Biggest need for 2016 (offense edition)

[Skeptic]

That's recruiting, buddy! Stanford was a black hole and 4/5 star types wouldn't go anywhere near there. Bob Davie and Ty Willingham had a hard time convincing blue chips to come to ND like Brian Kelly has. Before Cutcliffe, Duke was lucky to get a top 80 class. Those schools eventually found good coaches who could recruit well. It wasn't too long ago that GT was able to pull in a few 4 star types almost every season...one of which you mentioned. Heck, we have a few 4 star types that we have a good shot at this season.

Coffee is for closers! Coaches gotta step up their recruiting game!

I'm sorry. But which players might they have been? "A few" 4-stars? I gotta get out from under the manhole cover I've been hiding under. As for Stanford, well. Check out Harbaugh's epic defense of his recruiting to minimum Stanford qualifications by archly noting even his sainted alma mater, Michigan, was famous for it. It has been a spell since Stanford was a black hole for anybody. I think a fellow named Bill Walsh coached there, and then Andrew Luck played there, and ... Duke I'll give you, and Cutcliffe has done a good job. Tough school. Also a liberal arts school with so many majors they won't fit into the Durham phone book. Notre Dame? Yep, some down years .. with decidedly down coaches. Anybody remember that Davie didn't know the difference in cut and chop blocking and routinely referred to every cut as a chop? Or couldn't figure out why Johnson called his offense a spread option? That kind of coach. Willingham? Really, now. Wonder why they couldn't win at ND? And which 4-stars do we have a shot at and how do you know exactly? Because the kid put on his recruiting web site that he had an offer? If all the kids on all the services had all the offers they claimed, eventually they would write a great work of fiction.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Good thing we don't recruit most kids. We don't need to, either.

We fish in the smallest pond possible and don't even have the shiniest lures for those few finicky fish. I'm not saying our lures stink, it's just that a couple other fisherman have better ones.

 

[Techster]

I'm sorry. But which players might they have been? "A few" 4-stars? I gotta get out from under the manhole cover I've been hiding under. As for Stanford, well. Check out Harbaugh's epic defense of his recruiting to minimum Stanford qualifications by archly noting even his sainted alma mater, Michigan, was famous for it. It has been a spell since Stanford was a black hole for anybody. I think a fellow named Bill Walsh coached there, and then Andrew Luck played there, and ... Duke I'll give you, and Cutcliffe has done a good job. Tough school. Also a liberal arts school with so many majors they won't fit into the Durham phone book. Notre Dame? Yep, some down years .. with decidedly down coaches. Anybody remember that Davie didn't know the difference in cut and chop blocking and routinely referred to every cut as a chop? Or couldn't figure out why Johnson called his offense a spread option? That kind of coach. Willingham? Really, now. Wonder why they couldn't win at ND? And which 4-stars do we have a shot at and how do you know exactly? Because the kid put on his recruiting web site that he had an offer? If all the kids on all the services had all the offers they claimed, eventually they would write a great work of fiction.

1. Harbaugh was not defending Stanford by using Michigan. On the contrary ol' misinformed one, he was using Stanford as the model of the school for "scholar athletes". Basically, accusing Michigan of lowering its standards while Stanford had to keep high standards.

http://michiganzone.blogspot.com/2007/05/jim-harbaugh-disses-michigan.html

“College football needs Stanford. We’re looking not for student athletes but scholar-athletes. No other school can carry this banner. The Ivy League schools don’t have enough weight [because of their low athletic level]. Other schools which have good academic reputations have ways to get borderline athletes in and keep them in.”

Before you go on a rant, make sure you use Google. It undermines the rest of your rant when your first salvo is filled with hot air.

2. Down coaches? Um, did you not read the statement "Those schools eventually found good coaches who could recruit well." If you don't get the inherent meaning of that statement, then its best you don't reply because you just undermine yourself.

3. I gotta get out from under the manhole cover I've been hiding under. You probably need to return there if you are not going to atleast Google before trying to form a rebuttal. Hint: Calving Johnson, Michael Johnson, George Cooper, Greg Gathers, Daryl Smith, Kenny Scott, Rashaun Grant, Darryl Richard, see 2007 class. Those are just the ones I can remember, and the Services only started doing star rankings since around 2000.

