[washingtonismoney]

The short versions is that while I acknowledge that it is harder to flip a recruit currently committed to another school, there are plenty of cases of recruits changing their commitment, especially those committed a full 18 months before enrollment.  If we want a recruit, and they are willing to put in the work, nothing irreversible has happened, yet.

BC

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

It's certainly difficult to argue that the flips haven't yielded good players, so I won't. But are they "top targets"? It depends on what you mean. If you think "top targets" are the absolute top of the board -- among the first players to be offered -- which is a strtict standard, then maybe only Hamilton and Tucker qualify.

If you think "top targets" is slightly more generic and refers to any really well-regarded recruit -- we'll say any four- or five-star consensus player -- then, of course, more players qualify. (About 40% by my estimate.)

It's not crazy to hope, as a fan, that the coaches can flip a commit who's a good recruit; it happens pretty frequently, though not reliably. It wouldn't be crazy to speculate that such flips would be more frequent in the current frenzied environment. It's just that you shouldn't count on it as a coach, and that the sounder, more predictable route is to land your targets early and keep them aboard.

[washingtonismoney]

The short versions is that while I acknowledge that it is harder to flip a recruit currently committed to another school, there are plenty of cases of recruits changing their commitment, especially those committed a full 18 months before enrollment.  If we want a recruit, and they are willing to put in the work, nothing irreversible has happened, yet.

BC

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

It's certainly difficult to argue that the flips haven't yielded good players, so I won't. But are they "top targets"? It depends on what you mean. If you think "top targets" are the absolute top of the board -- among the first players to be offered -- which is a strtict standard, then maybe only Hamilton and Tucker qualify.

If you think "top targets" is slightly more generic and refers to any really well-regarded recruit -- we'll say any four- or five-star consensus player -- then, of course, more players qualify. (About 40% by my estimate.)

It's not crazy to hope, as a fan, that the coaches can flip a commit who's a good recruit; it happens pretty frequently, though not reliably. It wouldn't be crazy to speculate that such flips would be more frequent in the current frenzied environment. It's just that you shouldn't count on it as a coach, and that the sounder, more predictable route is to land your targets early and keep them aboard.

[washingtonismoney]

The short versions is that while I acknowledge that it is harder to flip a recruit currently committed to another school, there are plenty of cases of recruits changing their commitment, especially those committed a full 18 months before enrollment.  If we want a recruit, and they are willing to put in the work, nothing irreversible has happened, yet.

BC

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

It's certainly difficult to argue that the flips haven't yielded good players, so I won't. But are they "top targets"? It depends on what you mean. If you think "top targets" are the absolute top of the board -- among the first players to be offered -- which is a strtict standard, then maybe only Hamilton and Tucker qualify.

If you think "top targets" is slightly more generic and refers to any really well-regarded recruit -- we'll say any four- or five-star consensus player -- then, of course, more players qualify. (About 40% by my estimate.)

It's not crazy to hope, as a fan, that the coaches can flip a commit who's a good recruit; it happens pretty frequently, though not reliably. It wouldn't be crazy to speculate that such flips would be more frequent in the current frenzied environment. It's just that you shouldn't count on it as a coach, and that the sounder, more predictable route is to land your targets early and keep them aboard.

[washingtonismoney]

The short versions is that while I acknowledge that it is harder to flip a recruit currently committed to another school, there are plenty of cases of recruits changing their commitment, especially those committed a full 18 months before enrollment.  If we want a recruit, and they are willing to put in the work, nothing irreversible has happened, yet.

BC

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

It's certainly difficult to argue that the flips haven't yielded good players, so I won't. But are they "top targets"? It depends on what you mean. If you think "top targets" are the absolute top of the board -- among the first players to be offered -- which is a strtict standard, then maybe only Hamilton and Tucker qualify.

If you think "top targets" is slightly more generic and refers to any really well-regarded recruit -- we'll say any four- or five-star consensus player -- then, of course, more players qualify. (About 40% by my estimate.)

