|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jan 25, 2020 11:47:21 GMT -5
Some thoughts:
1) There are academic hurdles at Stanford. But the advantages far outweigh the issues. It isn't even close.
2) The number of scholarships is a real issue. Stanford is very expensive and most of the volleyball parents aren't going to qualify for need based assistance. Just look at the indoor teams. The woman's team has far outperformed the men's team and a big part of the issue is the limited number of scholarships for mens. In fairness though USC has many of the same issues.
3) The big issue for the program was the lack of scholarships and even more important admissions help prior to the sport being an official championship NCAA sport. My sense is that most of the top teams today started giving scholarships early. It will take time to catch up. When I went to Stanford both mens and womens soccer didn't give scholarships and we were middle of the road. Now we do and we are probably the best program across both mens and womens.....
4) I doubt the Stanford AD is assessing wins and losses at this point. They are assessing can this person recruit and coach. Relationship with the team is probably as important as wins at this point.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Jan 25, 2020 23:04:55 GMT -5
Some thoughts: 1) There are academic hurdles at Stanford. But the advantages far outweigh the issues. It isn't even close. 2) The number of scholarships is a real issue. Stanford is very expensive and most of the volleyball parents aren't going to qualify for need based assistance. Just look at the indoor teams. The woman's team has far outperformed the men's team and a big part of the issue is the limited number of scholarships for mens. In fairness though USC has many of the same issues. 3) The big issue for the program was the lack of scholarships and even more important admissions help prior to the sport being an official championship NCAA sport. My sense is that most of the top teams today started giving scholarships early. It will take time to catch up. When I went to Stanford both mens and womens soccer didn't give scholarships and we were middle of the road. Now we do and we are probably the best program across both mens and womens..... 4) I doubt the Stanford AD is assessing wins and losses at this point. They are assessing can this person recruit and coach. Relationship with the team is probably as important as wins at this point. 1. Completely true and seemingly not being leveraged. 2. Partially true. As mentioned previously, other Stanford sports have solved this puzzle. Andrew needs to find kids outside that "typical bvb parent income". Find rich, poor, super smart, international, or graduate students. Every school and sport has to find its niche to recruit stars. Andrew has not. Also, comparing Stanford MVB with BVB is valid as both are partial scholarship and limited number of teams sponsoring. MVB made NCAA's their first 3 seasons after transitioning from club, while playing catch up. In 30 some years they have 9 conference titles, 3 national titles and 2 national runner up. BVB hasn't sniffed anything yet with no path in sight. 3. Partially true. Andrew has had 3 seasons of recruiting to catch up with little progress shown. Teams with walk-ons only or indoor-only are beating/competing well with him. 4. Mostly true. Wins/losses are probably not at the top of the list, but further down. However, I don't see him getting great grades in ANY of the areas mentioned. Not sure of exact details, but some starters were suspended and disciplined for a couple matches last year. He also managed to put in illegal lineups during that debacle. Neither was a good look for Stanford BVB
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jan 26, 2020 10:43:26 GMT -5
Some thoughts: 1) There are academic hurdles at Stanford. But the advantages far outweigh the issues. It isn't even close. 2) The number of scholarships is a real issue. Stanford is very expensive and most of the volleyball parents aren't going to qualify for need based assistance. Just look at the indoor teams. The woman's team has far outperformed the men's team and a big part of the issue is the limited number of scholarships for mens. In fairness though USC has many of the same issues. 3) The big issue for the program was the lack of scholarships and even more important admissions help prior to the sport being an official championship NCAA sport. My sense is that most of the top teams today started giving scholarships early. It will take time to catch up. When I went to Stanford both mens and womens soccer didn't give scholarships and we were middle of the road. Now we do and we are probably the best program across both mens and womens..... 4) I doubt the Stanford AD is assessing wins and losses at this point. They are assessing can this person recruit and coach. Relationship with the team is probably as important as wins at this point. 1. Completely true and seemingly not being leveraged. 2. Partially true. As mentioned previously, other Stanford sports have solved this puzzle. Andrew needs to find kids outside that "typical bvb parent income". Find rich, poor, super smart, international, or graduate students. Every school and sport has to find its niche to recruit stars. Andrew has not. Also, comparing Stanford MVB with BVB is valid as both are partial scholarship and limited number of teams sponsoring. MVB made NCAA's their first 3 seasons after transitioning from club, while playing catch up. In 30 some years they have 9 conference titles, 3 national titles and 2 national runner up. BVB hasn't sniffed anything yet with no path in sight. 