Recruiting -- Put things in perspective

[sabach]

Personally, I think there is merit to both points of view. I think most coaches will tell you there are a certain number of can't miss prospects every season. I don't know what that number is, and I'm sure it's fluid, but for argument's sake say it is 150. With rare exceptions, there are 10 or 15 traditional powerhouses (factories if you prefer) who fight for these prospects and generally share them fairly evenly, although every once in a while a team or two will strike gold and get a big haul. I think it is much harder and a more inexact science to rate the remaining large pool, as all the factors noted by so many here come into play. I think Syracuse has emerged from "scrap land" to become a legitimate player for the services of this next-tier pool. I think this class is emphatic evidence of that. If SU coaches evaluate talent properly, a kid stays healthy and maintains his academic standing they have a chance to develop 2- and 3-star talent into 4-star talent and in rare exceptions (Dwight Freeney comes to mind) 5-star talent. But it usually takes time, which is why Shafer correctly pointed out that this class cannot truly be evaluated for another three years or so. I believe SU is now back to the point where it can start to realistically aim for a top-25 ranking, a good bowl destination and, when magic strikes, to knock off one of the above-noted powerhouses and catch lightning in a bottle. I think that is a good place to be. jmo

Your opinion means a lot to me Dave.

 

[billsin01]

Personally, I think there is merit to both points of view. I think most coaches will tell you there are a certain number of can't miss prospects every season. I don't know what that number is, and I'm sure it's fluid, but for argument's sake say it is 150. With rare exceptions, there are 10 or 15 traditional powerhouses (factories if you prefer) who fight for these prospects and generally share them fairly evenly, although every once in a while a team or two will strike gold and get a big haul. I think it is much harder and a more inexact science to rate the remaining large pool, as all the factors noted by so many here come into play. I think Syracuse has emerged from "scrap land" to become a legitimate player for the services of this next-tier pool. I think this class is emphatic evidence of that. If SU coaches evaluate talent properly, a kid stays healthy and maintains his academic standing they have a chance to develop 2- and 3-star talent into 4-star talent and in rare exceptions (Dwight Freeney comes to mind) 5-star talent. But it usually takes time, which is why Shafer correctly pointed out that this class cannot truly be evaluated for another three years or so. I believe SU is now back to the point where it can start to realistically aim for a top-25 ranking, a good bowl destination and, when magic strikes, to knock off one of the above-noted powerhouses and catch lightning in a bottle. I think that is a good place to be. jmo

Yeah, I think you managed to make the case I've been trying to make in this thread but you did it in a paragraph instead of in 8 long-winded posts. I think the best parallel is in hoops where I tend to feel like the recruiting class rankings are more accurate. Basically once you get the elite players, say the top 50, you've basically comprised the group of guys that will make up the foundation of the top program's classes. They'll all -- except for maybe Kentucky -- take a kid or two from outside this group, but basically where those 50-75 players go determines who the best teams in the country are. Football is just so much more complicated b/c you've got enormous rosters and incredible physical and mental development required for most players before the see the field. Those two factors add a huge gray area to football recruiting, IMO.

 

[CousCuse]

Most 3 star players who have been at a program for 3 years or more are probably better able to compete and contribute at that level than just a few 5 stars. That's too much for their ego to be behind a guy who was less recruited than them. That's why they go to schools that have a lot of 5 star guys , so they don't feel like they are sitting behind guys who they think they are entitled to be ahead of. Michigan St doesn't have a lot of 5 star guys, and they are very good.

 

[Millhouse]

I think you look at our Marrone/Shafer era kid's intangibles and then listen to Shafer talk about his kind of kids - you can trust that the unmeasurable are being measured.

He sits with their families, someone is talking to them everyday (Eric White). Most are captains on their teams.

I don't know about compared to other schools - but I'm glad intangibles are a part of the process for us.

intangibles are not measured by definition

 

[Millhouse]

Stop telling yourselves stars don't matter. They do. They just do.

