PDA

View Full Version : Why its tough to recruit for Stanford:



SLOZag
07-10-2009, 10:54 PM
From the Mercury News' website [http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_12815324]:

"Can [Stanford's Coach] Dawkins close the deal with top prospects who also have scholarship offers from established coaches like UCLA's Ben Howland, Gonzaga's Mark Few and Cal's Mike Montgomery?"

Its a jungle out there for mid-majors like Stanford. Can't you just feel their pain? :lmao:

Martin Centre Mad Man
07-13-2009, 05:37 AM
Lorenzo Romar didn't make that list. I guess that Stanford can swoop in and nab all of UW's prospects at will.

jazzdelmar
07-13-2009, 06:23 AM
lowering expectations is a typical coaching strategy, and given past performances, prob a great idea for a twig from the needlenose tree.....stanford is absolutely unique among all colleges in the usa........if u cant sell that, ur not any good.

RanchZagFan
07-13-2009, 07:22 AM
Keep it real and don't hate. Stanford is the single toughest D1 school in the country in terms of a coach's ability to get a recruit admitted. The Stanford admissions office does not waiver from its GPA and test score minimums for athletes. Honestly, I'm amazed at how competitive Stanford is every year in football and hoops.

CDC84
07-13-2009, 08:01 AM
The Stanford admissions office does not waiver from its GPA and test score minimums for athletes.

That's not entirely true. What is true is that they will waiver a lot less than most schools, and because of the high standards it takes to get into that place to begin with, no one is getting admitted who can't academically compete. It is very true that the field of recruits that they can shoot for is quite narrow. Their coaches have a lot less margin for error.

Mike Montgomery towards the end of his time at Stanford was recruiting at an elite level. He was able to bring in several McDonalds AA's like the Collins twins, Casey Jacobsen, Josh Childress, etc. But that's Mike Montgomery, who is an incredible basketball coach and program salesman. I still wonder how Johnny Dawkins is going to work out as a head coach.

229SintoZag
07-13-2009, 09:04 AM
I am wavering on whether waiver can be used as a verb like it has been above.

Stanford can certainly waive its admissions requirements. And if it did so, it could issue the athletes waivers. But if it does so, does Stanford not waver, rather than waiver, on its admissions standards for its students?

Inquiring minds want to know.

RanchZagFan
07-13-2009, 09:15 AM
That was funny Sinto...I stand duly chastised. :)

In any event, it is noteworthy that Stanford recruits from an extremely small pool of athletes in basketball and football relative to the programs with which it competes. I know for a fact (as in firsthand) that Howland and Montgomery have gotten guys admitted in the last couple of years who would've been rejected out of hand by the Stanford admissions office.

229SintoZag
07-13-2009, 02:28 PM
to play devil's advocate here, isn't there a bit of a self-selection effect going on that makes it in fact a bit easier for Stanford to compete?

Let us propose a not unreasonable hypothesis: to wit, that smart kids with academic aspirations who view college as not just a place to show their athletic prowess will value good schools. Stanford is a good school (understatement) in terms of its academics.

So if Stanford is recruiting against, say, a WSU or an Oregon State, or worse (any SEC school) (not bad schools per se, but not Stanford) for a kid with Stanford-worthy grades and test scores, isn't Stanford at an advantage if it can sell not only its sports in the Pac 10, but its elite academic reputation and the opportunities that come with it?

In other words, don't the dunces and the wizards "self-select" for the schools that cater to their academic proclivities? And if so, doesn't Stanford have less competition as an elite school in academics and in athletics than any other university in America? Who do they compete with for these kids in the D-1 BCS conference arena--Duke? Northwestern?

Meanwhile, the rest of the BCS--over a hundred schools without these constraints, most of whom can get any NCAA eligible athlete enrolled--can fight over the dunces?

zaguarxj
07-13-2009, 04:08 PM
I am wavering on whether waiver can be used as a verb like it has been above.

Stanford can certainly waive its admissions requirements. And if it did so, it could issue the athletes waivers. But if it does so, does Stanford not waver, rather than waiver, on its admissions standards for its students?

Inquiring minds want to know.

A local Spokane high-tech company's sales department decided to show their gratitude for all the quality hard work put in by their engineering department, so they presented them with a plaque. The inscription on the plaque commended the engineering department for their "unwaivering commitment to excellence." The plaque hung on the wall outside the engineering department for years. I never said anything about it to anyone because I thought it was a great example of the sales department's unwavering commitment to unintentional irony.

Martin Centre Mad Man
07-13-2009, 05:41 PM
If Stanford is having trouble competing against elite WCC schools for prospects, perhaps it should realign to join a conference full of schools that are smaller, private schools and stop competing against the huge, state-sponsored juggernauts that compose the other PAC-9.

They would be ideal bretheran for the WCC.

The PAC-10 could round out their league by inviting UNLV or Utah. It would be a big-schools only fraternity.

I'll call Thayne McCullough and ask him to propose an offer of WCC admission to Seattle U and Stanford at the conference of the WCC presidents.

Das Zagger
07-13-2009, 09:14 PM
I still wonder how Johnny Dawkins is going to work out as a head coach.

Eh, if I was a Standford fan, I wouldn't be getting the warm fuzzies with him at the helm.

229SintoZag
07-14-2009, 09:49 AM
If Stanford is having trouble competing against elite WCC schools for prospects, perhaps it should realign to join a conference full of schools that are smaller, private schools and stop competing against the huge, state-sponsored juggernauts that compose the other PAC-9.

They would be ideal bretheran for the WCC.

The PAC-10 could round out their league by inviting UNLV or Utah. It would be a big-schools only fraternity.

I'll call Thayne McCullough and ask him to propose an offer of WCC admission to Seattle U and Stanford at the conference of the WCC presidents.

Stanford has no trouble competing with WCC schools for anything, including prospects in any sport.

Landry Fields told me so.

And another point of order: Seattle U. is not WCC-worthy at this point, and would do nothing but water down the conference. Their gain is the rest of the WCC's loss. They made the decision to abandon D-1 in 1980 and that decision is not simply revocable. I hope their WCC brethren do not buckle and admit them to the conference, especially now that they've head coach with a track record of cheating in recruiting.

MJGoGaels
07-15-2009, 03:48 PM
If Stanford is having trouble competing against elite WCC schools for prospects, perhaps it should realign to join a conference full of schools that are smaller, private schools and stop competing against the huge, state-sponsored juggernauts that compose the other PAC-9.


Point of fact, University of Southern California is private., but I would agree with a PAC-8 bunch of state funded juggers.