3. Partially true. Andrew has had 3 seasons of recruiting to catch up with little progress shown. Teams with walk-ons only or indoor-only are beating/competing well with him. 4. Mostly true. Wins/losses are probably not at the top of the list, but further down. However, I don't see him getting great grades in ANY of the areas mentioned. Not sure of exact details, but some starters were suspended and disciplined for a couple matches last year. He also managed to put in illegal lineups during that debacle. Neither was a good look for Stanford BVB Thanks for your thoughtful response. Some additional thoughts: 2) The point I am making is that the limited number of scholarships in BVB is a real issue at Stanford. WVB has 334 teams competing and yet Stanford has developed one of the very best programs. MVB on the other hand only has 23 teams competing. That should be much easier to dominate and while we have a good program it has been hit and miss at best. One of the big issues IMO is that the men only have 4.5 scholarships and the women have 12. The financial issues are a real impediment. The same is true of water polo and tennis for example but less true for soccer as an example where the men have been more competitive. This is going to be an issue for us in BVB. 3) Three years sounds like a lot but with many players committing as freshman in HS it may not be. I am not saying that Andrew is the right person. I do think he has had some challenges that make success difficult. Maybe even given those challenges he should have done better. I just think we need to acknowledge those challenges.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Jan 26, 2020 16:00:57 GMT -5
1. Completely true and seemingly not being leveraged. 2. Partially true. As mentioned previously, other Stanford sports have solved this puzzle. Andrew needs to find kids outside that "typical bvb parent income". Find rich, poor, super smart, international, or graduate students. Every school and sport has to find its niche to recruit stars. Andrew has not. Also, comparing Stanford MVB with BVB is valid as both are partial scholarship and limited number of teams sponsoring. MVB made NCAA's their first 3 seasons after transitioning from club, while playing catch up. In 30 some years they have 9 conference titles, 3 national titles and 2 national runner up. BVB hasn't sniffed anything yet with no path in sight. 3. Partially true. Andrew has had 3 seasons of recruiting to catch up with little progress shown. Teams with walk-ons only or indoor-only are beating/competing well with him. 4. Mostly true. Wins/losses are probably not at the top of the list, but further down. However, I don't see him getting great grades in ANY of the areas mentioned. Not sure of exact details, but some starters were suspended and disciplined for a couple matches last year. He also managed to put in illegal lineups during that debacle. Neither was a good look for Stanford BVB Thanks for your thoughtful response. Some additional thoughts: 2) The point I am making is that the limited number of scholarships in BVB is a real issue at Stanford. WVB has 334 teams competing and yet Stanford has developed one of the very best programs. MVB on the other hand only has 23 teams competing. That should be much easier to dominate and while we have a good program it has been hit and miss at best. One of the big issues IMO is that the men only have 4.5 scholarships and the women have 12. The financial issues are a real impediment. The same is true of water polo and tennis for example but less true for soccer as an example where the men have been more competitive. This is going to be an issue for us in BVB. 3) Three years sounds like a lot but with many players committing as freshman in HS it may not be. I am not saying that Andrew is the right person. I do think he has had some challenges that make success difficult. Maybe even given those challenges he should have done better. I just think we need to acknowledge those challenges. I likewise appreciate your intelligent contributions to the discussion. 2) You are on point that Stanford poses some unique problems for recruiting, as well as some special opportunities. But recruiting for ALL equivalency sports (everything except football, basketball, volleyball) is much harder for EVERYONE than for head count sports. It is especially tough for all BVB coaches since their recruits are familiar with/hoping for the typical full-ride of indoor VB. Every BVB school has gone thru growing pains as college Beach/Sand has developed - many more issues than indoor VB - with staffing, scholarships, facilities, recruiting, dual-sport athletes, geographical, scheduling, fundraising, weather, travel, etc. My educated guess is that the Stanford BVB job/program is WAY more attractive than the vast majority of the other BVB gigs - every BVB program has MANY challenges, except maybe USC/UCLA/FSU. 3) The coaches that have been around since the start of BVB certainly have an edge in recruiting over others. But there has been a lot of turnover, and 3-4 years is a common contract time for coaches in many sports - make an impact or try elsewhere. Maybe Andrew gets longer since transfers are rare to Stanford, but I am really surprised he hasn't gotten some grad students to jump start things. P.S. MVB has 48 teams competing together (DI and DII have same equivalency and play together), the BVB profile of # of teams/scholarships/geography/etc. mirrors MVB very closely (also DI/DII play together with same scholarship limits and scattered hubs of schools).
