Recruiting: So far ranked last in ACC | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

Recruiting: So far ranked last in ACC

My take...

1) We've missed on a good number of targets that the analysts and insiders here and elsewhere thought we were well positioned to get. Go back and read the threads for a dose of reality. In-state recruiting losses are especially painful.

2) June is not June anymore so the "it's only June" stuff is harder to swallow as an excuse.

3) We better perform on the field against our peers because they've had the edge in the off-season. I'm very hopeful there as I think we have better coaches than recruiters overall.

4) Still it's going to be a hard slog. I think with all the positives (10 win season, charismatic and successful HC getting lots of national media attention, Dome retrofit, etc.), it's a bit disappointing thus far. A strong finish will likely require flipping a bunch of guys. Not an easy thing to do consistently.
 
Morant with a redshirt year, a decent QB, and a non Stone Age offense...would’ve loved to see it.

Kid would’ve been a better Etta Tawo in Dino’s offense, IMO.


I always like posting this - in the 2003 @ UNC game (the greatest game no one has ever seen) the dude was a cross between Megatron and Rocket Ismail.
 
I mean, if we were consitently middle of the pack recruting-wise in the ACC I would be quite happy with that.

Agreed ... as long is it is an actual reflection of the talent we're bringing in and not simply a correction based on the fact that we're winning games more consistently. My opinion is that it's the latter. I mean, if someone can offer me some sort of rational explanation for how these sites can reasonably decipher between the 1,238th ranked kid and the 1,729th ranked kid, I'm all ears but I just don't think it's possible. I get that they look at Trevor Larence or Travis Etienne and go 'whoa, that kid's a stud' but I think it's really hard for them to discern, reliably and consistently, the difference between Justin Pugh and Adam Rosner, which for our program in particular, is the difference between 4-8 and 8-4.
 
I always like posting this - in the 2003 @ UNC game (the greatest game no one has ever seen) the dude was a cross between Megatron and Rocket Ismail.

Yes. I remember the stat line. Had to listen to that one on the radio.

He had a monster game the following week too in the home opener loss to Louisville.
 
Agreed ... as long is it is an actual reflection of the talent we're bringing in and not simply a correction based on the fact that we're winning games more consistently. My opinion is that it's the latter. I mean, if someone can offer me some sort of rational explanation for how these sites can reasonably decipher between the 1,238th ranked kid and the 1,729th ranked kid, I'm all ears but I just don't think it's possible. I get that they look at Trevor Larence or Travis Etienne and go 'whoa, that kid's a stud' but I think it's really hard for them to discern, reliably and consistently, the difference between Justin Pugh and Adam Rosner, which for our program in particular, is the difference between 4-8 and 8-4.

they can't. it is quite clear that Clemson, Alabama etc are in a different stratosphere and the rankings reflect that, but when you get to around 25, toss about 30 schools in a hat and pick names. To your point, how the hell can you really decipher between a kid with a crystal ball composite of 85.33 versus a kid with an 84.29. I mean, please.
 
My take...

1) We've missed on a good number of targets that the analysts and insiders here and elsewhere thought we were well positioned to get. Go back and read the threads for a dose of reality. In-state recruiting losses are especially painful.

2) June is not June anymore so the "it's only June" stuff is harder to swallow as an excuse.

3) We better perform on the field against our peers because they've had the edge in the off-season. I'm very hopeful there as I think we have better coaches than recruiters overall.

4) Still it's going to be a hard slog. I think with all the positives (10 win season, charismatic and successful HC getting lots of national media attention, Dome retrofit, etc.), it's a bit disappointing thus far. A strong finish will likely require flipping a bunch of guys. Not an easy thing to do consistently.
1) Besides Austin-Cave/TVD there really hasn't been any kid that we thought we'd get that we all of the sudden missed on.

2) We have 10 commits that the staff likes that were Plan A's/Camp Offers, and are in the top schools for a bunch of "higher rated" prospects that we really want

3) Pitt/BC haven't had that much of an edge over us, of the guys they've landed that we wanted, not many were committable.

4) I'm not disappointed in this class, and we can finish strong without flipping a bunch of guys. You're way too pessimistic here and that's coming from a notorious pessimist.
 