It's not crazy to hope, as a fan, that the coaches can flip a commit who's a good recruit; it happens pretty frequently, though not reliably. It wouldn't be crazy to speculate that such flips would be more frequent in the current frenzied environment. It's just that you shouldn't count on it as a coach, and that the sounder, more predictable route is to land your targets early and keep them aboard.

[CompSci87]

The distances The Defenders will travel continue to amaze.

Once it was the Stepfords vs. the Borg.

Now I guess it's The Defenders vs. The Chicken Littles.

[CompSci87]

The distances The Defenders will travel continue to amaze.

Once it was the Stepfords vs. the Borg.

Now I guess it's The Defenders vs. The Chicken Littles.

[CompSci87]

The distances The Defenders will travel continue to amaze.

Once it was the Stepfords vs. the Borg.

Now I guess it's The Defenders vs. The Chicken Littles.

[CompSci87]

The distances The Defenders will travel continue to amaze.

Once it was the Stepfords vs. the Borg.

Now I guess it's The Defenders vs. The Chicken Littles.

[DC 86]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12112.msg223478#msg223478 date=1518135286]
The short versions is that while I acknowledge that it is harder to flip a recruit currently committed to another school, there are plenty of cases of recruits changing their commitment, especially those committed a full 18 months before enrollment.  If we want a recruit, and they are willing to put in the work, nothing irreversible has happened, yet.

BC

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 1 (Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

It's certainly difficult to argue that the flips haven't yielded good players, so I won't. But are they "top targets"? It depends on what you mean. If you think "top targets" are the absolute top of the board -- among the first players to be offered -- which is a strtict standard, then maybe only Hamilton and Tucker qualify.

If you think "top targets" is slightly more generic and refers to any really well-regarded recruit -- we'll say any four- or five-star consensus player -- then, of course, more players qualify. (About 38% by my estimate.)

It's not crazy to hope, as a fan, that the coaches can flip a commit who's a good recruit; it happens pretty frequently, though not reliably. It wouldn't be crazy to speculate that such flips would be more frequent in the current frenzied environment. It's just that you shouldn't count on it as a coach, and that the sounder, more predictable route is to land your targets early and keep them aboard.
[/quote]

Wasn't Conor Wedington also a flip (decommitted from Washington)?

[DC 86]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12112.msg223478#msg223478 date=1518135286]
The short versions is that while I acknowledge that it is harder to flip a recruit currently committed to another school, there are plenty of cases of recruits changing their commitment, especially those committed a full 18 months before enrollment.  If we want a recruit, and they are willing to put in the work, nothing irreversible has happened, yet.

BC

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 1 (Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

It's certainly difficult to argue that the flips haven't yielded good players, so I won't. But are they "top targets"? It depends on what you mean. If you think "top targets" are the absolute top of the board -- among the first players to be offered -- which is a strtict standard, then maybe only Hamilton and Tucker qualify.

If you think "top targets" is slightly more generic and refers to any really well-regarded recruit -- we'll say any four- or five-star consensus player -- then, of course, more players qualify. (About 38% by my estimate.)

It's not crazy to hope, as a fan, that the coaches can flip a commit who's a good recruit; it happens pretty frequently, though not reliably. It wouldn't be crazy to speculate that such flips would be more frequent in the current frenzied environment. It's just that you shouldn't count on it as a coach, and that the sounder, more predictable route is to land your targets early and keep them aboard.
[/quote]

Wasn't Conor Wedington also a flip (decommitted from Washington)?

[DC 86]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12112.msg223478#msg223478 date=1518135286]
The short versions is that while I acknowledge that it is harder to flip a recruit currently committed to another school, there are plenty of cases of recruits changing their commitment, especially those committed a full 18 months before enrollment.  If we want a recruit, and they are willing to put in the work, nothing irreversible has happened, yet.

BC

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 1 (Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

It's certainly difficult to argue that the flips haven't yielded good players, so I won't. But are they "top targets"? It depends on what you mean. If you think "top targets" are the absolute top of the board -- among the first players to be offered -- which is a strtict standard, then maybe only Hamilton and Tucker qualify.

