Syracuse Football Recruiting - Lost the Core

[tipphill]

I would love to see the staff hire an outside consulting firm and do an analysis of P5 recruits over the past 20 years from the Northern states. Identify those recruits, and personally interview each one. Stratify them into two groups - were going to play outside the Northeast regardless of recruiting emphasis from Northern schools or were willing to or did sign with a Northern school. From that point, determine the reasons why they signed where they signed. That would be fantastic market research to determine a strategy going forward. You could do some pareto analysis and determine the big drivers for kids staying home and signing where they did. Ultimately, the kids that are willing to stay home are your targets, so it is in the staff's benefit to make Syracuse as an attractive an opportunity as possible to those targets based on what are the higher drivers of importance to the past recruits.

i hope there is no exam after reading this, or i am definitely in trouble!!!!very interesting though.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

CT Top 10 since 2002: 4/150 (note: not every year had 10 recruits)
MA Top 6 since 2002: 2/90
PA Top 30 since 2002: 13/450
NJ Top 25 since 2002: 6/375
NY Top 15 since 2002: 40/225

To make the analysis relevant, you need to provide us with these same metrics for the prior 15 years rather than giving us a list of players...

 

[MaxwellCuse]

Johnstone was from lewiston ny, lewport high school, konrad was from mas.

For the record, the guy's name was Johnston. Darryl "Moose" Johnston. Yes, he went to Lewiston-Porter HS in the Buffalo area.

 

[Scooch]

To make the analysis relevant, you need to provide us with these same metrics for the prior 15 years rather than giving us a list of players...

Yep. Plus, the state-by-state cutoffs seems pretty arbitrary. For example, why look at the annual top 10 in CT? Living in CT I see that there's really only 4-to-6 P5-level recruits that come out of the state each year. So if we're landing a bunch of kids in the 6-10 range, we're not really signing P5 quality players.

Even in NY, a much higher population state, it looks like once you get past the top 15 you're talking about G5 or FCS-level players:

http://No links to . . . allowed on this site.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings?State=NY

Meanwhile in Florida you don't get to G5/FCS level talent until the 150s:

http://No links to . . . allowed on this site.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings?State=FL

So yeah, it only makes sense to recruit the region nearest to you, but all things considered there seems to be a lot more value in spending time in more recruiting rich areas. Grabing a handful of top 150 kids from Florida is more value-for-the-time than trying to get 5 of the top 15 in NYS.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

For the record, the guy's name was Johnston. Darryl "Moose" Johnston. Yes, he went to Lewiston-Porter HS in the Buffalo area.

And he just turned 50 today... My whole point. Dude is 50 and played here 27 years ago. Time to take a different approach than simply stating we need to take the majority of our kids from NYS, NJ and PA. recruit there for sure but use the ACC and current coaching connections to recruit best athletes possible. Call me crazy but the second tier Ohio and Michigan kids seem to like Syracuse more than the NYS and NJ kids. I also think NYS kids get over hyped and overrated.

Take an approach for 2016 not 1985. Can't do much the same you did 30 years ago in most businesses

 

[JimBoston]

Yep. Plus, the state-by-state cutoffs seems pretty arbitrary. For example, why look at the annual top 10 in CT? Living in CT I see that there's really only 4-to-6 P5-level recruits that come out of the state each year. So if we're landing a bunch of kids in the 6-10 range, we're not really signing P5 quality players.

Even in NY, a much higher population state, it looks like once you get past the top 15 you're talking about G5 or FCS-level players:

http://No links to . . . allowed on this site.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings?State=NY

Meanwhile in Florida you don't get to G5/FCS level talent until the 150s:

http://No links to . . . allowed on this site.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings?State=FL

So yeah, it only makes sense to recruit the region nearest to you, but all things considered there seems to be a lot more value in spending time in more recruiting rich areas. Grabing a handful of top 150 kids from Florida is more value-for-the-time than trying to get 5 of the top 15 in NYS.

Disagree. There are few, if any, examples of successful college football teams that don't rely heavily on relatively local recruits. It has to be the priority. I'm not faulting Babers for this recruiting class at all. I am just saying that for Syracuse to become a consistent winner, they need to win back recruits from the Core recruiting area.

