Lull in Commitments

[wfschrec]

What is a silent verbal? i ask this earnestly, not to be a pr!ck. I mean, what good is it to have a silent verbal and how does it work? The whole notion seems bizarre in the sense that public verbals are in absolutely no way, shape or form the least bit binding.

It is not an uncommon thing for an athlete to commit to a school and since the school can't announce it is up to the student to let it out of the bag ... several don't so they can take all their visits while reserving a spot at a particular school ... not really unheard of, even for "enlightened" fans like Phat ... who insist those of us are in the dark in the silent verbal world.

 

[billsin01]

It is not an uncommon thing for an athlete to commit to a school and since the school can't announce it is up to the student to let it out of the bag ... several don't so they can take all their visits while reserving a spot at a particular school ... not really unheard of, even for "enlightened" fans like Phat ... who insist those of us are in the dark in the silent verbal world.

Eh, I tend to go with Phat's definition as well. I mean, if you're not telling anyone you're committed to a school (when even telling people you're committed doesn't mean you're bound to go to that school) then you're really not committed at all. I mean, I would at least think that's how a coaching staff would approach it. Something like, "OK, we get that you're taking the rest of your visits and we support that but we are not going to stop recruiting other guys for this position simply b/c we need to cover ourselves." To be perfectly honest, even public "verbal commitments" should probably be referred to as "verbal intentions" or "stated intentions."

 

[billsin01]

I use it in the case where a kid has committed to the staff but it's not made public because he wants to have an announcement ceremony

Yeah, this is the one sense where I get it. I'm still leery of the ceremony part but I can see it being used this way.

 

[PhatOrange]

It is not an uncommon thing for an athlete to commit to a school and since the school can't announce it is up to the student to let it out of the bag ... several don't so they can take all their visits while reserving a spot at a particular school ... not really unheard of, even for "enlightened" fans like Phat ... who insist those of us are in the dark in the silent verbal world.

silent verbal just simply means nobody is publicizing it. simply as that.

 

[SoBristol]

silent verbal just simply means nobody is publicizing it. simply as that.

Yes -- that is simple.
Now, why does Rutgers have 18 or so of the non-silent type; and we have 9 or so of the non-silent type?
Maybe our recruits are the strong, silent type?

 

[PhatOrange]

Yes -- that is simple.
Now, why does Rutgers have 18 or so of the non-silent type; and we have 9 or so of the non-silent type?
Maybe our recruits are the strong, silent type?

Who cares? Are we any better off because Harold Brantley, LeRoy Owens and Tashon Whitehurst had committed to Syracuse last July?

Lets see what things look like in Feb when it actually matters.

 

[orangefog]

As long as the staff gets the players that they want, I am all good. It sure seems to me that they are landing more of the "A" list kids that they are targeting. I am very confident that the staff can identify football talent and they no longer have to compromise and take borderline players.

 

[SoBristol]

Who cares? Are we any better off because Harold Brantley, LeRoy Owens and Tashon Whitehurst had committed to Syracuse last July?

Lets see what things look like in Feb when it actually matters.

Decent point on those 3, who got recruited away from us.

Still, let's wait until Feb is something of a cop out.

 

[Orangepace]

Silent verbals can also work in other ways than those mentioned here...

1) A player could verbal, but we ask them to keep it silent so that we can lock up more players at their position who may shy away if they know we've already locked up a few.. Less of an issue if the former keeps it silent. Not all kids welcome competition.

2) A silent verbal can also be more effective at recruiting other players to the school during camps, etc. I'd imagine some would be more apt to listen/befriend a guy who's also going through the process than one that is biased and just trying to rally recruits to the school he's already committed to.

3) If the staff feels it may not be as solid as they would hope, they'd rather a recruit not go public and then jump ship later on down the road because it could cause other commitments to jump ship as well, so you wouldn't leak this to the public in order to avoid negative publicity down the road.