 

[Techster]

We fish in the smallest pond possible and don't even have the shiniest lures for those few finicky fish. I'm not saying our lures stink, it's just that a couple other fisherman have better ones.

Dear lord, it's a wonder GT doesn't have one of the top 4 ACC records since 2000, and we've been able to make 3 ACC Championship games since 2009. You make it sound as if we're scraping the bottom of the barrel for talent. I mean, we're signing guys with 3.1 GPAs and around 1100 on their SATs, one of which is graduating this Semester and was a key player for us the past 2 years. Hint: He plays on the OL. If CPJ and staff can't find 15-20 guys every year in the geographic areas they're recruiting in (Cali all the way back to the East coast and many states in between) then there are bigger issues. Only 2-3 of them need to studs...and I'm not talking about 4/5 star rated players. Just more players like AJ Gray, Brant Mitchell, Shaq Mason...guys who can contribute at a high level their first year and become possible star players. I don't care where they come from, or what their rating is...we just need more of them.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

1. Harbaugh was not defending Stanford by using Michigan. On the contrary ol' misinformed one, he was using Stanford as the model of the school for "scholar athletes". Basically, accusing Michigan of lowering its standards while Stanford had to keep high standards.

http://michiganzone.blogspot.com/2007/05/jim-harbaugh-disses-michigan.html

“College football needs Stanford. We’re looking not for student athletes but scholar-athletes. No other school can carry this banner. The Ivy League schools don’t have enough weight [because of their low athletic level]. Other schools which have good academic reputations have ways to get borderline athletes in and keep them in.”

Before you go on a rant, make sure you use Google. It undermines the rest of your rant when your first salvo is filled with hot air.

2. Down coaches? Um, did you not read the statement "Those schools eventually found good coaches who could recruit well." If you don't get the inherent meaning of that statement, then its best you don't reply because you just undermine yourself.

3. I gotta get out from under the manhole cover I've been hiding under. You probably need to return there if you are not going to atleast Google before trying to form a rebuttal. Hint: Calving Johnson, Michael Johnson, George Cooper, Greg Gathers, Daryl Smith, Kenny Scott, Rashaun Grant, Darryl Richard, see 2007 class. Those are just the ones I can remember, and the Services only started doing star rankings since around 2000.

I'd like to respond.

There's a lot of truth in Harbaugh's quote. Stanford got better when they starting targeting the right SA's. S as in scholar*. (*note it's not TA's as in technical scholar.)

We have a similar focus, but it's more narrow than Stanford's. Also, we don't have the same drawing power for the scholar athlete. In no universe is GT more or as equally prestigious as Stanford. Sorry to break the news. They even outrank us in engineering, so even for the 1% of recruits who want to be engineers, we still lose.

Where we win is with kids from Georgia with a high value on proximity so that there family can see them play.

 

[Skeptic]

1. Harbaugh was not defending Stanford by using Michigan. On the contrary ol' misinformed one, he was using Stanford as the model of the school for "scholar athletes". Basically, accusing Michigan of lowering its standards while Stanford had to keep high standards.

http://michiganzone.blogspot.com/2007/05/jim-harbaugh-disses-michigan.html

“College football needs Stanford. We’re looking not for student athletes but scholar-athletes. No other school can carry this banner. The Ivy League schools don’t have enough weight [because of their low athletic level]. Other schools which have good academic reputations have ways to get borderline athletes in and keep them in.”

Before you go on a rant, make sure you use Google. It undermines the rest of your rant when your first salvo is filled with hot air.

2. Down coaches? Um, did you not read the statement "Those schools eventually found good coaches who could recruit well." If you don't get the inherent meaning of that statement, then its best you don't reply because you just undermine yourself.

3. I gotta get out from under the manhole cover I've been hiding under. You probably need to return there if you are not going to atleast Google before trying to form a rebuttal. Hint: Calving Johnson, Michael Johnson, George Cooper, Greg Gathers, Daryl Smith, Kenny Scott, Rashaun Grant, Darryl Richard, see 2007 class. Those are just the ones I can remember, and the Services only started doing star rankings since around 2000.

Well, no. Harbaugh was defending greased class schedules for his recruits and pointing out Michigan was his model, so to speak. Stanford down? Not hardly. Oh, well. And I still dispute a rather cavalier 4-star easy attitude.

 

[Techster]

I'd like to respond.

