 67 (smaller class of 14)
2018 54...
2019 29 (is this good compared to years past at this point?)
[/quote]

Not a good way of knowing, but the stats dont preclude that there was just a small group eligible. If we are offering less, there may be a reason (less Stanford types available this year), if our offerees are going elsewhere, that says something different.

[washingtonismoney]

Not a good way of knowing, but the stats dont preclude that there was just a small group eligible. If we are offering less, there may be a reason (less Stanford types available this year), if our offerees are going elsewhere, that says something different.

Nah, they held back on offers for guys who very probably would've been qualified, and offered more than a few guys too late.

[washingtonismoney]

Not a good way of knowing, but the stats dont preclude that there was just a small group eligible. If we are offering less, there may be a reason (less Stanford types available this year), if our offerees are going elsewhere, that says something different.

Nah, they held back on offers for guys who very probably would've been qualified, and offered more than a few guys too late.

[DC 86]

219 of the ESPN 300 signed during the early signing period. It's reasonable to conclude that 1) the presumed disadvantages to Stanford related to the admissions process manifested itself, 2) the coaching staff didn't adjust and was not nearly as aggressive as other programs, with predictable results.

[DC 86]

219 of the ESPN 300 signed during the early signing period. It's reasonable to conclude that 1) the presumed disadvantages to Stanford related to the admissions process manifested itself, 2) the coaching staff didn't adjust and was not nearly as aggressive as other programs, with predictable results.

[gocard14]

[quote author=SamuelMcF link=topic=12112.msg221220#msg221220 date=1515872069]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12112.msg221219#msg221219 date=1515871626]
The coaches did a poor job this year: offered way too few, way too late, and weren't able to convince many of the people they did offer. It shows in the results.

Yep. Just looking at number of offers per 247sports:
2014 80
2015 78
2016 83
2017 67 (smaller class of 14)
2018 54...
2019 29 (is this good compared to years past at this point?)
[/quote]

Not a good way of knowing, but the stats dont preclude that there was just a small group eligible. If we are offering less, there may be a reason (less Stanford types available this year), if our offerees are going elsewhere, that says something different.
[/quote]

With back to back classes in the 15 recruit range, we might be hurting badly for depth in 2 years when they are upperclassmen unless we have a lower them average miss rate and great classes in the following years.

Tough to say how much of this comes from the new signing period, underoffering, assistant coach turnover, or just fewer Admissible recruits. We need to turn it around in the next two years if we’re going to stay in contention in the pac.

[gocard14]

[quote author=SamuelMcF link=topic=12112.msg221220#msg221220 date=1515872069]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12112.msg221219#msg221219 date=1515871626]
The coaches did a poor job this year: offered way too few, way too late, and weren't able to convince many of the people they did offer. It shows in the results.

Yep. Just looking at number of offers per 247sports:
2014 80
2015 78
2016 83
2017 67 (smaller class of 14)
2018 54...
2019 29 (is this good compared to years past at this point?)
[/quote]

Not a good way of knowing, but the stats dont preclude that there was just a small group eligible. If we are offering less, there may be a reason (less Stanford types available this year), if our offerees are going elsewhere, that says something different.
[/quote]

With back to back classes in the 15 recruit range, we might be hurting badly for depth in 2 years when they are upperclassmen unless we have a lower them average miss rate and great classes in the following years.

Tough to say how much of this comes from the new signing period, underoffering, assistant coach turnover, or just fewer Admissible recruits. We need to turn it around in the next two years if we’re going to stay in contention in the pac.

[OutsiderFan]

The most talented Frosh will have to play early and not redshirt.  Will force the coaches to simplify things to get the best athletes on the field ASAP, particularly on defense.  Booker, Fox, Hollifield (assuming he signs), maybe even Umerah, would be the beneficiaries of such a dynamic in 2018.

[OutsiderFan]

The most talented Frosh will have to play early and not redshirt.  Will force the coaches to simplify things to get the best athletes on the field ASAP, particularly on defense.  Booker, Fox, Hollifield (assuming he signs), maybe even Umerah, would be the beneficiaries of such a dynamic in 2018.

[BostonCard]

The most talented Frosh will have to play early and not redshirt.  Will force the coaches to simplify things to get the best athletes on the field ASAP, particularly on defense.  Booker, Fox, Hollifield (assuming he signs), maybe even Umerah, would be the beneficiaries of such a dynamic in 2018.

