[Hurlburt88]

Numbers look pretty similar to 2013 at first blush . . . really hope this is just a low-point resulting from the variability of the pool from which we draw.  I am confident the coaches have these conversations just like we do!  And we may be seeing some results of these conversations with the increased 2019 aggressiveness. 

[Hurlburt88]

Numbers look pretty similar to 2013 at first blush . . . really hope this is just a low-point resulting from the variability of the pool from which we draw.  I am confident the coaches have these conversations just like we do!  And we may be seeing some results of these conversations with the increased 2019 aggressiveness. 

[Hurlburt88]

Numbers look pretty similar to 2013 at first blush . . . really hope this is just a low-point resulting from the variability of the pool from which we draw.  I am confident the coaches have these conversations just like we do!  And we may be seeing some results of these conversations with the increased 2019 aggressiveness. 

[Hurlburt88]

Numbers look pretty similar to 2013 at first blush . . . really hope this is just a low-point resulting from the variability of the pool from which we draw.  I am confident the coaches have these conversations just like we do!  And we may be seeing some results of these conversations with the increased 2019 aggressiveness. 

[CTcard]

I don't think this class is a total disaster in terms of quality. Here are the 247sports ratings during the David Shaw era:

This is what I posted in the competing/complementary thread. "Signing Day".
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg223384

The concern for this class isn't the quality, or even exactly the small numbers; its the 5-7 unused scholarships - and how those are concentrated. 

[CTcard]

I don't think this class is a total disaster in terms of quality. Here are the 247sports ratings during the David Shaw era:

This is what I posted in the competing/complementary thread. "Signing Day".
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg223384

The concern for this class isn't the quality, or even exactly the small numbers; its the 5-7 unused scholarships - and how those are concentrated. 

[CTcard]

I don't think this class is a total disaster in terms of quality. Here are the 247sports ratings during the David Shaw era:

This is what I posted in the competing/complementary thread. "Signing Day".
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg223384

The concern for this class isn't the quality, or even exactly the small numbers; its the 5-7 unused scholarships - and how those are concentrated. 

[CTcard]

I don't think this class is a total disaster in terms of quality. Here are the 247sports ratings during the David Shaw era:

This is what I posted in the competing/complementary thread. "Signing Day".
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg223384

The concern for this class isn't the quality, or even exactly the small numbers; its the 5-7 unused scholarships - and how those are concentrated. 

[teejers1]

The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

[teejers1]

The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

[teejers1]

The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

[teejers1]

The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

[OutsiderFan]

The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

There's no other way to describe it.  If the NCAA docks say 20 scholarships, the school typically would lose five initial counters for four years in a row. Stanford doing this to itself is quite mind bending. 

[OutsiderFan]

The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

There's no other way to describe it.  If the NCAA docks say 20 scholarships, the school typically would lose five initial counters for four years in a row. Stanford doing this to itself is quite mind bending. 

[OutsiderFan]

The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

There's no other way to describe it.  If the NCAA docks say 20 scholarships, the school typically would lose five initial counters for four years in a row. Stanford doing this to itself is quite mind bending. 

[OutsiderFan]

The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

There's no other way to describe it.  If the NCAA docks say 20 scholarships, the school typically would lose five initial counters for four years in a row. Stanford doing this to itself is quite mind bending. 

[JohnR34231]

I agree unused scholarships are a problem, but I sometimes got the impression in the past we would try to avoid them by handing out offers to marginal prospects whose chances of ever contributing were slim at best.
Not an optimum situation, either.

[JohnR34231]

I agree unused scholarships are a problem, but I sometimes got the impression in the past we would try to avoid them by handing out offers to marginal prospects whose chances of ever contributing were slim at best.
Not an optimum situation, either.

[JohnR34231]

I agree unused scholarships are a problem, but I sometimes got the impression in the past we would try to avoid them by handing out offers to marginal prospects whose chances of ever contributing were slim at best.
Not an optimum situation, either.

[JohnR34231]

I agree unused scholarships are a problem, but I sometimes got the impression in the past we would try to avoid them by handing out offers to marginal prospects whose chances of ever contributing were slim at best.
Not an optimum situation, either.

[Hey]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12112.msg223423#msg223423 date=1518070160]
The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

There's no other way to describe it.  If the NCAA docks say 20 scholarships, the school typically would lose five initial counters for four years in a row. Stanford doing this to itself is quite mind bending.
[/quote]

My conspiracy theory here is that Shaw has better options for '19 and is hoarding the scholarships for next year’s harvest.