My take...

1) We've missed on a good number of targets that the analysts and insiders here and elsewhere thought we were well positioned to get. Go back and read the threads for a dose of reality. In-state recruiting losses are especially painful.

2) June is not June anymore so the "it's only June" stuff is harder to swallow as an excuse.

3) We better perform on the field against our peers because they've had the edge in the off-season. I'm very hopeful there as I think we have better coaches than recruiters overall.

4) Still it's going to be a hard slog. I think with all the positives (10 win season, charismatic and successful HC getting lots of national media attention, Dome retrofit, etc.), it's a bit disappointing thus far. A strong finish will likely require flipping a bunch of guys. Not an easy thing to do consistently.

I think this is a very rationale and well-articulated view. I don't entirely agree with it for reasons I'll state below but this seems far more logical to me than looking at composite star rankings and wringing our hands. We will very rarely do well there.

Anyway, I don't claim to know how recruiting is going per se. I have no inside info and I'm not a football coach so my views of the film are that of a fan who doesn't have much better to do. But, having said that, there are a couple things I disagree with.

1. We never have kept big name kids in state. Maybe Mac back in the day but this has been a consistent gripe (one I've often echoed) for at least 25 years, probably closer to 30. It sucks but SU to NY is not Penn State to PA. At least not now or for the past 25ish years.

2. We've had one good season and two solid seasons in the past 18 years. We also have spent several of those years as the laughing stock of P5 programs (or pretty close to it). The Dome blows (I know people hate to hear that but I think that's a prevailing opinion among non-cuse fans) and the game day atmosphere isn't much better. Facilities are OK I guess, but I find it hard to believe they are a selling point over many of our contemporaries. Bottom line is it's going to be hard to recruit at least until we can sustain some winning.

3. More misses could very well be a function of recruiting better kids. I don't feel like we've lost key targets to Tulsa and UConn and Houston so much as we've lost to other really solid programs. That's going to happen at times -- obviously hopefully less as we move forward but it's part of signing higher profile kids. There's more competition.

I don't know. I can understand why people are hoping we start crushing it but I think we face an uphill battle at the very least until we can string together some solid success.
 
Remeber Chandler jones? You know what his ranking was? a 78 and wasnt even rated by the service that never sleeps. Im sure glad we didnt just dismiss him off of stars.

I went to see Chandler Jones when he played at Union-Endicott. Binghamton ran an offense where they had a tight end and tackle double teaming him, and getting support from a fullback - and he was still blowing through triple teams and constantly disrupting the offense. I’m not a scout - but it was pretty obvious he was going to be a solid to outstanding college player.

The rating systems are decent - but there’s a ton of kids playing high school ball, and some of them fall through the cracks.
 
Dino was the one that said to expect bigger things from the 2020 class, so he's raising the bar and should expect criticism or skepticism if the trends don't match up. I agree the star rating system is more of an indicator in basketball but there's still a fair amount of truth to it in football as well. Dino's system is allowing us to play above what our talent suggests, but that will only get us so far. We need to start landing several 4-star players if we want to dream about challenging the ACC elite on a regular basis. 1 or 2 studs per class is just going to tread water. Our system is a huge asset, but we need to get our class ranking from the 50s and 60s into the mid-30s to reach our ceiling as a program. We've done it before in Coach Mac/P era it can be done again.

Posts like this suggest that there is only one way to be successful -- and that we need to recruit like Alabama, Ohio State, and Clemson or we won't be any good and can't build a consistent winner that gets back to top 25 [or better] status, and fail to recognize that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

In actuality, I don't think that we ever have or will ever be able to recruit like those schools. For a variety of reasons, our path to being a contender is going to be a lot more like Boise State's than regional competitor Penn State's. What a program like ours has always needed was an innovative system complimented by good coaching that can enable a middle of the pack program like ours to rise to the top of the pack. We had that type of system back in the 80s / early 90s which helped us compete against more elite programs, and we again have an innovative system suited for the modern college football game again under Dino Babers.

So, system -- check.

