At a pivotal time in college recruiting, Stanford suffered a devastating blow. RB Beau Bisharat tweeted Monday afternoon that he will be reopening his recruiting. Bisharat just came off of an official visit to Stanford in Stanford's huge recruiting weekend. This weekend, Stanford hosted almost the entire 2016 recruiting class, including Bisharat and three other uncommitted recruits. A source close to the team said, "We all definitely enjoyed the visit". Well maybe not all of them.
Bisharat originally committed to Stanford on May 30th less than a week after he received the offer from running backs coach, Lance Taylor. Bisharat had (and still has) offers from Oregon, Arizona, and Arizona State. Oregon was the popular landing place for him before he committed to Stanford. The reason being, Bisharat's dad played for Oregon back in the late 70s and early 80s.
But Bisharat showed some concern about Oregon. In an interview with Rivals, Andy Drukarev Bisharat stated, he doesn't "...really fit into offensively as a running back [at Oregon]". There were reports when he committed to Stanford that Oregon "...wanted [Bisharat] to play defense".
In some recent developments, Bisharat has told 247sports Oregon insider that he has just received a schoalrship from West Virginia. According to Justin Hopkins, the insider, there is definitely "tons of immediate interest". Look to see if Bisharat will go visit WVU over the next few weekends.
Bisharat decommitting gives Stanford only 18 commits and there are two other running backs left. Bisharat's decision could have been made because of the sheer depth at running back position, plus the backfield will be even more crowded because of the guys coming off of red-shirt seasons.
Bisharat's decommitment is the third in the last two weeks for Stanford.
Comments
It would be interesting to go back a bit and tabulate the number of decommits each year to determine whether this seeming rash is out of the ordinary.
It could that this is the norm, but there are just more of us paying closer attention than in the past.
By Cardinal&Orange on 01.18.16 8:09pm
I don't understand the recruiting process at all.
I can totally see a guy who is uncommitted to Stanford committing elsewhere. What I don’t get is how guys that are committed can ‘decommit.’ What does it mean to commit? Seems to me that no one should have to say they’re committed before they’re ready, but once they’re committed, they should have to keep the commitment. Likewise, if a school offers a scholarship to an athlete and he accepts, then they shouldn’t be able to change their mind later if a better guy comes along. But that’s just me…
By g8tgod on 01.18.16 8:15pm
Admissions has everything to do with this
I don’t have any proof about this kid. But, I think it’s safe to say if a kid decommits from Stanford, it’s usually an admissions issue. I know he was awaiting word on that and he likely just got his answer.
By Lindypop on 01.18.16 8:27pm
Or Was Told That He Needed Improvements in GPA/SAT....
…that were just not going to happen. Hard to imagine he had a "down week-end" at the Farm. You would de-commit BEFORE the week-end and not attend accordingly. Getting all excited about West Virginia just seems incredibly odd too. Honestly, I am proud that Stanford actually imposes a serious admissions hurdle for recruits. We try to win the right way, and it sends the right message. I love to point out to my kids that guys like Toby Gerhart and Andrew Luck were VALEDICTORIANS in their high school classes, Richard Sherman a Salutorian …… in addition to everything else they did athletically. They get how tough even that academic achievement is. And clearly Stanford has a ton of players with similarly strong academic backgrounds on the team.
By hoyaparanoia on 01.18.16 9:07pm
Not at this late stage
The GPA/SAT discussions take place in late sophomore/early junior year. At this point admissions decisions are being made in advance of National Signing Day.
Chances are this was admissions-related but that’s not always the case. We will likely never know as those decisions are kept very close to the vest – and I’m glad that’s the case. These kids – and remember they are 16- and 17-year-old kids – are great football players and great students. They may not have had much rejection, Stanford is a dream school for them, and not getting in can hit really hard.
I feel bad for these guys, and I hope they find a place to get a great education.
By winflop on 01.21.16 5:20am
why would he come visit? only to decommit?
If you commit to Stanford, you have to achieve and maintain a minimal level of GPA to go along with your SAT score. It’s a gamble for some kids
who are on the edge of meeting the minimal requirement. Some schools require nothing more than a 2.0 out of high school. Not Stanford.
By kollesteral on 01.19.16 8:05am
Bad experience?
It’s also possible that the kid had a bad experience this weekend and realized he doesn’t fit in with the recruiting class. Speculation, but it’s possible.
By winflop on 01.21.16 5:20am
Academics not the issue
From an earlier article – "Bisharat has a 3.4 GPA with AP and honors classes on the docket for his senior year and scored a 1450 on the SAT his first try (verbal + math, no writing)."