I didn't say Connecticut (and Massachusetts) should supply a large number of Syracuse recruits, but Syracuse should be competing for the top CT and MA recruits every year. I think Syracuse should pull in 2 to 3 top recruits in total from CT and MA every year.

As for Florida, according to 24/7 sports, Syracuse has signed 4 top 100 Florida recruits in the last 15 years and they were ranked 89, 92, 93, and 96. Syracuse has signed 12 top 150 Florida recruits in 15 years, including 3 in 2016. Excluding the 2014 and 2016 classes, 3/6 recruits didn't make it 4 years at Syracuse. Sure, it would be great for Babers to grab top recruits from Florida, but Syracuse does not have a deep history of recruiting Florida so it will take time.

 

[HtownOrange]

Disagree. There are few, if any, examples of successful college football teams that don't rely heavily on relatively local recruits. It has to be the priority. I'm not faulting Babers for this recruiting class at all. I am just saying that for Syracuse to become a consistent winner, they need to win back recruits from the Core recruiting area.

I didn't say Connecticut (and Massachusetts) should supply a large number of Syracuse recruits, but Syracuse should be competing for the top CT and MA recruits every year. I think Syracuse should pull in 2 to 3 top recruits in total from CT and MA every year.

As for Florida, according to 24/7 sports, Syracuse has signed 4 top 100 Florida recruits in the last 15 years and they were ranked 89, 92, 93, and 96. Syracuse has signed 12 top 150 Florida recruits in 15 years, including 3 in 2016. Excluding the 2014 and 2016 classes, 3/6 recruits didn't make it 4 years at Syracuse. Sure, it would be great for Babers to grab top recruits from Florida, but Syracuse does not have a deep history of recruiting Florida so it will take time.

http://www.broncosports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/bosu-m-footbl-mtt.html

Boise State Roster. Mostly non-Idaho kids. They seem to do OK.

As to the point about Syracuse competing for the local talent, yes, Syracuse should. However, winning brings the interest of the kids; academic standards (and enforcement!) discourages many kids. We were a little low on the winning scale and definitely well above the SEC in academics as of late.

 

[Scooch]

Disagree. There are few, if any, examples of successful college football teams that don't rely heavily on relatively local recruits. It has to be the priority. I'm not faulting Babers for this recruiting class at all. I am just saying that for Syracuse to become a consistent winner, they need to win back recruits from the Core recruiting area.

I didn't say Connecticut (and Massachusetts) should supply a large number of Syracuse recruits, but Syracuse should be competing for the top CT and MA recruits every year. I think Syracuse should pull in 2 to 3 top recruits in total from CT and MA every year.

As for Florida, according to 24/7 sports, Syracuse has signed 4 top 100 Florida recruits in the last 15 years and they were ranked 89, 92, 93, and 96. Syracuse has signed 12 top 150 Florida recruits in 15 years, including 3 in 2016. Excluding the 2014 and 2016 classes, 3/6 recruits didn't make it 4 years at Syracuse. Sure, it would be great for Babers to grab top recruits from Florida, but Syracuse does not have a deep history of recruiting Florida so it will take time.

I don't think anyone would disagree that recruiting better within our region should be a priority. But some seem to be suggesting that past staffs have purposefully avoided recruiting the northeast, and I think all evidence points to that suggestion being incorrect. We've tried, but we've been mediocre-to-lousy and top flight northeast kids don't want to come here and play in a non-descript system in front of 15K empty seats.

The past 15 years have shown that we can't recruit the NE at a high level by just trying harder. We've tried, and the results have been mediocre. We need to show these kids something.

Honestly, this is not something that worries me at all.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Disagree. There are few, if any, examples of successful college football teams that don't rely heavily on relatively local recruits. It has to be the priority. I'm not faulting Babers for this recruiting class at all. I am just saying that for Syracuse to become a consistent winner, they need to win back recruits from the Core recruiting area.

I didn't say Connecticut (and Massachusetts) should supply a large number of Syracuse recruits, but Syracuse should be competing for the top CT and MA recruits every year. I think Syracuse should pull in 2 to 3 top recruits in total from CT and MA every year.

As for Florida, according to 24/7 sports, Syracuse has signed 4 top 100 Florida recruits in the last 15 years and they were ranked 89, 92, 93, and 96. Syracuse has signed 12 top 150 Florida recruits in 15 years, including 3 in 2016. Excluding the 2014 and 2016 classes, 3/6 recruits didn't make it 4 years at Syracuse. Sure, it would be great for Babers to grab top recruits from Florida, but Syracuse does not have a deep history of recruiting Florida so it will take time.