Next, we need to get high quality athletes who fit our system. Since Babers took over -- and keep in mind that he's only been here a few years, and that we're really only beginning to see the benefit / value proposition of the kid's he and the staff have brought in -- we've seen our team get bigger, stronger, and faster. Whereas before we could not compete against better teams, with our players seeming overmatched [and guys getting hurt seemingly every couple of plays], now we go toe-to-toe with elite programs. We haven't arrived by any means, but our ability to compete has ratcheted up a notch -- and will continue to do so as we have sustained success that in turns facilitates landing better players.

So, coaches identifying quality athletes who are good system fits and landing them -- check.

Next, a program like ours needs to have sustained success to change how we're viewed and what the narrative on our program is. Prior to last year, all Dino and staff could do was sell promise. Now, they have success that they can trumpet on the recruiting trail. It isn't "come here and you can help put this program back on the map and get back to winning, " it is instead "we're doing it -- this is special, come be a part of it." Need to tack on another good season, and things will start to hum.

Finally, winning helps establish a cultural foundation of being winners. We didn't have that before, and now we have the foundation established -- and it will pay dividends down the road as new players come in and get indoctrinated with this culture, and learn what it takes to win before they ever have to see the field. Practice habits, film study, S&C, off-season commitment, etc. Success begets success -- not just with recruiting as described above, but also off the field as well.

Maybe we'll even get some of those 4 stars you're talking about. in fact, I'm willing to bet that we already have landed at least one in this class -- and that when the players are reevaluated, he'll get bumped up. Maybe more than one.

Final thought -- I can't stand these threads [no shade intended toward the OP], because BOTH sides are right. It isn't an all-or-nothing discussion. Stars DO matter to an extent, but they also aren't the end all / be all, and it is accurate to suggest that the recruiting services fall short in many ways when it comes to evaluating beyond the most obvious group of top 250 players or so.
 
Last edited:
another reason not to freak out with HS recruiting rankings: the transfer portal. two of the highest ranked kids on our roster are transfers in Jackson and Adams. I read an article that said 18 of the final top 25 teams from last year, Syracuse being one of them, lost a scholarship QB to the portal in the offseason. The biggest WR stud we have had so far under Dino was a transfer too. Obviously transfers aren't the answer to everything, but they sure as hell help, particularly undergrad transfers who have a few years of eligibility left.
 
Theonly issue I've seen with recruiting is the inability to sign a high-end QB early in the last few cycles (basically since TD).

Often, QB is the cornerstone of the class and commit early in the cycle as spots vanish quickly. We've had a few misses on our A guys. I think that impacts the ability to acquire high-end skill position guys.

For example, if TVD or the Veilleux had committed for 2020 then the sale this past weekend to the high end receivers would've been stronger imo.

Overall, without getting into the reliability of the rankings, I believe we can win with classes in the Top 40 and working the transfer market aggressively for disgruntled players at football factories looking for playing time (Adams, Jackson) or late bloomers at non-P5 programs looking to upgrade competition (Alexander) who never factor into the rankings.
 
Theonly issue I've seen with recruiting is the inability to sign a high-end QB early in the last few cycles (basically since TD).

Often, QB is the cornerstone of the class and commit early in the cycle as spots vanish quickly. We've had a few misses on our A guys. I think that impacts the ability to acquire high-end skill position guys.

For example, if TVD or the Veilleux had committed for 2020 then the sale this past weekend to the high end receivers would've been stronger imo.

Overall, without getting into the reliability of the rankings, I believe we can win with classes in the Top 40 and working the transfer market aggressively for disgruntled players at football factories looking for playing time (Adams, Jackson) or late bloomers at non-P5 programs looking to upgrade competition (Alexander) who never factor into the rankings.

Good points. The only real issue I have is the lack of success recruiting QB's outside of Devito. Hurts to lose your top 2 targets in back to back years especially based on the success Babers has had in this offense system especially with slinging the ball around. May need to go the transfer route ala Wash State sooner rather then later.
 