There's a lot of truth in Harbaugh's quote. Stanford got better when they starting targeting the right SA's. S as in scholar*. (*note it's not TA's as in technical scholar.)

We have a similar focus, but it's more narrow than Stanford's. Also, we don't have the same drawing power for the scholar athlete. In no universe is GT more or as equally prestigious as Stanford. Sorry to break the news. They even outrank us in engineering, so even for the 1% of recruits who want to be engineers, we still lose.

Where we win is with kids from Georgia with a high value on proximity so that there family can see them play.

You miss my original point. At what point did Stanford become "Stanford"? Look at their football history in the 90's and early 2000's. It's OK...fairly mediocre to awful. Definitely not contending for conference and national titles like GT was during that period From 1991-2008, they went to 6 bowl games, with a Rose Bowl Appearance in that term under Tyrone Willingham. They had a few nice classes, but GT was by far the better recruiting school. Cue Jim Harbaugh in 2007, and Stanford is now "Stanford". David Shaw has taken what Harbaugh built and improved upon it. Point being, you get the right guy in, and he can take a school to a higher level.

If you look at Stanford's recruiting, it's not like they're cleaning house with the "scholar athletes". They do exactly what GT has been known for doing in the past and in the present: A majority of their guys are 3 stars who fit their system, and they supplement them with the "star" guys. Stanford basically took the GT model and did it better than us. So when you say all those smart SAs all want to go to Stanford, that's simply not true. Recruiting has proven to be regional. Sure there are guys who will bolt to the farthest part of the country to get away, but the vast majority of recruits stay within a 4-6 hour drive. That's especially the case in the Southeast. News flash: Stanford is on the opposite side of the country as GT...and they can only sign so many players. How about GT get in on some of the others?

GT is VERY capable of getting to a higher level...our national title and consistent appearances in the ACC championship game tells you the potential of this program. CPJ has had 3 ACC title appearances with classes ranked at the bottom of the ACC recruiting rankings. We've been one of the most consisten ACC programs until this year. Imagine if our recruiting were to improve to the middle of the pack in the ACC. That's why I think this program has the potential to be an annual top 25 program with a special top 10 season every 3-4 years.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

You miss my original point. At what point did Stanford become "Stanford"? Look at their football history in the 90's and early 2000's. It's OK...fairly mediocre to awful. Definitely not contending for conference and national titles like GT was during that period From 1991-2008, they went to 6 bowl games, with a Rose Bowl Appearance in that term under Tyrone Willingham. They had a few nice classes, but GT was by far the better recruiting school. Cue Jim Harbaugh in 2007, and Stanford is now "Stanford". David Shaw has taken what Harbaugh built and improved upon it. Point being, you get the right guy in, and he can take a school to a higher level.

If you look at Stanford's recruiting, it's not like they're cleaning house with the "scholar athletes". They do exactly what GT has been known for doing in the past and in the present: A majority of their guys are 3 stars who fit their system, and they supplement them with the "star" guys. Stanford basically took the GT model and did it better than us. So when you say all those smart SAs all want to go to Stanford, that's simply not true. Recruiting has proven to be regional. Sure there are guys who will bolt to the farthest part of the country to get away, but the vast majority of recruits stay within a 4-6 hour drive. That's especially the case in the Southeast. News flash: Stanford is on the opposite side of the country as GT...and they can only sign so many players. How about GT get in on some of the others?

GT is VERY capable of getting to a higher level...our national title and consistent appearances in the ACC championship game tells you the potential of this program. CPJ has had 3 ACC title appearances with classes ranked at the bottom of the ACC recruiting rankings. We've been one of the most consisten ACC programs until this year. Imagine if our recruiting were to improve to the middle of the pack in the ACC. That's why I think this program has the potential to be an annual top 25 program with a special top 10 season every 3-4 years.

And the ACC Coastal was a dumpster fire during those years. The time we actually won the thing, FSU was a dumpster fire and we played Clemson.

Getting back to the Stanford comparison, they out-leverage us bigtime for the national recruit. Also, they have great leverage in their local area and we don't, we live in SEC country and have FSU and Clemson to deal with, too. It's not apple to apples as you suggest, even for the 3 stars.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Where we win is with kids from Georgia with a high value on proximity so that there family can see them play

And also, with a limited recruiting budget compared to other schools, recruiting in places like Texas and California has to be carefully measured with a risk/reward slide rule.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Also, they have great leverage in their local area and we don't, we live in SEC country and have FSU and Clemson to deal with, too. It's not apple to apples as you suggest, even for the 3 stars.