You play this year's true freshmen because you think they will help you win.  But I don't think playing them as true freshmen helps you with the class imbalance (it will help more in 2019 when we should have a larger class).

BC

[BostonCard]

The most talented Frosh will have to play early and not redshirt.  Will force the coaches to simplify things to get the best athletes on the field ASAP, particularly on defense.  Booker, Fox, Hollifield (assuming he signs), maybe even Umerah, would be the beneficiaries of such a dynamic in 2018.

You play this year's true freshmen because you think they will help you win.  But I don't think playing them as true freshmen helps you with the class imbalance (it will help more in 2019 when we should have a larger class).

BC

[TreesAndBirds]

World is changing...more of our guys leaving early for NFL, new early commitment period disadvantages us, increasing importance of starting school  mid year and participating in spring practice which we dont offer, increasing importance of grad transfers which has not done much for us (other than Scarlett), re-emergence of USC (and maybe UCLA) to compete for local talent, June end of classes which disadvantages our NFL draftees, late night TV on the east coast (which hurts us more than others in Pac12 because we are more dependent on east coast for recruiting), and of course brain injury etc concerns which might be of more importance to the type of athlete who can get into Stanford leading to decisions to end career earlier.

Just thought I’d brighten everyones day with everything laid out in one place. Some of these are just my perception, but I think clear that the overall  trends are not helping us. Yes coaches need to adjust, but there are limits to what they can do. But they certainly need to be focusing on these things, which I assume they are.

[TreesAndBirds]

World is changing...more of our guys leaving early for NFL, new early commitment period disadvantages us, increasing importance of starting school  mid year and participating in spring practice which we dont offer, increasing importance of grad transfers which has not done much for us (other than Scarlett), re-emergence of USC (and maybe UCLA) to compete for local talent, June end of classes which disadvantages our NFL draftees, late night TV on the east coast (which hurts us more than others in Pac12 because we are more dependent on east coast for recruiting), and of course brain injury etc concerns which might be of more importance to the type of athlete who can get into Stanford leading to decisions to end career earlier.

Just thought I’d brighten everyones day with everything laid out in one place. Some of these are just my perception, but I think clear that the overall  trends are not helping us. Yes coaches need to adjust, but there are limits to what they can do. But they certainly need to be focusing on these things, which I assume they are.

[Langdude]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=12112.msg221230#msg221230 date=1515882996]
The most talented Frosh will have to play early and not redshirt.  Will force the coaches to simplify things to get the best athletes on the field ASAP, particularly on defense.  Booker, Fox, Hollifield (assuming he signs), maybe even Umerah, would be the beneficiaries of such a dynamic in 2018.

You play this year's true freshmen because you think they will help you win.  But I don't think playing them as true freshmen helps you with the class imbalance (it will help more in 2019 when we should have a larger class).

BC
[/quote]

Right. None of this is new. We usually have smaller-than-average classes because our players tend not to fail out, leave early, or transfer relative to other elite programs. In fact, to disagree with OF, I would say that the fact that our classes are smaller is a sign of the success of Shaw's recruiting strategy: with the exception of true frosh that we play because they are immediately on the two-deep (with a few confusing exceptions), our players overwhelmingly redshirt, yet are still good enough to invite back for a fifth year, and they are still enrolled and interested in that fifth year. Yes, there are exceptions - players that want to transfer or retire or leave early. But that is a minority of players. As Shaw always says, Stanford's style is a jr-sr game, and so if we need to have jrs and srs and fifth years playing, it's a sign his plan is working and having smaller recruiting classes. We are, for obvious reasons, never going to be an Alabama with a bunch of players leaving after jr year for the NFL, so we have to have some other plan. Shaw has it. It's working pretty well so far, but I am worried about the o-line depth in two and three years.

-m.

[Langdude]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=12112.msg221230#msg221230 date=1515882996]
The most talented Frosh will have to play early and not redshirt.  Will force the coaches to simplify things to get the best athletes on the field ASAP, particularly on defense.  Booker, Fox, Hollifield (assuming he signs), maybe even Umerah, would be the beneficiaries of such a dynamic in 2018.

You play this year's true freshmen because you think they will help you win.  But I don't think playing them as true freshmen helps you with the class imbalance (it will help more in 2019 when we should have a larger class).