These current recruits were in Elementary School when we made our previous bowl game.
You think that makes us relevant right now HOW?? :rolleyes:


He said we've never won before last year "in their lifetimes". That is an inaccurate statement.
I'm not saying that Marrone's Bowl wins were etched into the brains of 9 year olds, but to say we've never been any good for 20 years is a misstatement. We were moderately acceptable and competitive for a few years in between the awfulness of GRob and Scotty Sunshine.
 
He said we've never won before last year "in their lifetimes". That is an inaccurate statement.
I'm not saying that Marrone's Bowl wins were etched into the brains of 9 year olds, but to say we've never been any good for 20 years is a misstatement. We were moderately acceptable and competitive for a few years in between the awfulness of GRob and Scotty Sunshine.

Re-read what I posted. Words have meanings.
I said we hadn't won 10 games before in their lifetimes.

"Yay! I want to play football at Syracuse!!
They've been moderately acceptable and competitive a few times during my lifetime!!"

Now THAT is one helluva recruiting pitch!! :p
 
There is no reason to despair... however... I would rather have higher class rankings than not. I tend to think that college football recruiting is a bit bipolar -- you need quality volume to build depth, and you need at least a handful of true impact players. There's no debating that in three years Dino has addressed the former. I suspect it's the latter than moves rankings the most, and we're not there yet.

Determining overall health of the program based on the ranking of any one class is silly. But I have to imagine that, generally speaking, P5 teams that constantly see rankings in the top half of their conference tend to see better W/L results than those who tend to rank in the bottom half. And I think it'd be rare to find a P5 program that constantly ranks in the bottom third to be a perennial 8+ win team.

No data to support that, I'm open to a fact-based challenge, of course.
 
Posts like this suggest that there is only one way to be successful -- and that we need to recruit like Alabama, Ohio State, and Clemson or we won't be any good and can't build a consistent winner that gets back to top 25 [or better] status, and fail to recognize that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

In actuality, I don't think that we ever have or will ever be able to recruit like those schools. For a variety of reasons, our path to being a contender is going to be a lot more like Boise State's than regional competitor Penn State's. What a program like ours has always needed was an innovative system complimented by good coaching that can enable a middle of the pack program like ours to rise to the top of the pack. We had that type of system back in the 80s / early 90s which helped us compete against more elite programs, and we again have an innovative system suited for the modern college football game again under Dino Babers.

So, system -- check.

Next, we need to get high quality athletes who fit our system. Since Babers took over -- and keep in mind that he's only been here a few years, and that we're really only beginning to see the benefit / value proposition of the kid's he and the staff have brought in -- we've seen our team get bigger, stronger, and faster. Whereas before we could not compete against better teams, with our players seeming overmatched [and guys getting hurt seemingly every couple of plays], now we go toe-to-toe with elite programs. We haven't arrived by any means, but our ability to compete has ratcheted up a notch -- and will continue to do so as we have sustained success that in turns facilitates landing better players.

So, coaches identifying quality athletes who are good system fits and landing them -- check.

Next, a program like ours needs to have sustained success to change how we're viewed and what the narrative on our program is. Prior to last year, all Dino and staff could do was sell promise. Now, they have success that they can trumpet on the recruiting trail. It isn't "come here and you can help put this program back on the map and get back to winning, " it is instead "we're doing it -- this is special, come be a part of it." Need to tack on another good season, and things will start to hum.

Finally, winning helps establish a cultural foundation of being winners. We didn't have that before, and now we have the foundation established -- and it will pay dividends down the road as new players come in and get indoctrinated with this culture, and learn what it takes to win before they ever have to see the field. Practice habits, film study, S&C, off-season commitment, etc. Success begets success -- not just with recruiting as described above, but also off the field as well.

Maybe we'll even get some of those 4 stars you're talking about. in fact, I'm willing to bet that we already have landed at least one in this class -- and that when the players are reevaluated, he'll get bumped up. Maybe more than one.