A way, way higher percentage of 4 and 5 star recruits play in the NFL than 2 and 3 star recruits. Of course there are more three star and less players in the NFL, because there are so many more three star and less players to start with. It's just math.

10 of 1000 kids in group A turn out to be NFL caliber.
6 of 40 kids in group B turn out to be NFL caliber.

Are your really, really saying there isn't a difference if your class is made up mostly from group A, or mostly from group B?

You guys have a good class, enjoy it. Build on it.

a way higher percentage of 4 and 5 star recruits Florida State players play in the NFL than 2 and 3 star recruits Syracuse players

if Syracuse gets better players and becomes a better program, the star measurement will go up later.

the stars lag the actual progress. we don't see that because the 5 star schools have been 5 star schools forever

better players mean a lot. stars don't mean anything because stars are just a bucket of program performance over some number of years.

 

[billsin01]

intangibles are not measured by definition

This made me laugh. Well played. I do think coaches need to try and account for this so they end up with more Alec Lemons and fewer Deshaun Williams.

 

[rrlbees]

Personally, I think there is merit to both points of view. I think most coaches will tell you there are a certain number of can't miss prospects every season. I don't know what that number is, and I'm sure it's fluid, but for argument's sake say it is 150. With rare exceptions, there are 10 or 15 traditional powerhouses (factories if you prefer) who fight for these prospects and generally share them fairly evenly, although every once in a while a team or two will strike gold and get a big haul. I think it is much harder and a more inexact science to rate the remaining large pool, as all the factors noted by so many here come into play. I think Syracuse has emerged from "scrap land" to become a legitimate player for the services of this next-tier pool. I think this class is emphatic evidence of that. If SU coaches evaluate talent properly, a kid stays healthy and maintains his academic standing they have a chance to develop 2- and 3-star talent into 4-star talent and in rare exceptions (Dwight Freeney comes to mind) 5-star talent. But it usually takes time, which is why Shafer correctly pointed out that this class cannot truly be evaluated for another three years or so. I believe SU is now back to the point where it can start to realistically aim for a top-25 ranking, a good bowl destination and, when magic strikes, to knock off one of the above-noted powerhouses and catch lightning in a bottle. I think that is a good place to be. jmo

Stranger! How are you?

 

[Cusester]

Personally, I think there is merit to both points of view. I think most coaches will tell you there are a certain number of can't miss prospects every season. I don't know what that number is, and I'm sure it's fluid, but for argument's sake say it is 150. With rare exceptions, there are 10 or 15 traditional powerhouses (factories if you prefer) who fight for these prospects and generally share them fairly evenly, although every once in a while a team or two will strike gold and get a big haul. I think it is much harder and a more inexact science to rate the remaining large pool, as all the factors noted by so many here come into play. I think Syracuse has emerged from "scrap land" to become a legitimate player for the services of this next-tier pool. I think this class is emphatic evidence of that. If SU coaches evaluate talent properly, a kid stays healthy and maintains his academic standing they have a chance to develop 2- and 3-star talent into 4-star talent and in rare exceptions (Dwight Freeney comes to mind) 5-star talent. But it usually takes time, which is why Shafer correctly pointed out that this class cannot truly be evaluated for another three years or so. I believe SU is now back to the point where it can start to realistically aim for a top-25 ranking, a good bowl destination and, when magic strikes, to knock off one of the above-noted powerhouses and catch lightning in a bottle. I think that is a good place to be. jmo

Dave, we miss you! In fact most of us miss you more than Doug Marrone and that is saying a lot because I still love Doug.

 

[Lou_C]

Lou, your school is football blue blood recruiting in florida. We are a basketball school recruiting in upstate new york. If we can sign a handful of 4 stars in a single class it would be remarkable. NOw maybe things change a bit if there is a facilities upgrade and we start winning at a little higher rate, but even then five four stars in a single class would equal the total number of four star kids from the past 5 or 6 six classes.