Agreed. And I hate to repeat what I have said so many times before, but look at the number of failing school systems in the South compared to California. The high school talent coming out of California is on average much better prepared for college work. Stanford is not just in the state that ranks near the top in college talent, they are in a state that is not even close to the bottom in high school academic performance. They have a much much bigger pond to fish in.

 

[Techster]

And the ACC Coastal was a dumpster fire during those years. The time we actually won the thing, FSU was a dumpster fire and we played Clemson.

Getting back to the Stanford comparison, they out-leverage us bigtime for the national recruit. Also, they have great leverage in their local area and we don't, we live in SEC country and have FSU and Clemson to deal with, too. It's not apple to apples as you suggest, even for the 3 stars.

ACC was a dumpster fire the last 5 years? It only produced the 2013 national Champion, 2014 playoff contender, and 2015 finalist.

Stanford doesn't recruit against USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Oregon State, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State...and many other conferences in "their local area"?

Dude, don't ever recruit for GT. Seriously, you're a great GT fan, but a crappy GT recruiter...the way you put it, you'd have kids running to play for Brian Bohannon at Kennesaw State rather than come to GT.

 

[AE 87]

We had this Stanford conversation a few years ago. Here are a couple of posts:

In 2007, the SF Chronicle published an article entitled, "HIGHER STANDARDS / Stanford teams finding it's hard to win if athletes can't get in." Let's look at Stanford's football records before and after that article came out:
2002 2-9 (1-7)
2003 4-7 (2-6)
2004 4-7 (2-6)
2005 5-6 (4-4)
2006 1-11 (1-8)
2007 4-8 (3-6)
2008 5-7 (4-5)
2009 8-5 (6-3)
2010 12-1 (8-1)
2011 11-2 (8-1)
2012 12-2 (8-1)

Funny right about the time Stanford's talking about lowering entrance requirements for football players, they start having more successful teams. On top of that, Stanford's Dean of Admissions starting in 2005 has been Richard Shaw who held the same position at the University of Michigan from 1988 to 1993, when he found a way to admit Chris Webber.

As a private school, Stanford doesn't have to report its admission standards. So, there's no telling what's going on for sure, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist (ahem) to figure out.

In the past several months there's been all kinds of news about how many "legacy" admissions Stanford has brought in, that is for people who are admitted based on other benefit to the university regardless of entrance requirements.

Also, the suggestion that the difference between most liberal arts majors and one of GT's majors in terms of success rate is only an excuse seems to me to be ignorant. The liberal arts often rely on subjective assessments rather than objective assessments.

Yup, you don't win that many non-revenue sports titles without holding sports involvement very high in the admissions process. It's not just football, also it's not anything new for Stanford. What's new is that they are now winning in football, but I think that's because Stanford has a new leadership that can win with the given opportunities and restrictions that previous leadership failed to win with.

The article below was shared across many Tech boards. For Stanford, it mentions how coaches give admissions a list of athletes 'by position'. You can read between the lines. There is no reason admissions needs a list 'by position', unless they are trying to help at least a little bit. For Northwestern, the article talks about considering a lot of criteria (family trouble, improving grades, etc.), so again, you can read between the lines that admissions is likely rationalizing, as in, they know who they would like to admit, and they are justifying it through making a story.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...5/nerds-stanford-northwestern-vanderbilt/#all

Also from the article:


FWIW as far as recruiting, compared to previous years, this year I feel like we have fended off Stanford and Vandy better in recruiting. It's not like we are not doing something. The new Sports, Society and Technology program will start at Tech next year, and may make the GT HTS degree more relevant for athletes. It might help making the business degree and other degrees a better track for athletes wanting to work into athletics when they graduate or when they finish their careers. I remember reading that GTAA is funding part of this program.

