[SamuelMcF]

Not that it adds a lot to the argument, but we also flipped Jay Symonds from Pitt.

[SamuelMcF]

Not that it adds a lot to the argument, but we also flipped Jay Symonds from Pitt.

[SamuelMcF]

Not that it adds a lot to the argument, but we also flipped Jay Symonds from Pitt.

[SamuelMcF]

Not that it adds a lot to the argument, but we also flipped Jay Symonds from Pitt.

[washingtonismoney]

Not that it adds a lot to the argument, but we also flipped Jay Symonds from Pitt.

Ah, another fair point. I think it reinforces the notion that you can bet on a handful of flips per year, but that they'll be medium to good (but not fantastic) prospects.

Jameis Winston was probably the closest the staff got to flipping a no-doubt-about-it top target. Of course, Winston turned out to have other issues, so that was a bullet dodged.

[washingtonismoney]

Not that it adds a lot to the argument, but we also flipped Jay Symonds from Pitt.

Ah, another fair point. I think it reinforces the notion that you can bet on a handful of flips per year, but that they'll be medium to good (but not fantastic) prospects.

Jameis Winston was probably the closest the staff got to flipping a no-doubt-about-it top target. Of course, Winston turned out to have other issues, so that was a bullet dodged.

[washingtonismoney]

Not that it adds a lot to the argument, but we also flipped Jay Symonds from Pitt.

Ah, another fair point. I think it reinforces the notion that you can bet on a handful of flips per year, but that they'll be medium to good (but not fantastic) prospects.

Jameis Winston was probably the closest the staff got to flipping a no-doubt-about-it top target. Of course, Winston turned out to have other issues, so that was a bullet dodged.

[washingtonismoney]

Not that it adds a lot to the argument, but we also flipped Jay Symonds from Pitt.

Ah, another fair point. I think it reinforces the notion that you can bet on a handful of flips per year, but that they'll be medium to good (but not fantastic) prospects.

Jameis Winston was probably the closest the staff got to flipping a no-doubt-about-it top target. Of course, Winston turned out to have other issues, so that was a bullet dodged.

[teejers1]

CI, I thought I was "letting go" of ever trying to persuade a certain group of fans that the offense under this regime is not good (doesn't optimize talent, doesn't reflect a grasp of game situations well, etc.).

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . .   

[teejers1]

CI, I thought I was "letting go" of ever trying to persuade a certain group of fans that the offense under this regime is not good (doesn't optimize talent, doesn't reflect a grasp of game situations well, etc.).

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . .   

[teejers1]

CI, I thought I was "letting go" of ever trying to persuade a certain group of fans that the offense under this regime is not good (doesn't optimize talent, doesn't reflect a grasp of game situations well, etc.).

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . .   

[teejers1]

CI, I thought I was "letting go" of ever trying to persuade a certain group of fans that the offense under this regime is not good (doesn't optimize talent, doesn't reflect a grasp of game situations well, etc.).

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . .   

[washingtonismoney]

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . . 

Well, look, this is where your theory breaks down in reality. Your theory, as I understand it, is that:
1) the defense has been better than the offense
2) the offense is unattractive
3) this should have impacts on recruiting

Seems reasonable enough insofar as it goes, and I could buy certain elements and predictions. But you need to actually test the predictions against observable reality. The problem for your theory is that, in reality, Stanford's offense has consistently outrecruited the defense for the past few years.

Certain other elements don't quite bear out either. For example, if your theory is correct, Stanford's offensive coaching is the problem. OK, well.... why do Stanford's offensive coaches keep on getting promotions? From Shaw's original coaching staff, his offensive coordinator went on to coordinate offense in the NFL, and two guys have gone on to get head coaching positions. Multiple graduate assistants have moved up to position coaching roles.

So for some reason other coaches keep on promoting Stanford coaches, and for some reason recruits keep on buying what Stanford's selling, and for some reason Stanford keeps on exceeding Vegas over-unders and pre-game lines, but the coaching is somehow bad and defective. Your theory doesn't fit the evidence.