But that crazy math is the whole point: trying to compare recruiting classes -- which outside of the top 15 or so schools are largely comprised of 3/2 star kids -- is ludicrous and nonsensical. We're supposed to buy into the notion that our 3-star/5.7 rovals rating 41st ranked OLB is way better than someone else's 2-star/5.4 rovals rating 59th ranked OLB?

Absolutely. I'm not putting down Syracuse's class in any way. I am NOT saying you should have done better.

I believe it's a stronger class than you've had recently. You should absolutely be thrilled with every 4 star you get, as well as many three stars. And the percentage of 3-stars versus 2-stars. As well as the offer sheets of the kids you are getting. Those are all strengths, and most people here are rightly pointing to those. None of those things mean "stars don't matter." You don't have as good a class as LSU or Clemson and Illinois or Utah didn't have as good a class as Syracuse.

Hell, FSU signed a bunch of 3-stars among it's stellar haul, including a 3-star OT that it landed the night before signing day that was also holding an offer from UF and LSU.

I'm just reacting to the nonsense that "stars don't matter." They simply do. Over time you will not outcompete a school that averages 3.5 star recruits if you average 2.5 star recruits. Can you be a Boise State or WVU and pull a shocker once in a while? Sure on a sample size of one or two games a year.

The formula for success is not that complicated for you guys...

1. Get better talent in the front door than you've gotten in the recent past.

2. Work harder and be better talent evaluators than the schools you compete against now for recruits. Find the 4-star talent with a 3-star rating and 3-star talent with a 2-star rating. Here's where you're grade inflation comes in...if Jimbo Fisher offers 2-3 star kid (like Devonta Freeman)...his rating is going to rise. It also means everyone comes after the kid. Syracuse offering a 2-3 star kid is not going to have the same effect. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

3. Develop that talent better than your peers.

If you do those things, then the star rating will get better every year. Obviously, I'm not saying anything you guys don't know. But if you have the right guys in place on the coaching staff, this will happen and Syracuse will raise it's profile to the next level. If it doesn't then you stay where you've been hovering for a few years and you've got to make a decision. But stars matter, and give you and idea of progress and indicate the future. If 3 years from now you still have 1 four star and 20 3-stars, I bet you won't be as happy, and you shouldn't be, because there will be a problem.

But there will still be some guy saying "stars don't matter", which simultaneously doesn't hold your coaches accountable for enough, and at the same time sets unrealistic expectations of what you can expect on the field. Again, I think most people understand this. It's not meant to disparage in any way Syracuse's best class in a while. Stars matter.

 

[bnoro]

Personally, I think there is merit to both points of view. I think most coaches will tell you there are a certain number of can't miss prospects every season. I don't know what that number is, and I'm sure it's fluid, but for argument's sake say it is 150. With rare exceptions, there are 10 or 15 traditional powerhouses (factories if you prefer) who fight for these prospects and generally share them fairly evenly, although every once in a while a team or two will strike gold and get a big haul. I think it is much harder and a more inexact science to rate the remaining large pool, as all the factors noted by so many here come into play. I think Syracuse has emerged from "scrap land" to become a legitimate player for the services of this next-tier pool. I think this class is emphatic evidence of that. If SU coaches evaluate talent properly, a kid stays healthy and maintains his academic standing they have a chance to develop 2- and 3-star talent into 4-star talent and in rare exceptions (Dwight Freeney comes to mind) 5-star talent. But it usually takes time, which is why Shafer correctly pointed out that this class cannot truly be evaluated for another three years or so. I believe SU is now back to the point where it can start to realistically aim for a top-25 ranking, a good bowl destination and, when magic strikes, to knock off one of the above-noted powerhouses and catch lightning in a bottle. I think that is a good place to be. jmo

Great to hear from you Dave. This post should be tacked to the top of the recruiting forum because it's an absolutely perfect summation of the ranking process.

Man I wish you were still at the Post Standard.

 

[TheCusian]

intangibles are not measured by definition

Of course. Every person you've ever had more than a passing acquaintance "measures" your intangibles. It's not measurable, but it is evident through past action.