By keysermfs on 01.18.16 9:42pm
Source
Article that keysermfs is referring to, interpret at will
By Sean Levy on 01.18.16 9:55pm
AP and honors classes on the docket
not sure how that panned out.
Too bad all around.
By Cardinal-in-TX on 01.19.16 6:08am
1450 isn't very good, is it?
1450 initially struck me as pretty good, but that was based on my old-school mindset where 1600 was perfect. Some Googling suggests that it’s about average, or equivalent to a 20 on an ACT.
By Ham & Eggs on 01.19.16 11:52am
1450 is good
They only counted 2 scores instead of 3. So if he averaged what he did with only scoring 2, then he would have gotten a 2175. A perfect is 2400
By Sean Levy on 01.19.16 2:24pm
would that be in alignment with a 3.4 GPA?
By Cardinal-in-TX on 01.19.16 2:42pm
Was in majority for SAT score but only .91% of people were accepted with the 3.4
This is all based on data of the 2015-2016 class
By Sean Levy on 01.19.16 6:15pm
I'm suspicious that it was on a 1600 scale
The first test under the 1600-max format won’t be given until March 2016. It’s my son’s class, so I know they’re requiring all three for this year’s seniors.
January 2016 Current SAT is administered for the final time.
March 2016 New SAT will be administered for the first time.
http://sat.ivyglobal.com/new-vs-old/
By vk on 01.19.16 6:08pm
Good by, so long, and don’t let the admissions door hit you on the way out. Way too many RB’s out there to choose from. Although I would love to see a 3/4/5 star defensive lineman come on board. Simply can’t have to many of those difference makers.
By bodumb on 01.19.16 12:49pm
De-commits are likely: not enough playing time
Cam Scarlett comes off red shirt and would get the snaps Bisharat would want. Maybe another program (WVU) told him no red shirt, start now. That’s a BIG factor.
Even Sanders is transferring. I think McCaff sticks thru 2017, which will be a playoff year for Stanford. That’s a lot of snaps, plus B.Love, Scarlett, a couple others at RB and throws to TEs.
Rector is coming back because he will start at WR.
Losing Shuler at C now is a challenge, but we’ve got Caspers. OLine is #1 repair spot.
Team members aren’t worried about Chryst because there are so many weapons to take the ball.
A lot of losses on D, but Meeks showed that frosh can step in quickly.
By ADPATERSON on 01.19.16 10:30pm
Guaranteeing playing time the worst thing a coach can do
I know in the recruiting world of war everything goes and so goes the loose playing time carrot trap. But that’s also the shortest way to a rabbit hole for a successful program. It gives the recruits a sense of inflated superiority and no sense of competition and drive to win that starting spot. Imagine the blue-blood programs like texas, miami with all their 5-star prospects who ended up being dud and just look no further than TA&M where 2 QBs decided to transfer because they didn’t start.
What harbaugh built at stanford was to open the gates from the admissions guys to work closely to admit our prospects but what shaw is doing is the right thing in terms of being open about our program and the academics at stanford. Most top prospects at Stanford redshirt just to get a good headstart in the demanding strength training progam by turley and academics. And it really helps them in the long term when you see how the football team has lot less injuries compared to other teams and be successful in their future careers like a shuler (salute him btw!!)
I am fine if de-commits happen because of playing time.
By layman on 01.20.16 1:01pm
Doubt PT is a factor
Scarlett is two years ahead of Bisharat, McCaffrey is three and may leave after the 2016 season. I’m hanging my hat on either admissions or a bad visit.
Rector is more likely coming back because his NFL eval told him he’s at best a 4th-5th rounder. He will be a pretty clear first option next season. And he just might love Stanford.
Losing Shuler is a tough one, but that’s the one position where I think "next man up" will cover us. However, Bloomgren is going to have to work harder/different from 2013 to get this group to gel more quickly. Can’t take 10 games.
I’m most worried about DL & ILB. Neither Palma nor Perez has impressed me, and we lost 2 of 3 starters in an already very thin position.
By winflop on 01.21.16 5:26am
Helpful
Thanks to all who replied to my question and participated in this thread. I’m still unclear about the actual process, but the reasoning behind why a kid might decommit makes sense to me.
On a tangentially-related subject, it’s amazing to me that Shaw and Stanford are able to compete in this milieu. May that partnership last for many years to come!
By g8tgod on 01.21.16 12:07pm