The link to the Chronicle Article is here. They brought in Fab-5 Richard Shaw as Dean of Undergrad Admissions in 2007, and the article has this quote:

"Since he came in, there was a change for the better," said Don Shaw (no relation), the ex-volleyball coach. Several other ex-coaches agreed.
​

 

[Techster]

We had this Stanford conversation a few years ago. Here are a couple of posts:





The link to the Chronicle Article is here. They brought in Fab-5 Richard Shaw as Dean of Undergrad Admissions in 2007, and the article has this quote:

"Since he came in, there was a change for the better," said Don Shaw (no relation), the ex-volleyball coach. Several other ex-coaches agreed.
​

The thing I find most funny about the people who crap on Stanford and think they have some arbitrary admissions standards to suit their needs is...well, frankly, where is the proof in this? Rivals, Scouts, 247...and local papers do fairly good job reporting SAs high school GPA, what classes they took, and in some cases their test scores. It's easy to grab a few recruits as examples of "relaxed standards"...but I have yet to see anyone cite enough recruits and their credentials to back their theory.

For instance, let's look at Stanford's star player this year:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ucf/football/recruiting/player-Christian-McCaffrey-139329

3.5 GPA, 24 SAT score. 100% of every FCS school would take those academic credentials for their recruits.

How about their 5 Star Wideout signee last year? 4.1 GPA.

http://www.studentsports.com/football/2014/05/18/oakland-nftc-recap/

Those DLs...bunch of dummies right? Dylan Jackson (who we wanted BAD), 3.75 GPA.

http://sports.yahoo.com/lsu/football/recruiting/player-Dylan-Jackson-147710

How about another DL? Soloman Thomas, 5 star DE, and leading sack getter from the DL last season: 4.5/5.0 GPA.

http://www.nflplayerengagement.com/prep/articles/may-scholar-baller-of-the-month/

That's not me cherry picking, that's me looking up their best recruits/players and easily finding their academic credentials. If it's that easy for me to find Stanford SAs with high academic credentials, how come the Stanford "doubters" can't show anyone proof that Stanford is in fact using arbitrary credentials to suit their needs? Is there some vast conspiracy on the internet to make Stanford football look good?!

 

[ATL1]

Standford is not relaxing their standards for players, they can't even make an offer or bring players to campus unless they make it through admissions.

 

[Techster]

On top of that, Stanford recruits need to have taken a number of AP classes during HS to even be considered. I don't know about now, but when I was taking AP courses in HS, only the smartest kids in my school were allowed to take AP designated classes.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/...-anderson-on-evolution-of-stanford-recruiting

The other half is one that sees either the elation of acceptance or the devastation of rejection -- and nothing in between. Anderson works as the Stanford football program's liaison to the university's admissions office. He must gauge the pulse of the school's rigorous standards and apply that evaluation to each of the program's high school prospects. It's Anderson's job to track how well Stanford's recruits are tackling the school's rigorous requirements -- good grades in multiple Advanced Placement (AP) classes, a high SAT score, five essays and up to three recommendation letters.

"We're asking [our recruits] to do things that no other school is asking them to do," he says.

No need for GT fans to crap on another school when the other school is doing something better than us right now. GT just needs to do better...and we can do better.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Depends on the size of the HS and the county based on that Techster. My big HS it's pretty much any kid that is qualified is approved to take them.

 

[Techster]

Depends on the size of the HS and the county based on that Techster. My big HS it's pretty much any kid that is qualified is approved to take them.

Qualified being the key word. No kid that can barely register a 2.5 GPA and has a hard time filling out the application for the SAT, much less taking it, is registering for AP courses.

 

[AE 87]

The thing I find most funny about the people who crap on Stanford and think they have some arbitrary admissions standards to suit their needs is...well, frankly, where is the proof in this? Rivals, Scouts, 247...and local papers do fairly good job reporting SAs high school GPA, what classes they took, and in some cases their test scores. It's easy to grab a few recruits as examples of "relaxed standards"...but I have yet to see anyone cite enough recruits and their credentials to back their theory.