 

[SoBristol]

Silent verbals can also work in other ways than those mentioned here...

1) A player could verbal, but we ask them to keep it silent so that we can lock up more players at their position ...

2) A silent verbal can also be more effective at recruiting other players to the school during camps, etc. ...

3) If the staff feels it may not be as solid as they would hope, they'd rather a recruit not go public and then jump ship later ....

Maybe. But is there a reason why this would be true only for SU (or for MAC schools with few reported commits) and not for our rivals (Pitt, Rutgers, BC, most ACC schools) who have longer lists of commits at this stage?
Look -- it is OK that our staff has a lot of work to do to close this class. We are likely to win some rivalry games, get a shot at a decent bowl, and our profile & buzz might well improve month to month. If we are engaged with a number of better prospects, and get visits in November, it could all turn out OK.

 

[CaliCuse]

Decent point on those 3, who got recruited away from us.

Still, let's wait until Feb is something of a cop out.

I want speed in the backfield which means "Laray" at the least.At most find some of that speed at WR and secondary additions. Currently team speed is fair at best.

 

[kingottoiii]

We have the least amount of commitments of any Big East school. We were told how this would be a big recruiting year because of all the inroads the staff has made. Plus the move to the ACC was supposed to be a bump. On paper I like the quality of kids that we have but it is a bit concerning that we have half as many commits as some other BE teams.

RU- 19 commits, thirteen 3+ star players
USF- 17 commits, eleven 3+ star players
Pitt- 16 commits, twelve 3+ star players
Cincy- 16 commits, five 3+ star players
UConn- 15 commits, four 3+ star players
Temple- 10 commits, two 3+ star players
Louisville- 9 commits, seven 3+ star players
SU- 8 commits, four 3+ star players

I believe we still have another 12 players to add. Seems like we are behind in the game. Right now it appears at best we will have the 5th ranked class in the BE. Not what I expected in year 4.

 

[javadoc]

We have the least amount of commitments of any Big East school. We were told how this would be a big recruiting year because of all the inroads the staff has made. Plus the move to the ACC was supposed to be a bump. On paper I like the quality of kids that we have but it is a bit concerning that we have half as many commits as some other BE teams.

RU- 19 commits, thirteen 3+ star players
USF- 17 commits, eleven 3+ star players
Pitt- 16 commits, twelve 3+ star players
Cincy- 16 commits, five 3+ star players
UConn- 15 commits, four 3+ star players
Temple- 10 commits, two 3+ star players
Louisville- 9 commits, seven 3+ star players
SU- 8 commits, four 3+ star players

I believe we still have another 12 players to add. Seems like we are behind in the game. Right now it appears at best we will have the 5th ranked class in the BE. Not what I expected in year 4.

12 to add? Isn't that high?

And shouldn't you be comparing to ACC teams, since the class of 2013's first year will be in the ACC?

 

[kingottoiii]

12 to add? Isn't that high?

And shouldn't you be comparing to ACC teams, since the class of 2013's first year will be in the ACC?

By my count we have 68 kids for next year on the current roster. That leaves 17 kids for this class, assuming no one on the current squad leaves (which never happens). So at the year least we will have 9 slots left in this class.

The fact that we have a poor class by Big East standards do you really think we will be higher in the ACC?

MD- 19/13
FSU- 18/18
UNC- 18/16
Clemson- 17/17
UVA- 17/14
Pitt- 16/12
NC St- 16/5
VT- 15/14
Duke- 15/7
BC- 15/4
GA Tech- 13/10
Wake- 12/6
Miami- 10/10
SU- 8/4

So it appears that AT BEST we would end up ranked 10th out of 14 ACC teams.

 

[javadoc]

By my count we have 68 kids for next year on the current roster. That leaves 17 kids for this class, assuming no one on the current squad leaves (which never happens). So at the year least we will have 9 slots left in this class.

The fact that we have a poor class by Big East standards do you really think we will be higher in the ACC?