[washingtonismoney]

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . . 

Well, look, this is where your theory breaks down in reality. Your theory, as I understand it, is that:
1) the defense has been better than the offense
2) the offense is unattractive
3) this should have impacts on recruiting

Seems reasonable enough insofar as it goes, and I could buy certain elements and predictions. But you need to actually test the predictions against observable reality. The problem for your theory is that, in reality, Stanford's offense has consistently outrecruited the defense for the past few years.

Certain other elements don't quite bear out either. For example, if your theory is correct, Stanford's offensive coaching is the problem. OK, well.... why do Stanford's offensive coaches keep on getting promotions? From Shaw's original coaching staff, his offensive coordinator went on to coordinate offense in the NFL, and two guys have gone on to get head coaching positions. Multiple graduate assistants have moved up to position coaching roles.

So for some reason other coaches keep on promoting Stanford coaches, and for some reason recruits keep on buying what Stanford's selling, and for some reason Stanford keeps on exceeding Vegas over-unders and pre-game lines, but the coaching is somehow bad and defective. Your theory doesn't fit the evidence.

[washingtonismoney]

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . . 

Well, look, this is where your theory breaks down in reality. Your theory, as I understand it, is that:
1) the defense has been better than the offense
2) the offense is unattractive
3) this should have impacts on recruiting

Seems reasonable enough insofar as it goes, and I could buy certain elements and predictions. But you need to actually test the predictions against observable reality. The problem for your theory is that, in reality, Stanford's offense has consistently outrecruited the defense for the past few years.

Certain other elements don't quite bear out either. For example, if your theory is correct, Stanford's offensive coaching is the problem. OK, well.... why do Stanford's offensive coaches keep on getting promotions? From Shaw's original coaching staff, his offensive coordinator went on to coordinate offense in the NFL, and two guys have gone on to get head coaching positions. Multiple graduate assistants have moved up to position coaching roles.

So for some reason other coaches keep on promoting Stanford coaches, and for some reason recruits keep on buying what Stanford's selling, and for some reason Stanford keeps on exceeding Vegas over-unders and pre-game lines, but the coaching is somehow bad and defective. Your theory doesn't fit the evidence.

[washingtonismoney]

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . . 

Well, look, this is where your theory breaks down in reality. Your theory, as I understand it, is that:
1) the defense has been better than the offense
2) the offense is unattractive
3) this should have impacts on recruiting

Seems reasonable enough insofar as it goes, and I could buy certain elements and predictions. But you need to actually test the predictions against observable reality. The problem for your theory is that, in reality, Stanford's offense has consistently outrecruited the defense for the past few years.

Certain other elements don't quite bear out either. For example, if your theory is correct, Stanford's offensive coaching is the problem. OK, well.... why do Stanford's offensive coaches keep on getting promotions? From Shaw's original coaching staff, his offensive coordinator went on to coordinate offense in the NFL, and two guys have gone on to get head coaching positions. Multiple graduate assistants have moved up to position coaching roles.

So for some reason other coaches keep on promoting Stanford coaches, and for some reason recruits keep on buying what Stanford's selling, and for some reason Stanford keeps on exceeding Vegas over-unders and pre-game lines, but the coaching is somehow bad and defective. Your theory doesn't fit the evidence.

[pefloresjr]

I think this is definitely a down year in recruiting.  It is, however, within the normal variability we have seen in other years.  Given the good track record we have with recruiting, I have a lot of confidence in Shaw and the rest of the coaches to make the needed adjustments. 

One thing that I think some of the Shawtagonists are not considering is the fact that until the first early signing period happened, nobody knew how many would sign early.  I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date.  In hindsight, I can see that most programs would put tremendous pressure on their recruits to sign early or risk missing out but that has always been true of the verbal commits we have had to try to filp.  Of course, the option of flipping recruits late all but disappears if they are actually signed and not just verbals. 