BC
[/quote]

Right. None of this is new. We usually have smaller-than-average classes because our players tend not to fail out, leave early, or transfer relative to other elite programs. In fact, to disagree with OF, I would say that the fact that our classes are smaller is a sign of the success of Shaw's recruiting strategy: with the exception of true frosh that we play because they are immediately on the two-deep (with a few confusing exceptions), our players overwhelmingly redshirt, yet are still good enough to invite back for a fifth year, and they are still enrolled and interested in that fifth year. Yes, there are exceptions - players that want to transfer or retire or leave early. But that is a minority of players. As Shaw always says, Stanford's style is a jr-sr game, and so if we need to have jrs and srs and fifth years playing, it's a sign his plan is working and having smaller recruiting classes. We are, for obvious reasons, never going to be an Alabama with a bunch of players leaving after jr year for the NFL, so we have to have some other plan. Shaw has it. It's working pretty well so far, but I am worried about the o-line depth in two and three years.

-m.

[Bruce Wang]

Didn't the big official visit just happen?  Usually there's news.  It's been disconcertingly quiet.

[Bruce Wang]

Didn't the big official visit just happen?  Usually there's news.  It's been disconcertingly quiet.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm pretty sure only two of the visitors weren't committed in Hollifield and McKee. We know McKee was admitted, and I'm pretty sure Hollifield was.  The only remaining possibility beyond those two uncommitted seems to be Caleb Kelly.

Given the admits who visit close rate is near 100%, there just isn't a lot of news to report, is there?

[OutsiderFan]

I'm pretty sure only two of the visitors weren't committed in Hollifield and McKee. We know McKee was admitted, and I'm pretty sure Hollifield was.  The only remaining possibility beyond those two uncommitted seems to be Caleb Kelly.

Given the admits who visit close rate is near 100%, there just isn't a lot of news to report, is there?

[ColoradoTree]

I think the usual news out of Big Visit is a handful of acceptances/commitments, but that thunder was stolen back on Early Signing Day, since most admissions decisions appear to have been accelerated.  With only a couple kids yet to hear from admissions, or to report whether or not they've heard, I guess I'm not surprised it was as quiet as it was.  Assuming we stick with Big Visit in its current form in the new early signing era, this level of quiet should be expected, I should think.

[ColoradoTree]

I think the usual news out of Big Visit is a handful of acceptances/commitments, but that thunder was stolen back on Early Signing Day, since most admissions decisions appear to have been accelerated.  With only a couple kids yet to hear from admissions, or to report whether or not they've heard, I guess I'm not surprised it was as quiet as it was.  Assuming we stick with Big Visit in its current form in the new early signing era, this level of quiet should be expected, I should think.

[donkey687]

What about Mangum Farrar? He was the one commit who didn't sign early. Did he attend Big Visit? Is he admitted?  We need LBs so I hope we sign him.

[donkey687]

What about Mangum Farrar? He was the one commit who didn't sign early. Did he attend Big Visit? Is he admitted?  We need LBs so I hope we sign him.

[SamuelMcF]

What about Mangum Farrar? He was the one commit who didn't sign early. Did he attend Big Visit? Is he admitted?  We need LBs so I hope we sign him.

He was at Big Visit, and I assume people behind a paywall would know more but nothing public about admissions.

[SamuelMcF]

What about Mangum Farrar? He was the one commit who didn't sign early. Did he attend Big Visit? Is he admitted?  We need LBs so I hope we sign him.

He was at Big Visit, and I assume people behind a paywall would know more but nothing public about admissions.

[pauloalto]

247 reports Jacob Mangum-Farrar as accepted and commited.

[pauloalto]

247 reports Jacob Mangum-Farrar as accepted and commited.

[OutsiderFan]

247 has a new premium story on Caleb Kelly having a front runner, but I'm not a subscriber.  He's OV'd Stanford, Ole Miss, and will be going to Berkeley this weekend.

You'd have to think Stanford is his favorite, but if he can't get in due to test scores or grades, the seemingly best option would be Cal.  Ole Miss isn't exactly Cal or Stanford's academic peer, and Ole Miss is in for some rough times ahead due to the Hugh Freeze disaster.  Also don't think Matt Luke is long for that job. Would make a lot of sense to sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program if Stanford denies him admission.

[OutsiderFan]

247 has a new premium story on Caleb Kelly having a front runner, but I'm not a subscriber.  He's OV'd Stanford, Ole Miss, and will be going to Berkeley this weekend.