CT & MA talent isn't strong. Also kids from those states don't consider SU as being the "home" school. There is no advantage for SU getting those kids. OH isn't that much different distance wise and produces a lot more talent. NJ and PA are a lot better as well. FL and GA 2nd tier kids are a lot better. No has ever built a program on CT & MA kids and never will.

 

[billsin01]

And he just turned 50 today... My whole point. Dude is 50 and played here 27 years ago. Time to take a different approach than simply stating we need to take the majority of our kids from NYS, NJ and PA. recruit there for sure but use the ACC and current coaching connections to recruit best athletes possible. Call me crazy but the second tier Ohio and Michigan kids seem to like Syracuse more than the NYS and NJ kids. I also think NYS kids get over hyped and overrated.

Take an approach for 2016 not 1985. Can't do much the same you did 30 years ago in most businesses

This is always an interesting discussion and I tend to fall sort of in the middle. I agree with the original OP to this extent -- there are still, even in a new age of technology and communication, significant advantages to recruiting kids who are "local" (6-hour-ish radius). I don't really care where they're ranked because if they are close enough you can actually scout them more thoroughly. You may have relationships with their high school coaches. You may be able to sneak out and actually see their game(s). You may have some sort of name recognition that you don't have for a kid who grew up 15 hours away and barely knows what the ACC is. You can bring them on campus to camps (really the most important one) or included them on activities they can attend on their own dime. They could, also, ultimately cost less to recruit and be more likely to honor their commitment for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is maybe being 'underrated' nationally by virtue of not being a traditionally strong football area. So again, I think you have incentive to recruit the core area -- if you want to recruit it as such.

Having said that, it's important to point out to points that run contrary to original posts main point.

1) It's not more important to recruit the states in your region. And ...
2) Things aren't -- and never will be -- the way they were even 20 years ago.

So, to expand on point 1, I've argued this forever when people talk about recruiting -- states and locations don't matter. You can sign a 5-star recruit from a football rich area (johnny morant) or a complete afterthought, maybe even added after signing day and the results are really tough to project. Derrell Smith and Jay Bromley can be really, really good players and go on to the next level (in bromley's case) and Morant or a guy like Lobdell and can prove to be marginal contributors at best. The bottom line is that you need to get the talent. If they have a coach who kills it in NJ or FL, that's great. if they have more ties to midwest states as a result of their work at BG, that's fine. If it's PA and the mid-atlantic, awesome. Bottom line is that they need to sign talent and it doesn't matter where it's from, particularly with all the ratings sites and info that is out there on players who are outside your traditional recruiting boundaries.


As for point 2, I think this is the biggest thing and I'm surprised there are almost 60 posts in this thread and no one's mentioned it. The talent drain we've had in traditional states has a lot to do with stuff outside of Syracuse's control. Look the mid-to-late-90s, which most of us probably view as our peak in the past 20 years. When we were landing all those NE kids we were all mentioning, our competition was a complete mess.

• BC Then: was brutal from '87-'91, had the gambling scandal and took a massive hit because of it, and didn't recover until O'Brien got them to a bowl in '99. That's pretty bad football from '87-'99 save for two strong years under Coughlin and an OK year the first season under Henning. BC Now: Brutal season this year but BC came into this season going to bowl every single year from '99-'10 and this season came after two bowls under Addazzio.
  
  
• UConn Then: Didn't exist (for all intents and purposes). UConn now: They won at least six games in seven of nine seasons from 02-'10. Does that make them a regional power? No, but obviously that has an impact on regional recruits, many of whom are young enough at this point that they don't remember Syracuse as a better football program than UConn.
  
  
• Rutgers Then: Essentially zero sustained success in the history of the program and in the midst of the infamous Terry Shea era (11-44). Rutgers now: While Rutgers still only has had marginal success they have clearly hammered the Cuse in Jersey, particularly in the Schiano era and again, you'd trade our past 10 seasons for their past 10 seasons in a cocaine heartbeat.
  
  
• Penn State Then: Huge obstacle in recruiting always but people forget that JoePa was under some huge pressure late 90s and early '00 after three of four seasons were under .500 and the talent looked atrocious. Penn State now: Well, they're know as Ped St. after the pedophile scandal, so I suppose that's good for us, and they haven't won a ton of games. But somehow we'll still lose most major recruits to them.
  