That miscalculation along with only a slight miscalculation on the number of successful hits we would get is enough to explain a down year.  I could say Shaw and co. are idiots for not seeing that we might miss on some prospects but it seems like we have been getting really high (and increasingly higher) yields out of our extremely targeted recruiting strategy.  It makes sense to stick with it because it has been working.  Based on all of that, I think Shaw and co. get a poor grade for this year, but I have high confidence that they will expand their search with more offers and attempts to get the academic questions answered sooner.  Only time will tell, but recruiting for every program is very unpredictable and I think Shaw has earned the benefit of the doubt. 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

I think this is definitely a down year in recruiting.  It is, however, within the normal variability we have seen in other years.  Given the good track record we have with recruiting, I have a lot of confidence in Shaw and the rest of the coaches to make the needed adjustments. 

One thing that I think some of the Shawtagonists are not considering is the fact that until the first early signing period happened, nobody knew how many would sign early.  I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date.  In hindsight, I can see that most programs would put tremendous pressure on their recruits to sign early or risk missing out but that has always been true of the verbal commits we have had to try to filp.  Of course, the option of flipping recruits late all but disappears if they are actually signed and not just verbals. 

That miscalculation along with only a slight miscalculation on the number of successful hits we would get is enough to explain a down year.  I could say Shaw and co. are idiots for not seeing that we might miss on some prospects but it seems like we have been getting really high (and increasingly higher) yields out of our extremely targeted recruiting strategy.  It makes sense to stick with it because it has been working.  Based on all of that, I think Shaw and co. get a poor grade for this year, but I have high confidence that they will expand their search with more offers and attempts to get the academic questions answered sooner.  Only time will tell, but recruiting for every program is very unpredictable and I think Shaw has earned the benefit of the doubt. 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

I think this is definitely a down year in recruiting.  It is, however, within the normal variability we have seen in other years.  Given the good track record we have with recruiting, I have a lot of confidence in Shaw and the rest of the coaches to make the needed adjustments. 

One thing that I think some of the Shawtagonists are not considering is the fact that until the first early signing period happened, nobody knew how many would sign early.  I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date.  In hindsight, I can see that most programs would put tremendous pressure on their recruits to sign early or risk missing out but that has always been true of the verbal commits we have had to try to filp.  Of course, the option of flipping recruits late all but disappears if they are actually signed and not just verbals. 

That miscalculation along with only a slight miscalculation on the number of successful hits we would get is enough to explain a down year.  I could say Shaw and co. are idiots for not seeing that we might miss on some prospects but it seems like we have been getting really high (and increasingly higher) yields out of our extremely targeted recruiting strategy.  It makes sense to stick with it because it has been working.  Based on all of that, I think Shaw and co. get a poor grade for this year, but I have high confidence that they will expand their search with more offers and attempts to get the academic questions answered sooner.  Only time will tell, but recruiting for every program is very unpredictable and I think Shaw has earned the benefit of the doubt. 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

I think this is definitely a down year in recruiting.  It is, however, within the normal variability we have seen in other years.  Given the good track record we have with recruiting, I have a lot of confidence in Shaw and the rest of the coaches to make the needed adjustments. 

One thing that I think some of the Shawtagonists are not considering is the fact that until the first early signing period happened, nobody knew how many would sign early.  I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date.  In hindsight, I can see that most programs would put tremendous pressure on their recruits to sign early or risk missing out but that has always been true of the verbal commits we have had to try to filp.  Of course, the option of flipping recruits late all but disappears if they are actually signed and not just verbals. 

That miscalculation along with only a slight miscalculation on the number of successful hits we would get is enough to explain a down year.  I could say Shaw and co. are idiots for not seeing that we might miss on some prospects but it seems like we have been getting really high (and increasingly higher) yields out of our extremely targeted recruiting strategy.  It makes sense to stick with it because it has been working.  Based on all of that, I think Shaw and co. get a poor grade for this year, but I have high confidence that they will expand their search with more offers and attempts to get the academic questions answered sooner.  Only time will tell, but recruiting for every program is very unpredictable and I think Shaw has earned the benefit of the doubt. 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[qwerty49]

I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date. 

I agree with your first sentence here but not with your second one. 

