Following on the thread below where I talked about the new reality where some kids in essence have to be re-recruited for their 5th years and why, I wanted to now touch on an even more basic topic, their psychology and why a Stanford player even being open to transferring in the first place.
In any 5th year situation, the incumbent school is always going to have an advantage in retention as there will almost always be some level of emotional connection between the player, the school and his friends. This will clearly vary from player to player based on their experiences at Stanford, but to a certain extent should and does exist at some level for every player.
However, as I have read some posts on the board, my sense has been that some seem almost most shocked that kids would even think about transferring in the first place given the presumed emotional connection that should and does exist at some levels for the kids.
There are two environmental factors which mitigate the players emotional connection to Stanford, and thus make them more psychologically amenable to even thinking about transferring.
1. As kids are in the Winter and Spring of their 4th years when transfer or no transfer decisions are being made, nearly everyone of their peers with whom they are closest, and entered Stanford with, are beginning to think and talk about leaving Stanford as they will be graduating.. It is a cultural norm that 4th year kids begin to think about what they will be doing next year, next year NOT being at Stanford.
So in this environment, it is only natural that these players also engage in this thought process.
Then, in addition to that general reality, specifically the kids with whom they are certainly closest, their fellow recruiting classmates, many/most of them are also thinking about what to do next year. As an example, the '11 class, the classs currently in the process, came in with 19 kids, only 7 will be here next year. So for the ones that stay, it almost seems like theyare engaging in the exception by staying as opposed to doing what is "normal."
As an example, Patrick is closest to Vaughters, Hogan, Hopkins and Reihner. So he is listening to his best buddies talk about going to the NFL, PSU, Hopkins is looking, and Hogan thinking about what he is going to do. He is the exception as someone who is staying. And listening to all of this and I imagine thinking to himself that he will be "all alone" next year.
To further illustrate this point, for those 5th year seniors next year, out of an incoming class of 1500, how many will be left at school?
Along this same line of thinking, I still remember Shayne saying during his 5th year, that it felt weird being at school. Everyone was gone. That he felt like an old man, non longer had any interest in going to frat parties, hanging out on campus, etc. In many ways, 5th year srs are a bit of a fish out of water, certainly from a social perspective.
2. This gets back to the new process of not offering some kids their 5th years. Before I continue, let me state unequivocally that I think that NO KID is entitled to a 5th year, and that it is entirely appropriate for Stanford to only offer scholies to those kids which it deems as worthy of a scholarship. Stanford has met its original bargain, and nothing more needs to be done, IMO:
Having said that, there is a byproduct. If you are messaging to the kids that the original contract is essentially done, that works two ways. It is a message to all of them that they too have that discretion. In fact, it underscores the point that this is a business, and that each side should re evaluate their interest in the relationship and determine if the relationship still makes sense. So by NOT offering some kids a 5th year, you are in fact messaging to those that you do want back, that they too should be re evaluating their options as the counter party in the contract.
And for those two reasons, while on the surface it may seem unusual that a kid would even consider leaving, the truth of the matter is that there are dynamic events in play which lend themselves to the kids opening their minds about leaving and in fact, make it easier to come to the conclusion to leave.
I still think it is hard to make the decision to leave, but understand how and why it can happen.
Their minds are opened up due to the above, then they engage in the cost benefit analysis of their options.
At this point, I dont know if anyone even cared that much, but just thought I would continue to fill in the circle so to speak on this subject.
This post was edited on 2/12 4:24 PM by Baboli
In any 5th year situation, the incumbent school is always going to have an advantage in retention as there will almost always be some level of emotional connection between the player, the school and his friends. This will clearly vary from player to player based on their experiences at Stanford, but to a certain extent should and does exist at some level for every player.
However, as I have read some posts on the board, my sense has been that some seem almost most shocked that kids would even think about transferring in the first place given the presumed emotional connection that should and does exist at some levels for the kids.
There are two environmental factors which mitigate the players emotional connection to Stanford, and thus make them more psychologically amenable to even thinking about transferring.
1. As kids are in the Winter and Spring of their 4th years when transfer or no transfer decisions are being made, nearly everyone of their peers with whom they are closest, and entered Stanford with, are beginning to think and talk about leaving Stanford as they will be graduating.. It is a cultural norm that 4th year kids begin to think about what they will be doing next year, next year NOT being at Stanford.
So in this environment, it is only natural that these players also engage in this thought process.
Then, in addition to that general reality, specifically the kids with whom they are certainly closest, their fellow recruiting classmates, many/most of them are also thinking about what to do next year. As an example, the '11 class, the classs currently in the process, came in with 19 kids, only 7 will be here next year. So for the ones that stay, it almost seems like theyare engaging in the exception by staying as opposed to doing what is "normal."
As an example, Patrick is closest to Vaughters, Hogan, Hopkins and Reihner. So he is listening to his best buddies talk about going to the NFL, PSU, Hopkins is looking, and Hogan thinking about what he is going to do. He is the exception as someone who is staying. And listening to all of this and I imagine thinking to himself that he will be "all alone" next year.
To further illustrate this point, for those 5th year seniors next year, out of an incoming class of 1500, how many will be left at school?
Along this same line of thinking, I still remember Shayne saying during his 5th year, that it felt weird being at school. Everyone was gone. That he felt like an old man, non longer had any interest in going to frat parties, hanging out on campus, etc. In many ways, 5th year srs are a bit of a fish out of water, certainly from a social perspective.
2. This gets back to the new process of not offering some kids their 5th years. Before I continue, let me state unequivocally that I think that NO KID is entitled to a 5th year, and that it is entirely appropriate for Stanford to only offer scholies to those kids which it deems as worthy of a scholarship. Stanford has met its original bargain, and nothing more needs to be done, IMO:
Having said that, there is a byproduct. If you are messaging to the kids that the original contract is essentially done, that works two ways. It is a message to all of them that they too have that discretion. In fact, it underscores the point that this is a business, and that each side should re evaluate their interest in the relationship and determine if the relationship still makes sense. So by NOT offering some kids a 5th year, you are in fact messaging to those that you do want back, that they too should be re evaluating their options as the counter party in the contract.
And for those two reasons, while on the surface it may seem unusual that a kid would even consider leaving, the truth of the matter is that there are dynamic events in play which lend themselves to the kids opening their minds about leaving and in fact, make it easier to come to the conclusion to leave.
I still think it is hard to make the decision to leave, but understand how and why it can happen.
Their minds are opened up due to the above, then they engage in the cost benefit analysis of their options.
At this point, I dont know if anyone even cared that much, but just thought I would continue to fill in the circle so to speak on this subject.
This post was edited on 2/12 4:24 PM by Baboli