  
• Temple Then: From '91-'08 the Fab Four (Jeremy Berndt/Ron Dickerson/bobby Wallace/Al Golden (ok, Golden looks like Bowden compared to the rest, but still ...) failed to reach .500, many years struggling to win 3 or 4 games. Temple now: not a super power by any stretch but Temple went toe-to-toe with ND (people hate ND, but the Irish were a couple plays from knocking off Clemson), won 10 games and finished in the top 25. They are at least not the joke they were.

So what does that all mean? Basically that SU isn't going to simply dominate the local recruiting scene by default. Now, add in the fact that we lost advantages like being open to dual threat QBs (remember we land McNabb b/c we are the only school willing to let him play QB and throw -- Nebraska is running wishbone; By the time CJ Leak comes along everyone and their brother is all over him.), and you can see why the recruiting has struggled.

What the answer is, I'm not sure, but I do agree that simply concentrating on core states isn't likely to dramatically change the results.

 

[TheCusian]

I don't think anyone would disagree that recruiting better within our region should be a priority. But some seem to be suggesting that past staffs have purposefully avoided recruiting the northeast, and I think all evidence points to that suggestion being incorrect. We've tried, but we've been mediocre-to-lousy and top flight northeast kids don't want to come here and play in a non-descript system in front of 15K empty seats. The past 15 years have shown that we can't recruit the NE at a high level by just trying harder. We've tried, and the results have been mediocre. We need to show these kids something. Honestly, this is not something that worries me at all.

Yeah - it's much like the attendance concerns, IMO. Win and fix a few operational things and it will take care of itself.

 

[Scooch]

The talent drain we've had in traditional states has a lot to do with stuff outside of Syracuse's control. Look the mid-to-late-90s, which most of us probably view as our peak in the past 20 years. When we were landing all those NE kids we were all mentioning, our competition was a complete mess..

Great post. And on your point about regional competition: (a) YES! And you can throw Pitt into that mix too, they were dreadful in the early/mid-90s. (b) Given the national exposure programs get from cable TV, coupled with Internet and communications advances, the northeast is also picked over by programs outside it more than ever. That top 3 kid from Connecticut that might have gone to SU in 1995 is likely to go to Clemson or Ole Miss or Stanford today.

 

[billsin01]

Great post. And on your point about regional competition: (a) YES! And you can throw Pitt into that mix too, they were dreadful in the early/mid-90s. (b) Given the national exposure programs get from cable TV, coupled with Internet and communications advances, the northeast is also picked over by programs outside it more than ever. That top 3 kid from Connecticut that might have gone to SU in 1995 is likely to go to Clemson or Ole Miss or Stanford today.

Yup -- very much agree on both points. I pretty much ended the list of schools b/c I got lazy but you could include a bunch of schools that had really nice runs and probably had some sort of impact as well (Louisville going from John l smith to Petrino, wvu limping to the end of the nehlon era but striking gold with rich rod, Cincy with dantonio/Kelly ... Those all factor in.

 

[CousCuse]

There was never D-1 football in New England until UConn in 2004 (about) and then UMass just a few years ago. I'm not including BC because they are a super high level academic and religious school that doesn't have the following of a state school. Both of those programs are doing well in recruiting and if they get some real success , could awaken a strong high school revival .

 

[TheCusian]

There was never D-1 football in New England until UConn in 2004 (about) and then UMass just a few years ago. I'm not including BC because they are a super high level academic and religious school that doesn't have the following of a state school. Both of those programs are doing well in recruiting and if they get some real success , could awaken a strong high school revival .

UCONN and UMASS are not stealing recruits from us. They are getting the kids we don't want.

 

[billsin01]

UCONN and UMASS are not stealing recruits from us. They are getting the kids we don't want.

I would agree at this point but that wasn't true during the edsall era. Or, at least, we should have wanted the Donald Browns and Lawrence wilsons, etc

 

[CousCuse]

UCONN and UMASS are not stealing recruits from us. They are getting the kids we don't want.

My point was that New England has changed football wise and demographically .

 

[Scooch]

My point was that New England has changed football wise and demographically .

There ain't going to be a high school football "revival" in New England. If anything it'll be the first region of the country to deemphasize the sport over injury concerns.