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

We're already flying half-blind in situations where 7th semester grades and late test scores are not available by the Dec signing date.  Add our obstinance in not allowing early enrollment and we have an uphill battle all the way.

Now perhaps this class was just luck-of-the-draw.  But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.  Yes, cause and effect are difficult to identify, and we unwashed fans don't know any facts or details, but the optics are not good from a number of different angles. 

Are some process tweaks needed? Well, that's hard to say as an outsider.  Sure, it's great that recruits get to meet Condi, I get that.  But might there be room to improve our network with feeder-school coaches to identify guys as early as 8th or 9th grade, and to reach out to get them on an appropriate academic track at that point?  And we need every advantage we can get -- I do think it's time for Shaw and the AD to go to the mat with the University about extending early enrollment to at least spring quarter and put us on level ground as far as that decision factor goes. 

And one (unpopular) question we can't avoid -- even if we do have the best recruiting strategy and process in the world, do we have the right people executing it?  We've had some turnover on staff.  Are we "coaching up" our recruiters?

These are hard questions to ask, and magic answers don't always exist.  Some recruits are coming to Stanford no matter what, and some will never, no matter what.  But it's the tossups that make all the difference, with our pool we need every edge we can get, and if staff isn't at least asking these questions of itself, we will keep going into those gunfights with knives IMHO.

[qwerty49]

I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date. 

I agree with your first sentence here but not with your second one. 

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

We're already flying half-blind in situations where 7th semester grades and late test scores are not available by the Dec signing date.  Add our obstinance in not allowing early enrollment and we have an uphill battle all the way.

Now perhaps this class was just luck-of-the-draw.  But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.  Yes, cause and effect are difficult to identify, and we unwashed fans don't know any facts or details, but the optics are not good from a number of different angles. 

Are some process tweaks needed? Well, that's hard to say as an outsider.  Sure, it's great that recruits get to meet Condi, I get that.  But might there be room to improve our network with feeder-school coaches to identify guys as early as 8th or 9th grade, and to reach out to get them on an appropriate academic track at that point?  And we need every advantage we can get -- I do think it's time for Shaw and the AD to go to the mat with the University about extending early enrollment to at least spring quarter and put us on level ground as far as that decision factor goes. 

And one (unpopular) question we can't avoid -- even if we do have the best recruiting strategy and process in the world, do we have the right people executing it?  We've had some turnover on staff.  Are we "coaching up" our recruiters?

These are hard questions to ask, and magic answers don't always exist.  Some recruits are coming to Stanford no matter what, and some will never, no matter what.  But it's the tossups that make all the difference, with our pool we need every edge we can get, and if staff isn't at least asking these questions of itself, we will keep going into those gunfights with knives IMHO.

[qwerty49]

I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date. 

I agree with your first sentence here but not with your second one. 

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

We're already flying half-blind in situations where 7th semester grades and late test scores are not available by the Dec signing date.  Add our obstinance in not allowing early enrollment and we have an uphill battle all the way.

Now perhaps this class was just luck-of-the-draw.  But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.  Yes, cause and effect are difficult to identify, and we unwashed fans don't know any facts or details, but the optics are not good from a number of different angles. 

Are some process tweaks needed? Well, that's hard to say as an outsider.  Sure, it's great that recruits get to meet Condi, I get that.  But might there be room to improve our network with feeder-school coaches to identify guys as early as 8th or 9th grade, and to reach out to get them on an appropriate academic track at that point?  And we need every advantage we can get -- I do think it's time for Shaw and the AD to go to the mat with the University about extending early enrollment to at least spring quarter and put us on level ground as far as that decision factor goes. 

And one (unpopular) question we can't avoid -- even if we do have the best recruiting strategy and process in the world, do we have the right people executing it?  We've had some turnover on staff.  Are we "coaching up" our recruiters?

These are hard questions to ask, and magic answers don't always exist.  Some recruits are coming to Stanford no matter what, and some will never, no matter what.  But it's the tossups that make all the difference, with our pool we need every edge we can get, and if staff isn't at least asking these questions of itself, we will keep going into those gunfights with knives IMHO.

