Hale: Your Recruiting Success is Already Decided

OttoinGrotto

Professor Irwin Corey
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,550
Like
51,003
Great find, solid data and analysis.

Two things stuck out:

For one, perhaps schools invest too much in recruiting. Sure, at the top, one or two more blue chippers might be the difference between getting to the conference title game and winning it all. But for the most part, you get the kids you get, and it’s hard for any coach to screw it up too badly or improve it too dramatically. The changes are incremental. Decisions on the culture you want and the specific recruits you go after is probably more important than the ability to sell generic blue-chip recruits on the school.

I recall when Babers came in he made a comment to the effect of based on the players that had been recruited to the roster, he couldn't figure out what kind of team the previous staff was trying to have. Part of our improvement almost certainly stems from the fact that the staff has recruited in accordance to the systems they're trying to run.

Then this:

Perhaps coaches that are stronger in player development should be valued a good bit more than the supposed recruiting geniuses.

Edinger effect.
 

oldpinepoint

All Conference
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,945
Like
4,163
Thought this was a very thought provoking read about the realities of our recruiting situation. While I believe we'll probably move into his "Tier 2" under Dino as we win more matches, it's pretty telling.

Your recruiting success is already decided
Great article, I would love to see additional data on wins and losses and recruiting. This also shows us how lucky we are to have Dino
 

RandomGuy

All Conference
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
2,450
Like
4,618
Thought this was a very thought provoking read about the realities of our recruiting situation. While I believe we'll probably move into his "Tier 2" under Dino as we win more matches, it's pretty telling.

Your recruiting success is already decided
Great read. Thanks. Otto just posted the 2 things that stuck out to me, as well.
While the article may indicate there is no hope, if we go back to the 90's we WERE able to recruit at a higher tier. I think the demise of the Big East is a big factor in our #'s here.
 

oldpinepoint

All Conference
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,945
Like
4,163
Great read. Thanks. Otto just posted the 2 things that stuck out to me, as well.
While the article may indicate there is no hope, if we go back to the 90's we WERE able to recruit at a higher tier. I think the demise of the Big East is a big factor in our #'s here.
That and some duds of coaches with no real plan
 

OttoinGrotto

Professor Irwin Corey
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,550
Like
51,003
Great read. Thanks. Otto just posted the 2 things that stuck out to me, as well.
While the article may indicate there is no hope, if we go back to the 90's we WERE able to recruit at a higher tier. I think the demise of the Big East is a big factor in our #'s here.
I think for a little while there were more mouths to feed. When Rutgers wasn't a total sinkhole, and UCONN had a mini-rise, that definitely came in part at our expense.

Now that they're on the downswing there's a natural opportunity for our upswing.
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
17,448
Like
21,318
Thought this was a very thought provoking read about the realities of our recruiting situation. While I believe we'll probably move into his "Tier 2" under Dino as we win more matches, it's pretty telling.

Your recruiting success is already decided
It's good work. I love Hale. But a couple of problems.

1. Isn't using the Dabo era really telling? I mean - they were not an elite recruiting school prior to him getting there. By using just the last 11 years, we miss an important moment - where Clemson went from tier 2 to elite.

2. He cites Pitt and Louisville as teams that have taken advantage of new conference affiliation and new coaching hires to move up. I'd argue we are doing that now - the conference change came at a bad time for us with Shafer as HC and Gross not making the right moves for FB. It delayed our rise - but Dino and winning is getting it pointed upward ...

162634


Look at Clemson and Syracuse - running parallel upwards. Pitt and Louisville are at slight uptick. We came from furthest back (showing how bad things were) - but it's an undeniable rise.

Question: Is our slight rise from conference affiliation and good coaching alone - or do we have a guy in Dino that *could* be that rare guy, like Dabo at Clemson - that can change a program and buck the trend? Could our recruiting get supercharged over the next 4-5 years with Dino winning here?
 

721Comstock

All American
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
4,812
Like
14,197
I think for a little while there were more mouths to feed. When Rutgers wasn't a total sinkhole, and UCONN had a mini-rise, that definitely came in part at our expense.

Now that they're on the downswing there's a natural opportunity for our upswing.
I'd say it's the opposite - Rutgers and UConn having their brief moments in the sun, was DIRECTLY DUE to Syracuse being down. Them being "up" wasn't the cause, it was the effect.

Guys Syracuse typically would have gotten, ended up going to Rutgers and/or UConn (for a while), so those programs only rose, specifically due to our then concurrent decline.

Thankfully, the converse is now in full effect:
Rutgers & UConn have reverted back to their long term trendlines of suck, and Syracuse is back on the upswing towards our more typical levels of success.
 