 

[OttosBestFriend]

If "stars don't matter," then none of you would go nuts if the hoops team stopped getting 5-star kids, right?

What if SU started recruting all the same players Rutgers, Penn St., and BC went after? That'd be AWFUL.

What if Jimmy B. recruited kids Fordam, Farleigh Dickinson, and Lehigh wanted?

There's a reason why SU hoops is one of the winningest programs of the last five years - 5-star talent.

Sure, the coach is great... But he's signing between 2 and 4 of the best players in the country each and EVERY year.

When SU stops signing football recruits whose only other offers were Buffalo, Akron and Central Michigan, THEN the 'Cuse will win 8, 9 and 10+ games a year.

 

[bnoro]

If "stars don't matter," then none of you would go nuts if the hoops team stopped getting 5-star kids, right?

What if SU started recruting all the same players Rutgers, Penn St., and BC went after? That'd be AWFUL.

What if Jimmy B. recruited kids Fordam, Farleigh Dickinson, and Lehigh wanted?

There's a reason why SU hoops is one of the winningest programs of the last five years - 5-star talent.

Sure, the coach is great... But he's signing between 2 and 4 of the best players in the country each and EVERY year.

When SU stops signing football recruits whose only other offers were Buffalo, Akron and Central Michigan, THEN the 'Cuse will win 8, 9 and 10+ games a year.

Basketball is completely different. Less prospects, fewer positions, much easier to evaluate. Not to mention the staff only has to concentrate on 4 kids a year. Can't compare Apples and Canteloupes.

 

[TheCusian]

If "stars don't matter," then none of you would go nuts if the hoops team stopped getting 5-star kids, right? What if SU started recruting all the same players Rutgers, Penn St., and BC went after? That'd be AWFUL. What if Jimmy B. recruited kids Fordam, Farleigh Dickinson, and Lehigh wanted? There's a reason why SU hoops is one of the winningest programs of the last five years - 5-star talent. Sure, the coach is great... But he's signing between 2 and 4 of the best players in the country each and EVERY year. When SU stops signing football recruits whose only other offers were Buffalo, Akron and Central Michigan, THEN the 'Cuse will win 8, 9 and 10+ games a year.

You do realize that this class is about 90% what you just described?

 

[CuseOnly]

You do realize that this class is about 90% what you just described?

You beat me to it. This class we beat almost purely P5 schools to get these kids. There were very few if any that only had offers from Akron, Toledo and Buffalo.

Really excited about this class and the coaching staff.

 

[TheCusian]

You beat me to it. This class we beat almost purely P5 schools to get these kids. There were very few if any that only had offers from Akron, Toledo and Buffalo. Really excited about this class and the coaching staff.

That may be the most telling thing about the class - who didn't offer.

 

[Millhouse]

If "stars don't matter," then none of you would go nuts if the hoops team stopped getting 5-star kids, right?

What if SU started recruting all the same players Rutgers, Penn St., and BC went after? That'd be AWFUL.

What if Jimmy B. recruited kids Fordam, Farleigh Dickinson, and Lehigh wanted?

There's a reason why SU hoops is one of the winningest programs of the last five years - 5-star talent.

Sure, the coach is great... But he's signing between 2 and 4 of the best players in the country each and EVERY year.

When SU stops signing football recruits whose only other offers were Buffalo, Akron and Central Michigan, THEN the 'Cuse will win 8, 9 and 10+ games a year.

most people who say stars don't matter are not saying talent doesn't matter. what we're saying is that stars and talent are not the same thing.

the basketball team is awesome every year. no matter who boeheim selects, they're going to get lots of stars because boeheim selected them. if SU becomes less successful, the stars will follow suit. lagging indicator. i'm trying to think of examples of these players. (almost everyone that came the few years after the national championship? people thought josh wright was good because he could forrest gump into the band really fast on every coast to coast missed layup?)

great programs could have a dropoff in talent not immediately reflected in stars. lesser programs could have improved talent not immediately reflected in stars.