MD- 19/13
FSU- 18/18
UNC- 18/16
Clemson- 17/17
UVA- 17/14
Pitt- 16/12
NC St- 16/5
VT- 15/14
Duke- 15/7
BC- 15/4
GA Tech- 13/10
Wake- 12/6
Miami- 10/10
SU- 8/4

So it appears that AT BEST we would end up ranked 10th out of 14 ACC teams.

End up? Or do you mean as of now?

I don't know what to say in regards to all the angst. It is what it is. The Syracuse brand is so damaged from the last 10 years that it's going to take a lot of winning to get the best prospects committing early, and in great numbers. That is just the way it is.

Assuming we have 9 slots left, that puts us in a comparable position to all but the top few ACC schools.

At some point people have to stop hand-wringing over recruiting and trust that the staff knows what it is doing. And that they'll be canned if they don't get it done.

 

[PhatOrange]

I'd say 6 out of 8 being three star kids is pretty good.

 

[SoBristol]

Not "hand-wringing" to take an honest assessment of where we stand, at this point. The staff knows what it is doing; they are trying to upgrade the talent and rebuild the pipelines. It is a work in progress, even though it is Year 4 -- winning will help, facilities will help. The staff has been smart about filling in with JUCOs and transfers (Rayman, Funderbunk). They have a lot of work to do to fill this current class, but there is time in November-January to catch up. Gems can emerge in their senior years. The staff can go back to the JUCOs to fill in if they don't land prospects (EO, Smith, Officer, Curtis) who are deciding between us and 2 or 3 other finalists.

Don't see the need to resort to "silent verbals" or "trust the staff" or "let it rest until February" as a way to avoid a fair assessment of our recruiting -- in mid-September -- versus the competition.

 

[PhatOrange]

Not "hand-wringing" to take an honest assessment of where we stand, at this point. The staff knows what it is doing; they are trying to upgrade the talent and rebuild the pipelines. It is a work in progress, even though it is Year 4 -- winning will help, facilities will help. The staff has been smart about filling in with JUCOs and transfers (Rayman, Funderbunk). They have a lot of work to do to fill this current class, but there is time in November-January to catch up. Gems can emerge in their senior years. The staff can go back to the JUCOs to fill in if they don't land prospects (EO, Smith, Officer, Curtis) who are deciding between us and 2 or 3 other finalists.

Don't see the need to resort to "silent verbals" or "trust the staff" or "let it rest until February" as a way to avoid a fair assessment of our recruiting -- in mid-September -- versus the competition.

so by your measure if we had 15 commitments instead of 8 it would be a better recruiting year/better recruiting class? Is that what you're saying?

We had 16 kids last year by August (3 of who defected in January) and the gripe was no one had BCS offers. Too many early offers and early commits.

This year we have 8 kids by August, all with offers and most with BCS offers and people complain.

Got it.

From November on last year we landed:

Ron Thompson - 11/7/11
George Morris - 12/21/11
Ryan Norton - 1/15/12
Josh Manley - 1/15/12
Zian Jones - 1/19/12
Myles Hilliard - 1/30/12

The year before from October on we landed:

Ryan Sloan - 10/1/11
Rob Trudo - 10/18/11
Eric Crume - 10/18/11
Kris Curtis - 10/25/11
Durrell Eskridge - 12/6/1
Ashton Broyld - 12/11/11
Siriki Diabate - 12/11/11
Adonis Moore - 12/20/11
Shu Mungwa - 1/12/12
Brandon Reddish - 1/12/12
Nick Robinson - 1/22/12
Ritchy Desir - 1/26/12
Kyle Foster - 1/25/12
Ivan Foy - 1/26/12

If you still think saying lets see how things are in February is a cop out then how about we at least see where we stand at xmas break.

When all is said and done the class will be filled out and hopefully filled out by AListers which seems to be the way it's shaping up - in my eyes at least. And typically we've gotten quality kids late.