 

[CousCuse]

There ain't going to be a high school football "revival" in New England. If anything it'll be the first region of the country to deemphasize the sport over injury concerns.

Maybe New England and New York could become part of Europe , if Europe continues to exists. Which is looking very doubtful .

 

[Scooch]

Maybe New England and New York could become part of Europe , if Europe continues to exists. Which is looking very doubtful .

That's more likely than high school football having some kind of participation Renaissance because of UMass and UConn.

 

[CousCuse]

That's more likely than high school football having some kind of participation Renaissance because of UMass and UConn.

Big time basketball never existed in New England until the Big East conference . Now UConn and UMass will surpass the Beagles and give high school football players a new choice . Like I said , ditch BC and give their spot to UConn . UMass could go into the AAC and BC could join the Patriot league.

 

[TheCusian]

I would agree at this point but that wasn't true during the edsall era. Or, at least, we should have wanted the Donald Browns and Lawrence wilsons, etc

We were on equal footing back then. P5 vs mid major now.

 

[cuseincincy]

Johnstone was from Liverpool and a hell of a pitcher. His dad was best coach I ever had for hoops.

You're thinking of John Johnstone. Not Darryl Johnston. Johnstone was hell of a pitcher. Pretty good basketball player. From Liverpool but went to Ludden. His dad had been the hoops coach at Liverpool but lost his job before Johnny got to High school. He stayed on as a teacher at Liverpool (he taught me to drive in Drivers Ed. also had him for gym class). I was about 4 years older than Johnny but remember him as the younger kid in the neighborhood that could hang with us older kids. I also remember coming back from college and meeting Johnny in a pick up game, only now he was a junior at Ludden and no longer a 12 year playing against us older kids! He was a 20th round pick of the Mets and played 8 years in the major leagues mostly with the Giants. Just an fyi!

 

[nzm136]

With regard to OP, This mentality is outdated and old fashioned. It's everything wrong with Syracuse football for past 15 years bunch of old guys in tighty whiteys, members only coats and zansabelt slacks driving around in Oldsmobiles talking about the good ole days and Coach Mac!

Sure we are going to still recruit locally and surrounding areas but we also need to go where we can get good talent and exploit our current spot in the acc as well as the staffs connections in Midwest. Talent is talent.

Look we have sucked for a considerable amount of time, we can't continue to live in the past and try to replicate the pattern and path followed 30 years ago because that path has been mowed over, built over, torn down and rebuilt again. We are basically Kodak at this point or Carrier!

This is why a guy like babers is huge, new outlook, fresh approach, etc. like I said sure we are going to recruit those areas but we also need to look elsewhere, we won't pull all that talent because the competition is a lot more fierce than it use to be and right now our product isn't selling all that great because we suck and play boring football and don't win and fans don't go to games

The question isn't whether we should or shouldn't play the best players that we can, or whether we should or shouldn't recruit the best players that we can.

The question is "in a world of finite resources, how should we allocate our assets to get the best results?" In other words, will it be more difficult to pull in talent abroad, or to find equally good talent close to Syracuse? I get that CNY football <<<<< Miami football (or insert any other football hotbed), but there are a number of really good players slipping through our grips and going to other programs. Given their families are from this area, they grew up in the cold, they are likely more familiar with SU and our lore, their coaches are more likely to be SU fans (or at least familiar with the school/program), they are more likely to have friends at SU, and so on, local kids might be easier sells. So, instead of going to the Midwest and pulling in 4 mid 3*'s we could theoretically focus on our core and get 4 mid/high 3*'s with the same amount of work (the exact numbers are just examples to illustrate the basic point).

That said, you are right that we also have to go outside our core. As you point out, it isn't a binary situation. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's a matter of what we emphasize more.

It's also worth noting that Babers has done a very impressive job so far. I was a huge skeptic regarding the SS termination, but I am cautiously optimistic about Dino. His recruiting was great given what he was working with, and he was a great coach at BGSU. I think that there is a very good chance that he will have tremendous success as a coach, both in recruiting and actually winning games (which is really what matters).

 

[tipphill]

i am all in on the core areas, particularly nj/metro nyc,l.i. /pa./ny that said i do not mean that we should do that exclusively . that would be archaic. i have a bias for parochial league players and city guys. just my preference.