it's not about pursuing some strategy of raw diamonds in the rough or pretending like we have some secret to finding players no one else thinks is good. i just want people to relax a little and recognize that it's really hard for some one to have foresight based on ranking a million high school kids. it's way easier to just rank 120 programs and hope there is stability in the pecking order so that no one realizes that your rankings lag behind what actually happened

i don't know if there's a good way to gauge interest from schools but maybe something similar to strength of schedule - some sort of average ranking of the prior years' results from programs interested in a player. coaching changes will screw this up but there are enough schools making offers to balance things out. it would be a crude measure but at least it would be a measure instead of a subjective grade

 

[OttosBestFriend]

You do realize that this class is about 90% what you just described?

Yes, THIS class... but what about the other FOUR classes that will be on campus with them next season? How many kids from THOSE classes had multiple offers from big time programs? Less than 60%, I'd bet.

After 4-5 consecutive years of grabbing better RAW talent (SEE: MORE STARS), we'll see a bump in Syracuse's overall record.

The reason why SU was so successful from the mid 1980's through 2001 was recruiting - The Orange consistently had top-25 classes with multiple guys who were ranked very very highly coming out of HS.

Back then, we would beat teams like Penn St., Notre Dame, Nebraska, BC and Michigan for players - Not Toledo, Buffalo and Akron.

And listen, I know offers don't always tell the whole story... But for every rags-to-riches guy like Jay Bromley, there are five other guys who're too slow, too small and completely over-matched in the ACC.

 

[ImperialOrange]

If "stars don't matter," then none of you would go nuts if the hoops team stopped getting 5-star kids, right?

What if SU started recruting all the same players Rutgers, Penn St., and BC went after? That'd be AWFUL.

What if Jimmy B. recruited kids Fordam, Farleigh Dickinson, and Lehigh wanted?

There's a reason why SU hoops is one of the winningest programs of the last five years - 5-star talent.

Sure, the coach is great... But he's signing between 2 and 4 of the best players in the country each and EVERY year.

When SU stops signing football recruits whose only other offers were Buffalo, Akron and Central Michigan, THEN the 'Cuse will win 8, 9 and 10+ games a year.

Which comes first? The stars and offers or the commit? It's not always the case but stars sometimes follow schools.

Hoops wise, kids commit to SU and their stars go up as well as outside interest. JB gets after kids early and a fair amount end up with higher star ratings then when they committed. Ex: 3 star MCW committed, 5 star MCW signed his LOI and has his rating etched in the system. It would be neat to see recruiting sites list a players rating from when they first show up, where they end up, and all rating shifts in between.

 

[OrangePA]

Which comes first? The stars and offers or the commit? It's not always the case but stars sometimes follow schools.

Hoops wise, kids commit to SU and their stars go up as well as outside interest. JB gets after kids early and a fair amount end up with higher star ratings then when they committed. Ex: 3 star MCW committed, 5 star MCW signed his LOI and has his rating etched in the system. It would be neat to see recruiting sites list a players rating from when they first show up, where they end up, and all rating shifts in between.

You just can't compare SU BB to SU FB.

SU BB is equivalent to Ohio State, Alabama, LSU, USC, Texas and Florida in FB.

Playing BB in the Dome is the equivalent to playing in the Big House in FB.

The best in the USA want to play for SU BB.

That is not the case yet for SU FB.

When it comes to recruiting SU BB and SU FB are world's apart.

 

[tep624]

When SU stops signing football recruits whose only other offers were Buffalo, Akron and Central Michigan, THEN the 'Cuse will win 8, 9 and 10+ games a year.

And that will be NEVER so I guess we'll never win 9 or 10 games again.

Very ignorant comment. Even during the glory days of the late 80's and early 90's, this program still had to rely on finding undervalued talent and developing it. And undervalued talent doesn't mean having offers from FSU and USC. You can speak to increasing the ratio of blue chips vs developmental prospects, to that I'd agree, but to say that we need to stop signing developmental prospects all together to be a 10 win team is ridiculous.

 

[ImperialOrange]

You just can't compare SU BB to SU FB.