[qwerty49]

I think Stanford was surprised by how many recruits chose to sign early, including the recruits who signed with us.  It was not unreasonable for the staff to think that there would be more recruits still at play until the Feb. signing date. 

I agree with your first sentence here but not with your second one. 

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

We're already flying half-blind in situations where 7th semester grades and late test scores are not available by the Dec signing date.  Add our obstinance in not allowing early enrollment and we have an uphill battle all the way.

Now perhaps this class was just luck-of-the-draw.  But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.  Yes, cause and effect are difficult to identify, and we unwashed fans don't know any facts or details, but the optics are not good from a number of different angles. 

Are some process tweaks needed? Well, that's hard to say as an outsider.  Sure, it's great that recruits get to meet Condi, I get that.  But might there be room to improve our network with feeder-school coaches to identify guys as early as 8th or 9th grade, and to reach out to get them on an appropriate academic track at that point?  And we need every advantage we can get -- I do think it's time for Shaw and the AD to go to the mat with the University about extending early enrollment to at least spring quarter and put us on level ground as far as that decision factor goes. 

And one (unpopular) question we can't avoid -- even if we do have the best recruiting strategy and process in the world, do we have the right people executing it?  We've had some turnover on staff.  Are we "coaching up" our recruiters?

These are hard questions to ask, and magic answers don't always exist.  Some recruits are coming to Stanford no matter what, and some will never, no matter what.  But it's the tossups that make all the difference, with our pool we need every edge we can get, and if staff isn't at least asking these questions of itself, we will keep going into those gunfights with knives IMHO.

[Goose]

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

Fully agree here.

But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.

It may be seen that way, but another possibility, which I think is actually what is true, is that even if you see it coming, there is really nothing Stanford can do about it without admitting athletes using a different process than regular students, which we will not (and possibly under NCAA rules cannot) do. This issue is a big problem for us, and there is no real good way to mitigate it. Other schools have the hammer, and they will use it.

[Goose]

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

Fully agree here.

But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.

It may be seen that way, but another possibility, which I think is actually what is true, is that even if you see it coming, there is really nothing Stanford can do about it without admitting athletes using a different process than regular students, which we will not (and possibly under NCAA rules cannot) do. This issue is a big problem for us, and there is no real good way to mitigate it. Other schools have the hammer, and they will use it.

[Goose]

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

Fully agree here.

But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.

It may be seen that way, but another possibility, which I think is actually what is true, is that even if you see it coming, there is really nothing Stanford can do about it without admitting athletes using a different process than regular students, which we will not (and possibly under NCAA rules cannot) do. This issue is a big problem for us, and there is no real good way to mitigate it. Other schools have the hammer, and they will use it.

[Goose]

In the past, other programs would pressure their recruits to commit early, but there was no visible "or else" deadline other than the Feb LOI date.  Now, the Dec early signing date gives those schools a precise indication of who is solid and who is not, and specific leverage to use against the unsigned recruits, since after the Dec date they know more completely how many and which type of holes they need to fill in Feb.  In other words, a more tangible threat to Stanford's "please wait until Feb before you make a final decision" pitch.

Fully agree here.

But a noticeable downturn that coincides with the first year an early signing period was installed cannot help but be seen as not anticipating the effects far enough in advance and, well, getting caught flatfooted.

It may be seen that way, but another possibility, which I think is actually what is true, is that even if you see it coming, there is really nothing Stanford can do about it without admitting athletes using a different process than regular students, which we will not (and possibly under NCAA rules cannot) do. This issue is a big problem for us, and there is no real good way to mitigate it. Other schools have the hammer, and they will use it.

[DC 86]

It may be seen that way, but another possibility, which I think is actually what is true, is that even if you see it coming, there is really nothing Stanford can do about it without admitting athletes using a different process than regular students, which we will not (and possibly under NCAA rules cannot) do.

Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year, which is approximately two weeks prior to the early signing period, so a process does exist for rendering an admission offer compatible with the new recruiting calendar.