 

[PhatOrange]

By my count we have 68 kids for next year on the current roster. That leaves 17 kids for this class, assuming no one on the current squad leaves (which never happens). So at the year least we will have 9 slots left in this class.

The fact that we have a poor class by Big East standards do you really think we will be higher in the ACC?

MD- 19/13
FSU- 18/18
UNC- 18/16
Clemson- 17/17
UVA- 17/14
Pitt- 16/12
NC St- 16/5
VT- 15/14
Duke- 15/7
BC- 15/4
GA Tech- 13/10
Wake- 12/6
Miami- 10/10
SU- 8/4

So it appears that AT BEST we would end up ranked 10th out of 14 ACC teams.

Poor by what measure? by number of commitments is that the measure?

Rivals has 6 of 8 kids 3 stars with an average star rating of 2.75 - that's a higher star rating than Arizona's #22 ranked class - 2.73

Most of our kids have offers as reported by the sites or newspapers:

Tyler Provo - Louisville, BC, Minnesota, Purdue, USF, UCF, FIU

Wayne Williams - Texas A&M, Rutgers, Temple, other sources have reported Maryland, Uconn

Austin Wilson - Eastern Michigan

Zach Allen - Minnesota, North Carolina, New Mexico (bob davie), other sources have reported TCU and Texas Tech

Marquis Hodge - West Virginia, Minnesota, Cincinnati, Marshall, FIU, Western Kent

Devan Carter -

Isaiah Johnson - Uconn, Wake Forest, Temple, Hawaii

Augustus Edwards - BC, Uconn, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, NC State, Pitt, Purdue, Rutgers, Temple, UCF, Vandy, Virginia

 

[kingottoiii]

Poor by what measure? by number of commitments is that the measure?

We are behind in the game compared to our peers. This is not debatable. Can we make it up? Sure, we have plenty of time. But as of right now we are behind the curve. If you want to believe that everyone else is doing things wrong and we have it right then so be it.

 

[PhatOrange]

We are behind in the game compared to our peers. This is not debatable. Can we make it up? Sure, we have plenty of time. But as of right now we are behind the curve. If you want to believe that everyone else is doing things wrong and we have it right then so be it.

I disagree and think it's very debatable. Syracuse could have committments from 25 kids right now if they wanted to. But they're not being lose with their offers. Maybe they're setting the bar a little bit higher this year?

Just because a team like Uconn has 15 kids who we don't want doesn't mean we're somehow behind the game compared to them. I thought the object here was to recruit kids who you want and its a big fat bonus if your peers want those same kids.

Louisville has 9 / 2.89
Rutgers has 18 / 2.83
Syracuse has 8 / 2.75
Cincy has 15 / 2.71
Pitt has 17 / 2.65
USF has 16 / 2.63
Uconn has 15 / 2.60
Temple has 13 / 2.25

So looks like Syracuse has the least amount of kids but the Big East's 3rd best average star rating.

 

[SoBristol]

so by your measure if we had 15 commitments instead of 8 it would be a better recruiting year/better recruiting class? Is that what you're saying?

We had 16 kids last year by August (3 of who defected in January) and the gripe was no one had BCS offers. Too many early offers and early commits.

Not quite that simple. I like the prospects in our class so far. I like the transfers we have in-house who add to that class. I wasn't griping last year when we did very well by August. We didn't do that great in November - January last season (Hilliard didn't make it here; we lost 3 of those early commits when better programs came knocking and our season went South), but we scrambled for some West Coast jucos who have helped (Clark, MPB, Jones, maybe Walls).

But you look at the full picture. How many? How did we fit our needs? What quality? How do we compare to our rivals, especially regional rivals who recruit the same areas (thinking here about Pitt, Rutgers, UConn, BC, Maryland, West Virginia, maybe Vir Tech). Going into November -- January are we scrambling through our A-minus list, or are we leading with some of the prospects we most want to land?