|
|
|
Post by bddad on Jan 28, 2020 19:16:08 GMT -5
I would think that the new NCAA rules changes last May would help Stanford. It is much harder to commit before Junior year now, since recruits cannot talk to coaches until June 15th after their Sophomore year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but girls verbally commit to the application process at Stanford, while most other schools girls can verbally commit directly to other programs with admission provided?
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Jan 28, 2020 19:31:38 GMT -5
I would think that the new NCAA rules changes last May would help Stanford. It is much harder to commit before Junior year now, since recruits cannot talk to coaches until June 15th after their Sophomore year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but girls verbally commit to the application process at Stanford, while most other schools girls can verbally commit directly to other programs with admission provided? sophomore players will simply have those communications with coaches through intermediaries, such as their Club coaches. That's what Club coaches are for. The player will not be able to publish their "verbal commitment" as much as before... that is the only practical difference.
|
|
|
Post by bddad on Feb 5, 2020 7:57:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 6, 2020 18:34:31 GMT -5
I would think that the new NCAA rules changes last May would help Stanford. It is much harder to commit before Junior year now, since recruits cannot talk to coaches until June 15th after their Sophomore year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but girls verbally commit to the application process at Stanford, while most other schools girls can verbally commit directly to other programs with admission provided? sophomore players will simply have those communications with coaches through intermediaries, such as their Club coaches. That's what Club coaches are for. The player will not be able to publish their "verbal commitment" as much as before... that is the only practical difference. Those conversations through intermediaries are also prohibited. Not saying coaches don’t cheat, but it’s still impermissible.
|
|
|
Post by tinman2 on Feb 6, 2020 21:11:32 GMT -5
All of these would be excellent reasons why Stanford is 10th, but 18th? The financial/career benefits of a Stanford diploma and Northern California aren't a powerful enough draw to compete with schools named after hats or borderline community colleges scholarships or no? Ive sat on many hiring committees in a few industries and, fair or not, if candidates had under 10 years of experience in their field, there would have to be massive differences in their work experience before almost anyone wouldn't blindly hire the Stanford grad over someone with Grand Canyon U on their CV (who named that school anyway it sounds like a for profit school created to exploit immigrants) Same goes for Stetson (although I understand Stetson is actually fairly highly regarded?) Georgia St.,etc. I dont know Andrew Fuller other than having played against him once or twice a long, long time ago, and he at least worked his way up rather than just being handed a plum job, but as trollhunter mentions, he doesnt seem to be able to recruit and/or effectively advocate for his program. Its likely that Stanford does better this year for all the reasons mentioned by GLM and others, but how good should they be before giving Mr. Fuller a 5th year seems like a good idea. .500? Stetson University was named after a person, not a hat. Stetson University, also known as "The Harvard of the South", is a highly regarded university. While Stetson profited from his business, he also wanted to give back to his community. Near the end of his life, Stetson began donating almost all of his money to charitable organizations.[2] He built grammar and high schools and helped build colleges, including Temple and Stetson Universities. He also helped establish the YMCA in Philadelphia.[2] Stetson donated generously to the DeLand Academy (in DeLand, Fla.), which was renamed (1889) John B. Stetson University. In 1900, Stetson University founded the first law school in Florida: Stetson University Law School.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Feb 6, 2020 23:04:06 GMT -5