SU BB is equivalent to Ohio State, Alabama, LSU, USC, Texas and Florida in FB.

Playing BB in the Dome is the equivalent to playing in the Big House in FB.

The best in the USA want to play for SU BB.

That is not the case yet for SU FB.

When it comes to recruiting SU BB and SU FB are world's apart.

Correct. For arguements sake SU Hoops recruiting = FSU Football and FSU Hoops = Syracuse Football. Nationally recognized powers get all the publicity and thus their recruits seem to be viewed in a more positive light once interest is shown. "Oh this kid is a 2 star? Well Boeheim/Fisher wouldn't be interested unless they are a stud player. Perhaps we have them graded too low and need to reevaluate" type of thing. I'm sure the recruiting services realize that some coaches know more about recruiting then they do at this point. That's why I would be curious to have a timeline of a recruits ratings from the time they hit the system until the time they sign. We've had some kids tragically over and under rated in years past in both sports. I'm sure FSU can say the same.

Take a look at what Socut rated Al Thornton. Same as Matt Gorman.

 

[TheCusian]

Yes, THIS class... but what about the other FOUR classes that will be on campus with them next season? How many kids from THOSE classes had multiple offers from big time programs? Less than 60%, I'd bet. After 4-5 consecutive years of grabbing better RAW talent (SEE: MORE STARS), we'll see a bump in Syracuse's overall record. The reason why SU was so successful from the mid 1980's through 2001 was recruiting - The Orange consistently had top-25 classes with multiple guys who were ranked very very highly coming out of HS. Back then, we would beat teams like Penn St., Notre Dame, Nebraska, BC and Michigan for players - Not Toledo, Buffalo and Akron. And listen, I know offers don't always tell the whole story... But for every rags-to-riches guy like Jay Bromley, there are five other guys who're too slow, too small and completely over-matched in the ACC.

Well - there's nothing you can do today about past years classes. Work with the kids you have and recruit the best kids you can get - according to your staff and their evaluations. Not stars. Rags to riches or a staff doing it's job and finding talent that the services miss or underrate?

Stars are for fans and have made things more digestible. We're looking for the best talent that wants to play here and fits the profile. No matter where they are and what their rating is.

 

[Lou_C]

There is absolutely NO question that who is interested and who offers has an effect on star ratings. Both because if a guy like Saban or Fisher or Meyer want a kid, you have to reevaluate your ranking. In addition, sometimes it's not just a matter of inflation, it's a matter of awareness. At the end of the day, coaches are still better at finding kids than the services. Many times a kid just wasn't on their radar or had been fully evaluated until a big offer comes in.

Of course, when Syracuse football finds a kid, it's not as likely that they'll be noticed immediately by the services and warrant more evaluation. The FSU football/Syracuse basketball analogy works this way as well. Leonard Hamilton keeps FSU above water because his contacts and his network is virtually unparalleled for someone of his profile. He finds guys in Alaska, all over the world, and found Bernard James in the military. FSU has had the third most NBA draftees of anyone in the ACC since he's been there, but those guys stars don't rocket up.

None of that means that on an aggregate level stars don't matter.

 

[anomander]

Perfect example of this is Chris Clark. Remember when he was just another 3 star as a JR when Cuse was recruiting him? Now he is the 4th best TE in the country, and 104th best player overall according to one of the services. It's not like he has drastically improved his game since the season ended, but Mark Richt, Urban Meyer, and the rest of the country got involved.

Plus you have guys like Zaire Franklin who committed early and completely shut down the process. Clemson came at him twice, same as Lville and PSU. He could have had a monster offer list, and probably the bump in rating to reflect that if he chose to do so.

Moral of the story is we have one hell of a recruiting class. This plus a program that has amazingly won 3 bowl games in 4 years is somethiing we should be excited about. Mixing this kind of talent in with the current roster, plus another recruiting class that is just as good or better then the 2014 class and we will be in serious business. Plus 2015 is the year I have looked forward to as our break out year anyways