If you are pleased with our HS recruiting so far, fine. I am hoping for a strong close to catch up, ideally after we qualify for a bowl.

 

[kingottoiii]

I disagree and think it's very debatable. Syracuse could have committments from 25 kids right now if they wanted to. But they're not being lose with their offers. Maybe they're setting the bar a little bit higher this year?

Just because a team like Uconn has 15 kids who we don't want doesn't mean we're somehow behind the game compared to them. I thought the object here was to recruit kids who you want and its a big fat bonus if your peers want those same kids.

Louisville has 9 / 2.89
Rutgers has 18 / 2.83
Syracuse has 8 / 2.75
Cincy has 15 / 2.71
Pitt has 17 / 2.65
USF has 16 / 2.63
Uconn has 15 / 2.60
Temple has 13 / 2.25

So looks like Syracuse has the least amount of kids but the Big East's 3rd best average star rating.

Again you are saying that Marrone is smarter than EVERY FRIGGIN college HC by waiting while all those dummies take kids early. Sorry I do not buy it. Kids are not committing early to SU and have a wait and see attitude. That is a problem. We lack impact players on both sides of the ball. That is a problem. It isn't just about numbers as I rather be us than NC St right now. But every year we are behind in the recruiting game. That isn't a good thing. We lack playmakers. That isn't a good thing. This is year 4. Marrone should be doing better at this point. Most schools are closing things up while we aren't even halfway done. There is a lot of work left to do. That is a disadvantage.

Can we get 10 more kids to commit with 7 being three stars? Sure. But you can't just assume everything will turn out roses.

 

[tep624]

Ok. So let's go through this again.

We have 8 commits. 6 of 8 are 3 stars as per Rivals, 4 of 8 per Scout, 5 of 8 per ESPN. So our average is anywhere from 2.5 - 2.75. (which if it sticks would be our highest average that I can remember). Our average on Rivals ranks us third in the BE, on Scout we're 5th, and I couldn't see where we rank on ESPN but I'm assuming 4th or 5th. I don't care about team points at this point because if you look at team points, a school like UCONN which has a crappy recruiting class is going to rank higher just because they have more recruits.

We will likely take 17 or 18 kids. So that would leave 9-10.

It's been stated about 45 times on here that we're still publically heavily involved with at least 6 or 7 3 star +, multiple BCS offer prospects that will officially visit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the staff is taking a smaller class this year, and is going after QUALITY. People have consistently whined over the past 3 years about the quality of recruiting classes - now the staff is putting together a quality class and people are still whining. It never ceases to amaze me. And yes it is whining.

I would much rather see the staff keep spots open and chase after the guys who are on their A list that they are clearly still involved with. If they don't pan out, there have been a number of B list type recruits that have committed to lesser programs that I'm sure we can get involved with again. Afterall, that's what programs that are considered quality recruiters do. They shoot for their A list and if they lose out at the last minute, they poach lesser programs' recruits.

 

[SoBristol]

Ok. So let's go through this again.

We have 8 commits. 6 of 8 are 3 stars as per Rivals, 4 of 8 per Scout, 5 of 8 per ESPN. ....

We will likely take 17 or 18 kids. So that would leave 9-10.

....People have consistently whined over the past 3 years about the quality of recruiting classes - now the staff is putting together a quality class and people are still whining. It never ceases to amaze me. And yes it is whining.

I would much rather see the staff keep spots open and chase after the guys who are on their A list ...

You amaze easily. In a football forum, fans are going to debate how recruiting is going compared to our rivals; compared to recent classes; compared to our aspirations -- and not everyone is going to agree with Orange-colored projections. Or "trust the staff" or "silent verbals" or our 2 stars are better than yours.

The numbers are more likely going to be 22 or 23. We never, ever end up with the minimum number of spots. Loaves and fishes, every year. So, there is more work to do to close strong than you are willing to acknowledge. (Some can be jucos, of course, and that is a good thing.)