RandomGuy

All Conference
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
2,450
Like
4,618
It's good work. I love Hale. But a couple of problems.

1. Isn't using the Dabo era really telling? I mean - they were not an elite recruiting school prior to him getting there. By using just the last 11 years, we miss an important moment - where Clemson went from tier 2 to elite.

2. He cites Pitt and Louisville as teams that have taken advantage of new conference affiliation and new coaching hires to move up. I'd argue we are doing that now - the conference change came at a bad time for us with Shafer as HC and Gross not making the right moves for FB. It delayed our rise - but Dino and winning is getting it pointed upward ...

View attachment 162634

Look at Clemson and Syracuse - running parallel upwards. Pitt and Louisville are at slight uptick. We came from furthest back (showing how bad things were) - but it's an undeniable rise.

Question: Is our slight rise from conference affiliation and good coaching alone - or do we have a guy in Dino that *could* be that rare guy, like Dabo at Clemson - that can change a program and buck the trend? Could our recruiting get supercharged over the next 4-5 years with Dino winning here?
Yes he can. 80's/90's success, indicate higher recruits will come. Another good season, and I expect a continuing improvement.
 

OttoinGrotto

Professor Irwin Corey
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,550
Like
51,003
I'd say it's the opposite - Rutgers and UConn having their brief moments in the sun, was DIRECTLY DUE to Syracuse being down. Them being "up" wasn't the cause, it was the effect.

Guys Syracuse typically would have gotten, ended up going to Rutgers and/or UConn (for a while), so those programs only rose, specifically due to our then concurrent decline.

Thankfully, the converse is now in full effect:
Rutgers & UConn have reverted back to their long term trendlines of suck, and Syracuse is back on the upswing towards our more typical levels of success.
Yeah, we're saying the same thing. We gave other geographical programs an opportunity, they took it, it exacerbated things for us, now they're cycling a different way.
 

shu 49

Starter
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
1,993
Like
2,270
Kinda why I compare ourselves to Clemson a lot. That’s the trajectory that I would like us to have but not a lot of people think it can happen. Why not us if Dino pulls a Dabo. We put guys in Nfl and watch how far we move up. We are taking 2 and 3* kids and making them into draft picks except for Robinson who was a 4*. Once kids see that we will get the good ones. I give our coaches extreme amounts of credit for doing what they have done with what they had to work with. Now we are juslowly going upwards and I feel it will continue. Now if we beat Clemson we may jump up faster. We are in the perfect spot to be the next Clemson. A class program with a class coach. OITNF.
 

rocklloyd

He Da Man
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,077
Like
4,003
Great find, solid data and analysis.

Two things stuck out:

For one, perhaps schools invest too much in recruiting. Sure, at the top, one or two more blue chippers might be the difference between getting to the conference title game and winning it all. But for the most part, you get the kids you get, and it’s hard for any coach to screw it up too badly or improve it too dramatically. The changes are incremental. Decisions on the culture you want and the specific recruits you go after is probably more important than the ability to sell generic blue-chip recruits on the school.

I recall when Babers came in he made a comment to the effect of based on the players that had been recruited to the roster, he couldn't figure out what kind of team the previous staff was trying to have. Part of our improvement almost certainly stems from the fact that the staff has recruited in accordance to the systems they're trying to run.

Then this:

Perhaps coaches that are stronger in player development should be valued a good bit more than the supposed recruiting geniuses.

Edinger effect.
That's why I hated the whole "we need to give the new coach XX years to get his guys in the system". If you have no system, you could take 100 years and still suck.,
 

OttoinGrotto

Professor Irwin Corey
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,550
Like
51,003
That's why I hated the whole "we need to give the new coach XX years to get his guys in the system". If you have no system, you could take 100 years and still suck.,
It's also why I'm not a fan of "we're going to fit the system to the talent we have."

I mean... if the talent is limited anyway, just play the way you want to play so you can show the talent that fits better what it can be like.
 

javadoc

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,541
Like
4,918
Thought this was a very thought provoking read about the realities of our recruiting situation. While I believe we'll probably move into his "Tier 2" under Dino as we win more matches, it's pretty telling.

Your recruiting success is already decided
IMO, you can't try to make sense and order of that situation without at least addressing the likely impact of how much each school pays recruits, both during and after the recruiting process. You just can't.
 

sutomcat

Former Iggy Winner. I used to be somebody special
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
12,262
Like
44,202
Thought this was a very thought provoking read about the realities of our recruiting situation. While I believe we'll probably move into his "Tier 2" under Dino as we win more matches, it's pretty telling.

Your recruiting success is already decided
Yes, it was well researched and well written.

I think we were all hoping the 10-3 season would have a immediate major affect on recruiting.