For instance, let's look at Stanford's star player this year:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ucf/football/recruiting/player-Christian-McCaffrey-139329

3.5 GPA, 24 SAT score. 100% of every FCS school would take those academic credentials for their recruits.

How about their 5 Star Wideout signee last year? 4.1 GPA.

http://www.studentsports.com/football/2014/05/18/oakland-nftc-recap/

Those DLs...bunch of dummies right? Dylan Jackson (who we wanted BAD), 3.75 GPA.

http://sports.yahoo.com/lsu/football/recruiting/player-Dylan-Jackson-147710

How about another DL? Soloman Thomas, 5 star DE, and leading sack getter from the DL last season: 4.5/5.0 GPA.

http://www.nflplayerengagement.com/prep/articles/may-scholar-baller-of-the-month/

That's not me cherry picking, that's me looking up their best recruits/players and easily finding their academic credentials. If it's that easy for me to find Stanford SAs with high academic credentials, how come the Stanford "doubters" can't show anyone proof that Stanford is in fact using arbitrary credentials to suit their needs? Is there some vast conspiracy on the internet to make Stanford football look good?!

On top of that, Stanford recruits need to have taken a number of AP classes during HS to even be considered. I don't know about now, but when I was taking AP courses in HS, only the smartest kids in my school were allowed to take AP designated classes.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/...-anderson-on-evolution-of-stanford-recruiting

The other half is one that sees either the elation of acceptance or the devastation of rejection -- and nothing in between. Anderson works as the Stanford football program's liaison to the university's admissions office. He must gauge the pulse of the school's rigorous standards and apply that evaluation to each of the program's high school prospects. It's Anderson's job to track how well Stanford's recruits are tackling the school's rigorous requirements -- good grades in multiple Advanced Placement (AP) classes, a high SAT score, five essays and up to three recommendation letters.

"We're asking [our recruits] to do things that no other school is asking them to do," he says.

No need for GT fans to crap on another school when the other school is doing something better than us right now. GT just needs to do better...and we can do better.

What is it with the need of some people to create straw men to argue against?

I did not crap on Stanford and did not say they had an arbitrary admission standards to suit their needs. LOL when posting facts from their website and reports from their coaches is seen as crapping on them.

They have a subjective admission standard that can take other things into account. Their own coaches say that more athletes were able to get in after Richard Shaw became Dean of admissions, and the football record began to improve coincidentally. That's not saying that their admission standard is Alabama, but let's not pretend it's meaningless either.

Stanford's regular undergraduate admissions has NO REQUIRED COURSES in High School. Here's their web-page. The exact quote is: "We respect the responsibility that high schools, principals and teachers should have in the development of courses and curricula for their students. For that reason, we do not have a set of required courses for admission to Stanford." So, the suggestion that the athletes are required to take AP courses as a rule is just wrong. What Stanford does, to their credit, is assist athletes in advance do what they would need to do to improve their admissions application. However, the fact remains that this is all part of a subjective process.

 

[ATL1]

Stanford had built their brand.
They call themselves Nerds and have built a foundation of tough hard nose football. Even more so they perform on the field.

GT doesn't have the money Stanford has but there are some built in advantages Tech had that I don't feel is being tapped. Recruiting would be the main one.

 

[Techster]

What is it with the need of some people to create straw men to argue against?

I did not crap on Stanford and did not say they had an arbitrary admission standards to suit their needs. LOL when posting facts from their website and reports from their coaches is seen as crapping on them.

They have a subjective admission standard that can take other things into account. Their own coaches say that more athletes were able to get in after Richard Shaw became Dean of admissions, and the football record began to improve coincidentally. That's not saying that their admission standard is Alabama, but let's not pretend it's meaningless either.

Stanford's regular undergraduate admissions has NO REQUIRED COURSES in High School. Here's their web-page. The exact quote is: "We respect the responsibility that high schools, principals and teachers should have in the development of courses and curricula for their students. For that reason, we do not have a set of required courses for admission to Stanford." So, the suggestion that the athletes are required to take AP courses as a rule is just wrong. What Stanford does, to their credit, is assist athletes in advance do what they would need to do to improve their admissions application. However, the fact remains that this is all part of a subjective process.

Funny right about the time Stanford's talking about lowering entrance requirements for football players, they start having more successful teams. On top of that, Stanford's Dean of Admissions starting in 2005 has been Richard Shaw who held the same position at the University of Michigan from 1988 to 1993, when he found a way to admit Chris Webber.

As a private school, Stanford doesn't have to report its admission standards. So, there's no telling what's going on for sure, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist (ahem) to figure out.

LOL...when someone can't bring up facts, they bring up "straw man" arguments. Right...those words above are YOUR words you yourself quoted from a post you made in some other thread.

I'll let the audience make the judgement on what you inferred with that...