All of these would be excellent reasons why Stanford is 10th, but 18th? The financial/career benefits of a Stanford diploma and Northern California aren't a powerful enough draw to compete with schools named after hats or borderline community colleges scholarships or no? Ive sat on many hiring committees in a few industries and, fair or not, if candidates had under 10 years of experience in their field, there would have to be massive differences in their work experience before almost anyone wouldn't blindly hire the Stanford grad over someone with Grand Canyon U on their CV (who named that school anyway it sounds like a for profit school created to exploit immigrants) Same goes for Stetson (although I understand Stetson is actually fairly highly regarded?) Georgia St.,etc. I dont know Andrew Fuller other than having played against him once or twice a long, long time ago, and he at least worked his way up rather than just being handed a plum job, but as trollhunter mentions, he doesnt seem to be able to recruit and/or effectively advocate for his program. Its likely that Stanford does better this year for all the reasons mentioned by GLM and others, but how good should they be before giving Mr. Fuller a 5th year seems like a good idea. .500? Stetson University was named after a person, not a hat. Stetson University, also known as "The Harvard of the South", is a highly regarded university. While Stetson profited from his business, he also wanted to give back to his community. Near the end of his life, Stetson began donating almost all of his money to charitable organizations.[2] He built grammar and high schools and helped build colleges, including Temple and Stetson Universities. He also helped establish the YMCA in Philadelphia.[2] Stetson donated generously to the DeLand Academy (in DeLand, Fla.), which was renamed (1889) John B. Stetson University. In 1900, Stetson University founded the first law school in Florida: Stetson University Law School. So named after a hat manufacturer? Stetson seems to be a good school, as I acknowledged, and well regarded by those who have heard of it, the point was more about its obscurity. Also half the colleges in the South seem to call themselves the Harvard of the South - at least thats what it looked like when I googled it, but the only school I had ever previously heard referred to that way was Vanderbilt - and even then a little mockingly. Whatever Stetson's reputation, Stanford is a different tier. You can walk into a job interview in Arkansas, Malawi, Taipei or Hartford and that Stanford degree takes you to the top of the pile. Stetson, not so much
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Feb 7, 2020 0:16:34 GMT -5
LOL, yes I was going to mention Vanderbilt's prior claim as the Harvard of the South.
|
|
|
Post by sonofdogman on Feb 7, 2020 1:44:20 GMT -5
Tulane used to go by that name too. Bunch of Wannabees down here...
|
|
|
Post by diskprotek on Feb 7, 2020 16:46:44 GMT -5
Of course Harvard is just the USC of the east 😏
|
|
|
Post by sonofdogman on Feb 7, 2020 17:20:33 GMT -5
That doesn't make any sense to me. Trying to see it as humor too but I'm still not getting it...
|
|
|
Post by tinman2 on Feb 9, 2020 12:06:26 GMT -5
Stetson University was named after a person, not a hat. Stetson University, also known as "The Harvard of the South", is a highly regarded university. While Stetson profited from his business, he also wanted to give back to his community. Near the end of his life, Stetson began donating almost all of his money to charitable organizations.[2] He built grammar and high schools and helped build colleges, including Temple and Stetson Universities. He also helped establish the YMCA in Philadelphia.[2] Stetson donated generously to the DeLand Academy (in DeLand, Fla.), which was renamed (1889) John B. Stetson University. In 1900, Stetson University founded the first law school in Florida: Stetson University Law School. So named after a hat manufacturer? Stetson seems to be a good school, as I acknowledged, and well regarded by those who have heard of it, the point was more about its obscurity. Also half the colleges in the South seem to call themselves the Harvard of the South - at least thats what it looked like when I googled it, but the only school I had ever previously heard referred to that way was Vanderbilt - and even then a little mockingly. Whatever Stetson's reputation, Stanford is a different tier. You can walk into a job interview in Arkansas, Malawi, Taipei or Hartford and that Stanford degree takes you to the top of the pile. Stetson, not so much Nope, named after a philanthropist.
|
|