[Hey]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12112.msg223423#msg223423 date=1518070160]
The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

There's no other way to describe it.  If the NCAA docks say 20 scholarships, the school typically would lose five initial counters for four years in a row. Stanford doing this to itself is quite mind bending.
[/quote]

My conspiracy theory here is that Shaw has better options for '19 and is hoarding the scholarships for next year’s harvest.

[Hey]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12112.msg223423#msg223423 date=1518070160]
The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

There's no other way to describe it.  If the NCAA docks say 20 scholarships, the school typically would lose five initial counters for four years in a row. Stanford doing this to itself is quite mind bending.
[/quote]

My conspiracy theory here is that Shaw has better options for '19 and is hoarding the scholarships for next year’s harvest.

[Hey]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12112.msg223423#msg223423 date=1518070160]
The 5-7 unused scholarship numbers doesn't even include fifth years who, in a normal (stronger) recruiting year, would not be invited back.

I've seen more than one person refer to the unused scholies as 'self-imposed NCAA sanctions.'  That strikes me as a reasonable description, without the (fleeting) opprobrium associated with the NCAA actually coming down with sanctions and a scholie reduction.

There's no other way to describe it.  If the NCAA docks say 20 scholarships, the school typically would lose five initial counters for four years in a row. Stanford doing this to itself is quite mind bending.
[/quote]

My conspiracy theory here is that Shaw has better options for '19 and is hoarding the scholarships for next year’s harvest.

[BostonCard]

If you read between the lines, people in the know are sharing concerns that 2019 has gotten off to a slow start and may well disappoint too.

BC

[BostonCard]

If you read between the lines, people in the know are sharing concerns that 2019 has gotten off to a slow start and may well disappoint too.

BC

[BostonCard]

If you read between the lines, people in the know are sharing concerns that 2019 has gotten off to a slow start and may well disappoint too.

BC

[BostonCard]

If you read between the lines, people in the know are sharing concerns that 2019 has gotten off to a slow start and may well disappoint too.

BC

[Phogge]

If you read between the lines, people in the know are sharing concerns that 2019 has gotten off to a slow start and may well disappoint too.

BC

2020 record 1-11.

[Phogge]

If you read between the lines, people in the know are sharing concerns that 2019 has gotten off to a slow start and may well disappoint too.

BC

2020 record 1-11.

[Phogge]

If you read between the lines, people in the know are sharing concerns that 2019 has gotten off to a slow start and may well disappoint too.

BC

2020 record 1-11.

[Phogge]

If you read between the lines, people in the know are sharing concerns that 2019 has gotten off to a slow start and may well disappoint too.

BC

2020 record 1-11.

[socalstanfan1]

A bit surprised nobody on this thread has been mentioning the possibility that the staff just responded badly to the early signing period.  I'm not sure how that might have impacted how this class developed (or failed to develop).  How many prospects who might have flipped to us in January, pending word from admissions, went ahead and took the safe route elsewhere? It wouldn't take a monumental number, maybe 3 or 4, to make this class look quite different. I'm not saying this was definitely the case, but it is certainly something to consider.

If that was the case, I would hope the coaches and admissions could coordinate with recruits to change the time frame for application and admissions: recruits get their applications in earlier, admissions reviews on a timeframe that gives recruits and their families the crucial info that they have been admitted to the university. Maybe base some decisions on "projected grades" on AP Classes in Senior year.  I don't think these would be seen as watering down Stanford's academic integrity, and they are not as radical a change as admitting students early.

[socalstanfan1]

A bit surprised nobody on this thread has been mentioning the possibility that the staff just responded badly to the early signing period.  I'm not sure how that might have impacted how this class developed (or failed to develop).  How many prospects who might have flipped to us in January, pending word from admissions, went ahead and took the safe route elsewhere? It wouldn't take a monumental number, maybe 3 or 4, to make this class look quite different. I'm not saying this was definitely the case, but it is certainly something to consider.

If that was the case, I would hope the coaches and admissions could coordinate with recruits to change the time frame for application and admissions: recruits get their applications in earlier, admissions reviews on a timeframe that gives recruits and their families the crucial info that they have been admitted to the university. Maybe base some decisions on "projected grades" on AP Classes in Senior year.  I don't think these would be seen as watering down Stanford's academic integrity, and they are not as radical a change as admitting students early.

