orangepassion
Nunzio Prophet
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 10,880
- Like
- 23,648
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
- 16,615
- Like
- 45,033
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
- 6,520
- Like
- 36,834
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.
orangepassion
Nunzio Prophet
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 10,880
- Like
- 23,648
It's not meant to throw shade at Fran. It's just reality. Obviously there is still some value in being a good recruiter. I just don't know that it's the same as 5 years ago with the almighty dollar often a prevailing factor. The recruiting is also less of an advantage if you lose most of your top recruits.
Last edited:
orangecuse
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 8,454
- Like
- 13,800
anomander
Living Legend
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2012
- Messages
- 16,113
- Like
- 32,604
The major difference for the tier 1’s is they just replace the future NFL upperclassmen they lost and replace them with portal transfers of similar caliber. They’re just reloading, and the home runs they hit recruiting play from the start. The best of both worlds, which will allow them to continue to distance themselves from the field.
It certainly helps having a great recruiter, but it’s going to be impossible to win big without leadership from productive upperclassman. For example we basically did a whole reset from our much heralded 2024 HS recruiting class. I believe it will be tough to hold onto the nucleus of young guys by the time they are upperclassman and can be difference makers unless there are rule changes that are enforced, or we start printing money.
OttoinGrotto
2023-24 Iggy Award Most 3 Pointers Made
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 71,335
- Like
- 224,112
Matters absolute sh'loads.
Absolutely matters. Think about where we were reciting just a couple years ago to now. Obviously this past few months has left a sour taste in our mouths, and we haven’t hit huge portal splashes like we have in recent cycles but we are headed in the right direction. I implore you to think what it would look like if we DIDNT have such a great recruiter at the helm.
Don’t disagree the Tier 1s can reload, but some believe their issue is retaining the depth (I.e. 2nd and 3rd string elite talent) they once were able to that allowed them to dominate
Similar threads