It should be clear to all by now that this is not going to be the case. Maybe we will end up ranked in the range of the 40th class in the country for this year instead of in the range of the 50th with the class last year.

If anything, ramping up recruiting might be slower with Syracuse than with other schools because of the relative lack of talent in the region.

Filling out the roster with good (not great) players, so we have quality depth is phase 1 and that is close to complete.

I think phase 2 is increasing the quality of the recruits. More high 3s and low 4s are needed. I think we are entering this phase right about now.
 

OttoinGrotto

Professor Irwin Corey
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,550
Like
51,003
Yes, it was well researched and well written.

I think we were all hoping the 10-3 season would have a immediate major affect on recruiting.

It should be clear to all by now that this is not going to be the case. Maybe we will end up ranked in the range of the 40th class in the country for this year instead of in the range of the 50th with the class last year.

If anything, ramping up recruiting might be slower with Syracuse than with other schools because of the relative lack of talent in the region.

Filling out the roster with good (not great) players, so we have quality depth is phase 1 and that is close to complete.

I think phase 2 is increasing the quality of the recruits. More high 3s and low 4s are needed. I think we are entering this phase right about now.
I think if we can string together another Top 25 season we're going to see the recruiting tick up. If we step back, we'll tread water.

Thankfully, I think our schedule lines up for us to somewhat safely have a strong season.
 

Chip

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
16,228
Like
30,639
I'd say it's the opposite - Rutgers and UConn having their brief moments in the sun, was DIRECTLY DUE to Syracuse being down. Them being "up" wasn't the cause, it was the effect.

Guys Syracuse typically would have gotten, ended up going to Rutgers and/or UConn (for a while), so those programs only rose, specifically due to our then concurrent decline.

Thankfully, the converse is now in full effect:
Rutgers & UConn have reverted back to their long term trendlines of suck, and Syracuse is back on the upswing towards our more typical levels of success.
It's kind of a combo. They pumped a bunch of money into their programs at the time, it's not surprising that they got a push from it, no matter what was happening with our program.

But when we hit mediocre-ville after McNabb's departure, and those who could do something about decided NOT to invest any $, that also helped open the door for RU and UConn.

I'm just glad the world order has been restored, even after the B1G's cable box lifeline.
 

IthacaMatt

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
12,963
Like
13,222
I think if we can string together another Top 25 season we're going to see the recruiting tick up. If we step back, we'll tread water.

Thankfully, I think our schedule lines up for us to somewhat safely have a strong season.

That's why the floor for this year has to be 8 games.
So long as we win that many, we'll be in fine shape going forward.

The roster actually sets up better for the year-after-next than for this upcoming season, and Tommy will have a full year as the starter under his belt. All our skills players will still be here, too.

Win at least 8 this year, at least 9 next year, and then we are really and truly back.
 

HtownOrange

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,619
Like
8,294
Snap shot diagrams and data are interesting but why not go back 20-30-50 years? Because it does not support his desired conclusion. Clemson did nothing for 30 years before Dabo. Miami and FSU always have top classes, but have little in the way of trophies to support the claims.

SU pulled in top tallent back in the late Coach Mac and early Coach P eras. We won lots of games. When the coaching stagnates, when the money (support) stagnates, the recruiting and play on the field stagnate.

Nice work with a snapshot but not very accurate. Need far more data points to prove the point.
 

RandomGuy

All Conference
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
2,450
Like
4,618
Snap shot diagrams and data are interesting but why not go back 20-30-50 years? Because it does not support his desired conclusion. Clemson did nothing for 30 years before Dabo. Miami and FSU always have top classes, but have little in the way of trophies to support the claims.

SU pulled in top tallent back in the late Coach Mac and early Coach P eras. We won lots of games. When the coaching stagnates, when the money (support) stagnates, the recruiting and play on the field stagnate.

Nice work with a snapshot but not very accurate. Need far more data points to prove the point.
Were there recruit rankings pre 1999?

Furthest I could go back was 2000. Incomplete data, but we were ranked #18. Today, #18 is good for 8 or 9 four stars, maybe a 5 star.

Can things change? Absolutely. This data set may not indicate that. For reference, Clemson's recruit rankings:
2009: 36
2010: 27
(Down years)

In 2000, when we were ranked #18, Clemson was ranked #33.
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
17,448
Like
21,318
I also think it's imperative to do well combing in the transfer market, running an identifiable system and recruiting to it (as others have said), and continuing to develop guys through Edinger and co.

I think the Canadian pipeline is a sneaky good way of adding raw kids with tons of potential, too. They get 2* or 3* tags - but seem like they might have a higher upside. Like a late blooming NBA kid from a non-basketball country.
 

Top Bottom