You'd have to think Stanford is his favorite, but if he can't get in due to test scores or grades, the seemingly best option would be Cal.  Ole Miss isn't exactly Cal or Stanford's academic peer, and Ole Miss is in for some rough times ahead due to the Hugh Freeze disaster.  Also don't think Matt Luke is long for that job. Would make a lot of sense to sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program if Stanford denies him admission.

[OutsiderFan]

247 has a new premium story on Caleb Kelly having a front runner, but I'm not a subscriber.  He's OV'd Stanford, Ole Miss, and will be going to Berkeley this weekend.

You'd have to think Stanford is his favorite, but if he can't get in due to test scores or grades, the seemingly best option would be ןɐɔ.  Ole Miss isn't exactly ןɐɔ or Stanford's academic peer, and Ole Miss is in for some rough times ahead due to the Hugh Freeze disaster.  Also don't think Matt Luke is long for that job. Would make a lot of sense to sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program if Stanford denies him admission.

Maybe Kelly will sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program even after being admitted to Stanford?  Because Kelly has been reported as admitted, and he is still planning his Berkeley visit this weekend.

When is the last time a Stanford admit went on an OV to Berkeley? Might Shaw and company be a little nervous that Wilcox may beat Stanford for a coveted, admitted recruit at a key position?

[OutsiderFan]

247 has a new premium story on Caleb Kelly having a front runner, but I'm not a subscriber.  He's OV'd Stanford, Ole Miss, and will be going to Berkeley this weekend.

You'd have to think Stanford is his favorite, but if he can't get in due to test scores or grades, the seemingly best option would be ןɐɔ.  Ole Miss isn't exactly ןɐɔ or Stanford's academic peer, and Ole Miss is in for some rough times ahead due to the Hugh Freeze disaster.  Also don't think Matt Luke is long for that job. Would make a lot of sense to sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program if Stanford denies him admission.

Maybe Kelly will sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program even after being admitted to Stanford?  Because Kelly has been reported as admitted, and he is still planning his Berkeley visit this weekend.

When is the last time a Stanford admit went on an OV to Berkeley? Might Shaw and company be a little nervous that Wilcox may beat Stanford for a coveted, admitted recruit at a key position?

[Farm93]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=12112.msg222134#msg222134 date=1516657545]
247 has a new premium story on Caleb Kelly having a front runner, but I'm not a subscriber.  He's OV'd Stanford, Ole Miss, and will be going to Berkeley this weekend.

You'd have to think Stanford is his favorite, but if he can't get in due to test scores or grades, the seemingly best option would be ןɐɔ.  Ole Miss isn't exactly ןɐɔ or Stanford's academic peer, and Ole Miss is in for some rough times ahead due to the Hugh Freeze disaster.  Also don't think Matt Luke is long for that job. Would make a lot of sense to sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program if Stanford denies him admission.

Maybe Kelly will sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program even after being admitted to Stanford?  Because Kelly has been reported as admitted, and he is still planning his Berkeley visit this weekend.

When is the last time a Stanford admit went on an OV to Berkeley? Might Shaw and company be a little nervous that Wilcox may beat Stanford for a coveted, admitted recruit at a key position?
[/quote]
I would guess that Shaw hopes every Stanford recruit takes an OV to Berkeley.  The UCB tour is oddly obsessed with Stanford.  Hard to imagine any D1 recruit would elect to sign with UCB after that "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" style tour.

[Farm93]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=12112.msg222134#msg222134 date=1516657545]
247 has a new premium story on Caleb Kelly having a front runner, but I'm not a subscriber.  He's OV'd Stanford, Ole Miss, and will be going to Berkeley this weekend.

You'd have to think Stanford is his favorite, but if he can't get in due to test scores or grades, the seemingly best option would be ןɐɔ.  Ole Miss isn't exactly ןɐɔ or Stanford's academic peer, and Ole Miss is in for some rough times ahead due to the Hugh Freeze disaster.  Also don't think Matt Luke is long for that job. Would make a lot of sense to sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program if Stanford denies him admission.

Maybe Kelly will sign up for the upward trending Wilcox program even after being admitted to Stanford?  Because Kelly has been reported as admitted, and he is still planning his Berkeley visit this weekend.

When is the last time a Stanford admit went on an OV to Berkeley? Might Shaw and company be a little nervous that Wilcox may beat Stanford for a coveted, admitted recruit at a key position?
[/quote]
I would guess that Shaw hopes every Stanford recruit takes an OV to Berkeley.  The UCB tour is oddly obsessed with Stanford.  Hard to imagine any D1 recruit would elect to sign with UCB after that "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" style tour.