Final thought -- I can't stand these threads [no shade intended toward the OP], because BOTH sides are right. It isn't an all-or-nothing discussion. Stars DO matter to an extent, but they also aren't the end all / be all, and it is accurate to suggest that the recruiting services fall short in many ways when it comes to evaluating beyond the most obvious group of top 250 players or so.
This.
I can't lie, I would've liked to see better rankings and hold out hope that at the end, we'll be in the 40-50 range. But honestly, this debate is more about vanity than anything else- JMHO. A simple "eye-test" will tell you that we are bigger, faster, better in almost all facets of the game.
We have a system tailored to our home field ("neener, neener"), a renewed commitment from the top of the AD, and a Top-10 HC in cfb. Boise State has always been the benchmark for this program, IMO. Their recruit rankings are never high but they bring 2-3* studs into that winning culture, and more often then not, they're a Top 20 team. All faith in HCDFB
 
Re-read what I posted. Words have meanings.
I said we hadn't won 10 games before in their lifetimes.

"Yay! I want to play football at Syracuse!!
They've been moderately acceptable and competitive a few times during my lifetime!!"

Now THAT is one helluva recruiting pitch!! :p


You're combining two sentences from your original post.

Your first sentence said "We haven't had a really good season in their lifetimes."
I said what about Marrone's two bowl wins. Those were special at the time, and seemed to signal the start of good times again.

Your second sentence said "Our last 10-win season was before most of them were born."
So, those are 2 separate statements. Of course we haven't won 10 games since Freeney's team in 2001. But after the fact, you're conflating the 2 statements.

Is it only a "good season" if we win 10 games? That seems to be your re-stated position.

Because if that's the standard, then we never had a "good season" with any of the McNabb teams.
And while those teams didn't get to compete for a national championship, we had the schedule and the talent to do so.

What if Tommy's team wins 9 games this year? Not a "good season"?
I would take 9 wins in a heartbeat.
 
Determining overall health of the program based on the ranking of any one class is silly. But I have to imagine that, generally speaking, P5 teams that constantly see rankings in the top half of their conference tend to see better W/L results than those who tend to rank in the bottom half. And I think it'd be rare to find a P5 program that constantly ranks in the bottom third to be a perennial 8+ win team.

No data to support that, I'm open to a fact-based challenge, of course.

Don’t disagree with this. What I would question is to what extent the rankings predict your rise as a program versus reflect your newfound success? I also tend to feel that people view recruiting highly-regarded kids as the thing that makes you a good program. My contention is essentially that recruiting is important and that stars, as part of your overall evaluation of a particular recruit, are not entirely irrelevant (a kid with a bunch of stars, good measureables and a bunch of offers is likely to be a pretty impressive prospect).

Now, I personally think the star system is pretty flawed. But, no matter what anyone's personal opinion of that system is, those star totals and, in fact, the recruits themselves need to be viewed through the context of the program as a whole. In other words, the extent to which you can predict success or failure of a program on the basis of star totals is pretty limited (as opposed to basketball where if you are a program bringing in 3 4- or 5-star kids every year, it's pretty tough to argue that there will be a pretty fair amount of success on the court).

I was trying to find the right example and, I will admit, it's one program, but if you look at Michigan, I feel like it's a pretty fair illustration of this point, as anecdotal as it is.

Michigan -- Overall class ranking/Big 10 ranking/record
2005 -- 5th/1st/7-5
2006 -- 10th/2nd/11-2
2007 -- 11th/1st/9-4
2008 -- 11th/2nd/3-8
2009 -- 10th/2nd/5-7
2010 -- 17th/2nd/7-6
2011 -- 30th/5/11-2
2012 -- 6th/2nd/8-5
2013 -- 4th/2nd/7-6
2014 record was 5-7

So, here's my point: Michigan's recruiting, per one service, was incredibly consistent with only one year falling outside the top 20 (2011), yet the records -- which go from the end of the carr era, through the rich rod debacle and then the brady hoke years -- are all over the map.

How would it be possible to land classes ranked 5th, 10th, 11th and 11th and then go 3-8? Then land another top 10 class and go 5-7? Then they landed the 30th best class (not great but not atrocious), 6th and 4th best classes in 11, 12 and 13 but went 5-7 in 14?

Obviously the point is simple -- maybe richrod was a terrible fit and the players he inherited were bad for his system. Maybe Hoke was a bad replacement and maybe Harbaugh is a good but not incredible coach (he's won 38 in four years with similar recruiting numbers).