[socalstanfan1]

A bit surprised nobody on this thread has been mentioning the possibility that the staff just responded badly to the early signing period.  I'm not sure how that might have impacted how this class developed (or failed to develop).  How many prospects who might have flipped to us in January, pending word from admissions, went ahead and took the safe route elsewhere? It wouldn't take a monumental number, maybe 3 or 4, to make this class look quite different. I'm not saying this was definitely the case, but it is certainly something to consider.

If that was the case, I would hope the coaches and admissions could coordinate with recruits to change the time frame for application and admissions: recruits get their applications in earlier, admissions reviews on a timeframe that gives recruits and their families the crucial info that they have been admitted to the university. Maybe base some decisions on "projected grades" on AP Classes in Senior year.  I don't think these would be seen as watering down Stanford's academic integrity, and they are not as radical a change as admitting students early.

[socalstanfan1]

A bit surprised nobody on this thread has been mentioning the possibility that the staff just responded badly to the early signing period.  I'm not sure how that might have impacted how this class developed (or failed to develop).  How many prospects who might have flipped to us in January, pending word from admissions, went ahead and took the safe route elsewhere? It wouldn't take a monumental number, maybe 3 or 4, to make this class look quite different. I'm not saying this was definitely the case, but it is certainly something to consider.

If that was the case, I would hope the coaches and admissions could coordinate with recruits to change the time frame for application and admissions: recruits get their applications in earlier, admissions reviews on a timeframe that gives recruits and their families the crucial info that they have been admitted to the university. Maybe base some decisions on "projected grades" on AP Classes in Senior year.  I don't think these would be seen as watering down Stanford's academic integrity, and they are not as radical a change as admitting students early.

[donkey687]

The sentiment on this board would be a lot different if we picked up two players of high positional need, Dax Hollifield and Chris Murray. Both of those were late signees that we didn't convert. Murray didn't apply and may not have been admissible. 

Did we lose anyone else besides Hollifield who applied and was admitted?  Did St. Brown apply? Was Borghi admitted?

Our yield of the applied and admitted is very high. We usually lose zero to two per year. For some reason, some of the most memorable losses of applied and admitted have been ILBs (Kuechly, Mantie Teo, Zumwalt, Hollifield). Not a lot of other people on this list in the last 10 years (Jameis Winston being a notable one).  Who in more recent classes has been admitted and not signed? I think we lost a defensive recruit last year in the Southeast on signing day who was admitted, but I forget the name.

[donkey687]

The sentiment on this board would be a lot different if we picked up two players of high positional need, Dax Hollifield and Chris Murray. Both of those were late signees that we didn't convert. Murray didn't apply and may not have been admissible. 

Did we lose anyone else besides Hollifield who applied and was admitted?  Did St. Brown apply? Was Borghi admitted?

Our yield of the applied and admitted is very high. We usually lose zero to two per year. For some reason, some of the most memorable losses of applied and admitted have been ILBs (Kuechly, Mantie Teo, Zumwalt, Hollifield). Not a lot of other people on this list in the last 10 years (Jameis Winston being a notable one).  Who in more recent classes has been admitted and not signed? I think we lost a defensive recruit last year in the Southeast on signing day who was admitted, but I forget the name.

[donkey687]

The sentiment on this board would be a lot different if we picked up two players of high positional need, Dax Hollifield and Chris Murray. Both of those were late signees that we didn't convert. Murray didn't apply and may not have been admissible. 

Did we lose anyone else besides Hollifield who applied and was admitted?  Did St. Brown apply? Was Borghi admitted?

Our yield of the applied and admitted is very high. We usually lose zero to two per year. For some reason, some of the most memorable losses of applied and admitted have been ILBs (Kuechly, Mantie Teo, Zumwalt, Hollifield). Not a lot of other people on this list in the last 10 years (Jameis Winston being a notable one).  Who in more recent classes has been admitted and not signed? I think we lost a defensive recruit last year in the Southeast on signing day who was admitted, but I forget the name.

[donkey687]

The sentiment on this board would be a lot different if we picked up two players of high positional need, Dax Hollifield and Chris Murray. Both of those were late signees that we didn't convert. Murray didn't apply and may not have been admissible. 

Did we lose anyone else besides Hollifield who applied and was admitted?  Did St. Brown apply? Was Borghi admitted?

Our yield of the applied and admitted is very high. We usually lose zero to two per year. For some reason, some of the most memorable losses of applied and admitted have been ILBs (Kuechly, Mantie Teo, Zumwalt, Hollifield). Not a lot of other people on this list in the last 10 years (Jameis Winston being a notable one).  Who in more recent classes has been admitted and not signed? I think we lost a defensive recruit last year in the Southeast on signing day who was admitted, but I forget the name.