If you think "top targets" is slightly more generic and refers to any really well-regarded recruit -- we'll say any four- or five-star consensus player -- then, of course, more players qualify. (About 38% by my estimate.)

It's not crazy to hope, as a fan, that the coaches can flip a commit who's a good recruit; it happens pretty frequently, though not reliably. It wouldn't be crazy to speculate that such flips would be more frequent in the current frenzied environment. It's just that you shouldn't count on it as a coach, and that the sounder, more predictable route is to land your targets early and keep them aboard.
[/quote]

Wasn't Conor Wedington also a flip (decommitted from Washington)?

[DC 86]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12112.msg223478#msg223478 date=1518135286]
The short versions is that while I acknowledge that it is harder to flip a recruit currently committed to another school, there are plenty of cases of recruits changing their commitment, especially those committed a full 18 months before enrollment.  If we want a recruit, and they are willing to put in the work, nothing irreversible has happened, yet.

BC

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 1 (Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

It's certainly difficult to argue that the flips haven't yielded good players, so I won't. But are they "top targets"? It depends on what you mean. If you think "top targets" are the absolute top of the board -- among the first players to be offered -- which is a strtict standard, then maybe only Hamilton and Tucker qualify.

If you think "top targets" is slightly more generic and refers to any really well-regarded recruit -- we'll say any four- or five-star consensus player -- then, of course, more players qualify. (About 38% by my estimate.)

It's not crazy to hope, as a fan, that the coaches can flip a commit who's a good recruit; it happens pretty frequently, though not reliably. It wouldn't be crazy to speculate that such flips would be more frequent in the current frenzied environment. It's just that you shouldn't count on it as a coach, and that the sounder, more predictable route is to land your targets early and keep them aboard.
[/quote]

Wasn't Conor Wedington also a flip (decommitted from Washington)?

[washingtonismoney]

Wasn't Conor Wedington also a flip (recommitted from Washington)?

You're right, good point. I don't think that changes my argument significantly, but an excellent addition.

[washingtonismoney]

Wasn't Conor Wedington also a flip (recommitted from Washington)?

You're right, good point. I don't think that changes my argument significantly, but an excellent addition.

[washingtonismoney]

Wasn't Conor Wedington also a flip (recommitted from Washington)?

You're right, good point. I don't think that changes my argument significantly, but an excellent addition.

[washingtonismoney]

Wasn't Conor Wedington also a flip (recommitted from Washington)?

You're right, good point. I don't think that changes my argument significantly, but an excellent addition.

[BostonCard]

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

An average of >2 flips a year when our average class size is <20 seems pretty significant to me.  I mean, it is a small proportion of targets, but a decent proportion of the final class.  Or, to put it another way, 2 recruits that have committed elsewhere plus reasonable expectations out of what we have already offered would make a decent class, and certainly a better one than this year.  I am certainly heartened by the bevy of offers that went out in the last couple days.

Also, I think drawing comparisons to prior years is fraught because the changes in the recruiting calendar kind of change everything.  In prior years, very few players (outside of quarterbacks and the rare early commit), most players were uncommitted at this point in the recruiting cycle.  I don't claim to know how this will affect us.  It could mean that decommitments are much more common, and that these spring commitments mean a whole lot less than they used to.  Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC

[BostonCard]

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

An average of >2 flips a year when our average class size is <20 seems pretty significant to me.  I mean, it is a small proportion of targets, but a decent proportion of the final class.  Or, to put it another way, 2 recruits that have committed elsewhere plus reasonable expectations out of what we have already offered would make a decent class, and certainly a better one than this year.  I am certainly heartened by the bevy of offers that went out in the last couple days.

Also, I think drawing comparisons to prior years is fraught because the changes in the recruiting calendar kind of change everything.  In prior years, very few players (outside of quarterbacks and the rare early commit), most players were uncommitted at this point in the recruiting cycle.  I don't claim to know how this will affect us.  It could mean that decommitments are much more common, and that these spring commitments mean a whole lot less than they used to.  Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC

[BostonCard]

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

An average of >2 flips a year when our average class size is <20 seems pretty significant to me.  I mean, it is a small proportion of targets, but a decent proportion of the final class.  Or, to put it another way, 2 recruits that have committed elsewhere plus reasonable expectations out of what we have already offered would make a decent class, and certainly a better one than this year.  I am certainly heartened by the bevy of offers that went out in the last couple days.

