orangepassion
Nunzio Prophet
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 10,875
- Like
- 23,614
Obviously it helps, but how much does it matter now that money is such a big factor? Interested in people's thoughts.
In the NIL/Transfer Portal era, how much does it matter to have a top recruiter?
- Thread starter orangepassion
- Start date
If this meant to throw shade at Fran. Do you know that the Syracuse positioning in recruiting has dramatically changed from being bottom of the pack to the middle of the ACC and can continue to rise. Additionally, the talent disparity is smaller than ever at the power conference level. To answer your question it does matter to have a top recruiter, you also need to have good technical coaches which appears to be happening as well. The top recruiter matters because now it’s closer to a drafting system in recruiting. When filling out the roster there is different tiers of talent capability your filling, a top recruiter would hopefully be able to identify and get the best of the best in each of those tiers. Regarding Syracuse approach to the portal this year, they didn’t go after the big fish because the big fish were mostly retained and acquired in High School recruiting. They spent resources going after the high end 3 star transfers.
Last edited:
SUFaninNJ
Living Legend
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 16,611
- Like
- 45,010
I think it depends. Does the school with the top recruiter have enough NIL available to be in the ballpark with other schools? The top recruiter may get their school into the conversation and even a visit, but if they can't offer a competitive NIL deal, I feel the need for a top recruiter is diminishing. Of course, there are always outliers. Just my opinion.
richmondcuse03
All American
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 6,510
- Like
- 36,738
top recruiters always matter, but it matters a lot more for a development program like syracuse that needs to mine the HS ranks and then focus on recruiting the good ones to stay. The portal wont be our biggest focus ever. I hope we can use it less and less.
In my humble point of view:
I think we’re seeing five distinct tiers emerging right now, each with its own NIL-era strategy:
1) Legacy Powerhouses (e.g., Georgia, Alabama)
Programs that still lean heavily on their traditional value proposition: elite development, national exposure, and a strong NFL pipeline. NIL is certainly present, but not the core of their pitch. Historically these teams stockpiled talent, but the transfer portal and NIL have made it harder to retain high end backups, creating opportunities for other programs. As the NIL landscape keeps evolving, these legacy schools may need to adapt more aggressively.
2) Big Spenders (e.g., Texas A&M, Texas Tech)
Programs whose approach is straightforward: deploy major NIL resources to land top-tier recruits. Their strategy is volume and financial firepower.
3) Strategic NIL Investors (e.g., Vanderbilt)
Schools that target highly rated recruits who might otherwise be buried on depth charts at powerhouse programs. They combine meaningful NIL packages with immediate playing time opportunities to attract 4 and 5 star players who want to get on the field right away.
4) The Middle Tier/Rest of the Pack
Programs that don’t fit cleanly into the models above and are still trying to establish their identity and approach in the NIL era.
5) Indiana — The Arbitrage Model
Indiana represents a unique path: similar to the strategic approach to #3, but built on identifying an overlooked market inefficiency (i.e. KPI is productivity at any level, if I understand the strategy correctly) rather than purely on NIL spend. (Now they have Cuban-backed NIL money, but their current success doesn't appear to be built from my understanding.) Their early success in exploiting this niche is likely to inspire imitation from others going forward.
That being said, I woulnd't be shocked, given how fast things are evolving, that the above is stale (and applies more to last year's offseason/this current season's results and strategies/programs are rapidly evolving.
I think we’re seeing five distinct tiers emerging right now, each with its own NIL-era strategy:
1) Legacy Powerhouses (e.g., Georgia, Alabama)
Programs that still lean heavily on their traditional value proposition: elite development, national exposure, and a strong NFL pipeline. NIL is certainly present, but not the core of their pitch. Historically these teams stockpiled talent, but the transfer portal and NIL have made it harder to retain high end backups, creating opportunities for other programs. As the NIL landscape keeps evolving, these legacy schools may need to adapt more aggressively.
2) Big Spenders (e.g., Texas A&M, Texas Tech)
Programs whose approach is straightforward: deploy major NIL resources to land top-tier recruits. Their strategy is volume and financial firepower.
3) Strategic NIL Investors (e.g., Vanderbilt)
Schools that target highly rated recruits who might otherwise be buried on depth charts at powerhouse programs. They combine meaningful NIL packages with immediate playing time opportunities to attract 4 and 5 star players who want to get on the field right away.
4) The Middle Tier/Rest of the Pack
Programs that don’t fit cleanly into the models above and are still trying to establish their identity and approach in the NIL era.
5) Indiana — The Arbitrage Model
Indiana represents a unique path: similar to the strategic approach to #3, but built on identifying an overlooked market inefficiency (i.e. KPI is productivity at any level, if I understand the strategy correctly) rather than purely on NIL spend. (Now they have Cuban-backed NIL money, but their current success doesn't appear to be built from my understanding.) Their early success in exploiting this niche is likely to inspire imitation from others going forward.
That being said, I woulnd't be shocked, given how fast things are evolving, that the above is stale (and applies more to last year's offseason/this current season's results and strategies/programs are rapidly evolving.
Similar threads