I think it's likely that the pool happened to be narrower this year and that Stanford missed on some targets, but the main problem IMO was that coaches and the recruiting staff underestimated the impact of the early signing period (approx. 75% of the ESPN 300 signed early) and were not aggressive enough in evaluating prospects and extending early offers, which is something that can be rectified in the future.

[DC 86]

It may be seen that way, but another possibility, which I think is actually what is true, is that even if you see it coming, there is really nothing Stanford can do about it without admitting athletes using a different process than regular students, which we will not (and possibly under NCAA rules cannot) do.

Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year, which is approximately two weeks prior to the early signing period, so a process does exist for rendering an admission offer compatible with the new recruiting calendar.

I think it's likely that the pool happened to be narrower this year and that Stanford missed on some targets, but the main problem IMO was that coaches and the recruiting staff underestimated the impact of the early signing period (approx. 75% of the ESPN 300 signed early) and were not aggressive enough in evaluating prospects and extending early offers, which is something that can be rectified in the future.

[DC 86]

It may be seen that way, but another possibility, which I think is actually what is true, is that even if you see it coming, there is really nothing Stanford can do about it without admitting athletes using a different process than regular students, which we will not (and possibly under NCAA rules cannot) do.

Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year, which is approximately two weeks prior to the early signing period, so a process does exist for rendering an admission offer compatible with the new recruiting calendar.

I think it's likely that the pool happened to be narrower this year and that Stanford missed on some targets, but the main problem IMO was that coaches and the recruiting staff underestimated the impact of the early signing period (approx. 75% of the ESPN 300 signed early) and were not aggressive enough in evaluating prospects and extending early offers, which is something that can be rectified in the future.

[DC 86]

It may be seen that way, but another possibility, which I think is actually what is true, is that even if you see it coming, there is really nothing Stanford can do about it without admitting athletes using a different process than regular students, which we will not (and possibly under NCAA rules cannot) do.

Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year, which is approximately two weeks prior to the early signing period, so a process does exist for rendering an admission offer compatible with the new recruiting calendar.

I think it's likely that the pool happened to be narrower this year and that Stanford missed on some targets, but the main problem IMO was that coaches and the recruiting staff underestimated the impact of the early signing period (approx. 75% of the ESPN 300 signed early) and were not aggressive enough in evaluating prospects and extending early offers, which is something that can be rectified in the future.

[CowboyIndian]

Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year,

This doesn't allow for the fact that Admissions often requires 7th semester grades....especially for football players.

[CowboyIndian]

Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year,

This doesn't allow for the fact that Admissions often requires 7th semester grades....especially for football players.

[CowboyIndian]

Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year,

This doesn't allow for the fact that Admissions often requires 7th semester grades....especially for football players.

[CowboyIndian]

Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year,

This doesn't allow for the fact that Admissions often requires 7th semester grades....especially for football players.

[Goose]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=12112.msg223590#msg223590 date=1518217910]
Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year,

This doesn't allow for the fact that Admissions often requires 7th semester grades....especially for football players.
[/quote]
Exactly so. Worse, prospective recruits know this and will decide early on (before Junior year in HS) they don't want to take this route.

[Goose]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=12112.msg223590#msg223590 date=1518217910]
Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year,

This doesn't allow for the fact that Admissions often requires 7th semester grades....especially for football players.
[/quote]
Exactly so. Worse, prospective recruits know this and will decide early on (before Junior year in HS) they don't want to take this route.

[Goose]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=12112.msg223590#msg223590 date=1518217910]
Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year,

This doesn't allow for the fact that Admissions often requires 7th semester grades....especially for football players.
[/quote]
Exactly so. Worse, prospective recruits know this and will decide early on (before Junior year in HS) they don't want to take this route.

[Goose]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=12112.msg223590#msg223590 date=1518217910]
Early Action applicants are notified of Stanford's admissions decision on December 8 of their senior year,

This doesn't allow for the fact that Admissions often requires 7th semester grades....especially for football players.
[/quote]
Exactly so. Worse, prospective recruits know this and will decide early on (before Junior year in HS) they don't want to take this route.