Also, I think drawing comparisons to prior years is fraught because the changes in the recruiting calendar kind of change everything.  In prior years, very few players (outside of quarterbacks and the rare early commit), most players were uncommitted at this point in the recruiting cycle.  I don't claim to know how this will affect us.  It could mean that decommitments are much more common, and that these spring commitments mean a whole lot less than they used to.  Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC

[BostonCard]

Certainly true. However, I think notability bias is at play. The media loves a story, and having something and losing it suddenly to a rival is a pretty darn good story. So that probably causes fans to overestimate the prevalence of flips. Looking historically, Stanford typically gets some -- but not a lot -- of flips:

2018: 2 (Stratford, Bonner)
2017: 2 (Wedington, Adebo)
2016: 3 (Harrington, Eboh, Hamilton)
2015: 2 (Jackson, Edwards)
2014: 3 (Tucker, Gibbons, Burkett)
2013: 1 (Palma)
2012: 2 (Hoffpauir, Rector)

An average of >2 flips a year when our average class size is <20 seems pretty significant to me.  I mean, it is a small proportion of targets, but a decent proportion of the final class.  Or, to put it another way, 2 recruits that have committed elsewhere plus reasonable expectations out of what we have already offered would make a decent class, and certainly a better one than this year.  I am certainly heartened by the bevy of offers that went out in the last couple days.

Also, I think drawing comparisons to prior years is fraught because the changes in the recruiting calendar kind of change everything.  In prior years, very few players (outside of quarterbacks and the rare early commit), most players were uncommitted at this point in the recruiting cycle.  I don't claim to know how this will affect us.  It could mean that decommitments are much more common, and that these spring commitments mean a whole lot less than they used to.  Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC

[Langdude]

Didn't we flip Pryts from PSU?

-m.

[Langdude]

Didn't we flip Pryts from PSU?

-m.

[Langdude]

Didn't we flip Pryts from PSU?

-m.

[Langdude]

Didn't we flip Pryts from PSU?

-m.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12112.msg223434#msg223434 date=1518107487]
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.
[/quote]

Or, perhaps, Tanner McKee will come in as a true freshman and lead us to the NC.
I mean if we are going to concoct silly scenarios, let's at least try to be positive about them.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12112.msg223434#msg223434 date=1518107487]
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.
[/quote]

Or, perhaps, Tanner McKee will come in as a true freshman and lead us to the NC.
I mean if we are going to concoct silly scenarios, let's at least try to be positive about them.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12112.msg223434#msg223434 date=1518107487]
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.
[/quote]

Or, perhaps, Tanner McKee will come in as a true freshman and lead us to the NC.
I mean if we are going to concoct silly scenarios, let's at least try to be positive about them.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12112.msg223434#msg223434 date=1518107487]
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.
[/quote]

Or, perhaps, Tanner McKee will come in as a true freshman and lead us to the NC.
I mean if we are going to concoct silly scenarios, let's at least try to be positive about them.

[scorecard]

Speaking of Pryts (who did flip from PSU), has he joined the ILB group?  I remember this photo from pre-Alamo Bowl days.

https://twitter.com/phansen14/status/937481780638072832

[scorecard]

Speaking of Pryts (who did flip from PSU), has he joined the ILB group?  I remember this photo from pre-Alamo Bowl days.

https://twitter.com/phansen14/status/937481780638072832

[scorecard]

Speaking of Pryts (who did flip from PSU), has he joined the ILB group?  I remember this photo from pre-Alamo Bowl days.

https://twitter.com/phansen14/status/937481780638072832

[scorecard]

Speaking of Pryts (who did flip from PSU), has he joined the ILB group?  I remember this photo from pre-Alamo Bowl days.

https://twitter.com/phansen14/status/937481780638072832

[Goose]

Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC

I think this is where we are really going to have a problem. There are very, very few people that are "sure" admits to Stanford. You really can't expect a recruit to put themselves in a position where they have to pass on a good offer just for the CHANCE they might get into Stanford. I think the even more damaging case is that many recruits will be asked to take extra AP classes and work much harder during their junior year, knowing full well that they may not be able to take the risk of playing the scenario out. In the past, those recruits could be sure they would get at least a chance at an actual admission to Stanford. Now, they know that they won't be able to hold out that long. So why sign up to try? It is not only the ones that bail on Stanford at the early signing day that are a problem. It is really the ones that just say no the year before that will hurt.

[Goose]

Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC

I think this is where we are really going to have a problem. There are very, very few people that are "sure" admits to Stanford. You really can't expect a recruit to put themselves in a position where they have to pass on a good offer just for the CHANCE they might get into Stanford. I think the even more damaging case is that many recruits will be asked to take extra AP classes and work much harder during their junior year, knowing full well that they may not be able to take the risk of playing the scenario out. In the past, those recruits could be sure they would get at least a chance at an actual admission to Stanford. Now, they know that they won't be able to hold out that long. So why sign up to try? It is not only the ones that bail on Stanford at the early signing day that are a problem. It is really the ones that just say no the year before that will hurt.

[Goose]

Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC

I think this is where we are really going to have a problem. There are very, very few people that are "sure" admits to Stanford. You really can't expect a recruit to put themselves in a position where they have to pass on a good offer just for the CHANCE they might get into Stanford. I think the even more damaging case is that many recruits will be asked to take extra AP classes and work much harder during their junior year, knowing full well that they may not be able to take the risk of playing the scenario out. In the past, those recruits could be sure they would get at least a chance at an actual admission to Stanford. Now, they know that they won't be able to hold out that long. So why sign up to try? It is not only the ones that bail on Stanford at the early signing day that are a problem. It is really the ones that just say no the year before that will hurt.

[Goose]

Alternatively, it could mean that guys committed elsewhere as a hedge against not getting through admissions, who previously could have submitted their 7th semester grades to find out their admission status in January now are pressured to commit in December, and never give admissions a chance.

So I guess we will see how it all shakes out, but I think we ought to give the staff a chance to figure out the new landscape before we declare that they've screwed the pooch.

BC

I think this is where we are really going to have a problem. There are very, very few people that are "sure" admits to Stanford. You really can't expect a recruit to put themselves in a position where they have to pass on a good offer just for the CHANCE they might get into Stanford. I think the even more damaging case is that many recruits will be asked to take extra AP classes and work much harder during their junior year, knowing full well that they may not be able to take the risk of playing the scenario out. In the past, those recruits could be sure they would get at least a chance at an actual admission to Stanford. Now, they know that they won't be able to hold out that long. So why sign up to try? It is not only the ones that bail on Stanford at the early signing day that are a problem. It is really the ones that just say no the year before that will hurt.

[Spiny_Norman]

Speaking of Pryts (who did flip from PSU), has he joined the ILB group?  I remember this photo from pre-Alamo Bowl days.

https://twitter.com/phansen14/status/937481780638072832

Pryts is listed as an ILB on the spring roster - http://gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=14019

[Spiny_Norman]

Speaking of Pryts (who did flip from PSU), has he joined the ILB group?  I remember this photo from pre-Alamo Bowl days.

https://twitter.com/phansen14/status/937481780638072832

Pryts is listed as an ILB on the spring roster - http://gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=14019

[Spiny_Norman]

Speaking of Pryts (who did flip from PSU), has he joined the ILB group?  I remember this photo from pre-Alamo Bowl days.

https://twitter.com/phansen14/status/937481780638072832

Pryts is listed as an ILB on the spring roster - http://gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=14019

[Spiny_Norman]

Speaking of Pryts (who did flip from PSU), has he joined the ILB group?  I remember this photo from pre-Alamo Bowl days.

https://twitter.com/phansen14/status/937481780638072832

Pryts is listed as an ILB on the spring roster - http://gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=14019