Re: 2017-18 Signings, Transfers, Interests
Today Janice Shin gives her verbal shout out that she will be playing for Stanford.
But it's more like Stanford coaches, most likely Frankie Brennan calling Janice, while at practice to tell her "you are in like flynn".
It sounds all too familiar to when Caroline Lampl, not knowing really if Stanford was going to accept her.
Of course, Stanford has high academic standards, so admissions must play into it somewhat, before they flash the green light.
Not sounding like I would want to contradict myself, but I doubt Cici Bellis needed to wait and wonder if Frankie was going to call her.
Is there higher standards for Asians, as they must qualify admission wise amongst other Asians? In the school district in my neck of the woods, there are predominantly Asians, who drive up the benchmark of being ranked in the top percentile. Realtors suggest to clients about moving closer to neighboring schools and buying homes in those neighborhoods, so their kids can transfer and rise to top of the class, because it is not so competitive. Perhaps I drifted off-topic here.
Back to signing on with Stanford. I canít help but wonder that thereís a special recruiting requirement at Stanford, like you donít sign-up and ditch us to turn pro (Zhao, Gibbs, Burdette, Granville). Yes, most recently is the case, so given the last 4 years, beginning with their senior class (Davidson, Doyle), which has been ranked closer to the Top 50 and not Top 10. There seems to be a push towards mediocracy.
As Slickshoes510 pointed out, the problem with Stanford is they play all at the same level and thereís no one, who is really dominant (not in those exact words, my memory sometimes fail me). Perhaps that is Stanfordís recruiting strategy. That works in getting a deep line-up, stronger in the back courts (#4 through #6), but less reliable in the front courts. At last yearís NCAA, both Lampl and Lord went undefeated at #5 and #6, while Hardebeck as solid as they come at #4. There were at least a few 4-3 wins on the way to winning the title.
Then there's the other thing that Stanford coaches do is put the new recruits at the back of the line-up (#4 through #6). Maybe their junior year, they get a taste of playing at #1 or #2, but by that time, their development is only as good as their competition. Hence, Doyle lost her last 3 of 5 matches, playing at #1 & #2, before her unlikely win today. Gibbs or Ahn would lose 2 matches perhaps the entire year. Thoughts?
Meanwhile, teams like Duke, North Carolina, and now Ohio seem to have strong players at the top 3 positions, but until they win a title or 2, it is advantage Stanford with their system.
Final thoughts: The other thing about Stanford, not playing Indoors or the least number of matches for that matter, hence their ranking is more like #8 thru #16, instead of Top 5. It's like Lele has got it all figured out. Let the other schools build up their confidence with their higher rankings (Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina), but falling to the ground from way up high, hurts a lot more, especially come May at NCAA's and losing in the QF's or SF's, which has been the norm and the big disappointment of failing with all those expectations. It sets a pattern of failure, which again is Advantage: Stanford. Am I in lala land or does anybody catch my drift...