But the point is the recruiting rankings were pretty stable and we'd absolutely kill for those. Yet the records fluxuated wildly.

It's only one program but I think it illustrates the point that getting good players is important but that the health of the program goes a long way in determining not only what your record is, but how those kids produce in your program.
 
Don’t disagree with this. What I would question is to what extent the rankings predict your rise as a program versus reflect your newfound success? I also tend to feel that people view recruiting highly-regarded kids as the thing that makes you a good program. My contention is essentially that recruiting is important and that stars, as part of your overall evaluation of a particular recruit, are not entirely irrelevant (a kid with a bunch of stars, good measureables and a bunch of offers is likely to be a pretty impressive prospect).

Now, I personally think the star system is pretty flawed. But, no matter what anyone's personal opinion of that system is, those star totals and, in fact, the recruits themselves need to be viewed through the context of the program as a whole. In other words, the extent to which you can predict success or failure of a program on the basis of star totals is pretty limited (as opposed to basketball where if you are a program bringing in 3 4- or 5-star kids every year, it's pretty tough to argue that there will be a pretty fair amount of success on the court).

I was trying to find the right example and, I will admit, it's one program, but if you look at Michigan, I feel like it's a pretty fair illustration of this point, as anecdotal as it is.

Michigan -- Overall class ranking/Big 10 ranking/record
2005 -- 5th/1st/7-5
2006 -- 10th/2nd/11-2
2007 -- 11th/1st/9-4
2008 -- 11th/2nd/3-8
2009 -- 10th/2nd/5-7
2010 -- 17th/2nd/7-6
2011 -- 30th/5/11-2
2012 -- 6th/2nd/8-5
2013 -- 4th/2nd/7-6
2014 record was 5-7

So, here's my point: Michigan's recruiting, per one service, was incredibly consistent with only one year falling outside the top 20 (2011), yet the records -- which go from the end of the carr era, through the rich rod debacle and then the brady hoke years -- are all over the map.

How would it be possible to land classes ranked 5th, 10th, 11th and 11th and then go 3-8? Then land another top 10 class and go 5-7? Then they landed the 30th best class (not great but not atrocious), 6th and 4th best classes in 11, 12 and 13 but went 5-7 in 14?

Obviously the point is simple -- maybe richrod was a terrible fit and the players he inherited were bad for his system. Maybe Hoke was a bad replacement and maybe Harbaugh is a good but not incredible coach (he's won 38 in four years with similar recruiting numbers).

But the point is the recruiting rankings were pretty stable and we'd absolutely kill for those. Yet the records fluxuated wildly.

It's only one program but I think it illustrates the point that getting good players is important but that the health of the program goes a long way in determining not only what your record is, but how those kids produce in your program.


The one problem with your analysis is that any particular year's recruiting class won't show up on the field in a meaningful way until about 3 years later.
 
Don’t disagree with this. What I would question is to what extent the rankings predict your rise as a program versus reflect your newfound success? I also tend to feel that people view recruiting highly-regarded kids as the thing that makes you a good program. My contention is essentially that recruiting is important and that stars, as part of your overall evaluation of a particular recruit, are not entirely irrelevant (a kid with a bunch of stars, good measureables and a bunch of offers is likely to be a pretty impressive prospect).

Now, I personally think the star system is pretty flawed. But, no matter what anyone's personal opinion of that system is, those star totals and, in fact, the recruits themselves need to be viewed through the context of the program as a whole. In other words, the extent to which you can predict success or failure of a program on the basis of star totals is pretty limited (as opposed to basketball where if you are a program bringing in 3 4- or 5-star kids every year, it's pretty tough to argue that there will be a pretty fair amount of success on the court).

I was trying to find the right example and, I will admit, it's one program, but if you look at Michigan, I feel like it's a pretty fair illustration of this point, as anecdotal as it is.

Michigan -- Overall class ranking/Big 10 ranking/record
2005 -- 5th/1st/7-5
2006 -- 10th/2nd/11-2
2007 -- 11th/1st/9-4
2008 -- 11th/2nd/3-8
2009 -- 10th/2nd/5-7
2010 -- 17th/2nd/7-6
2011 -- 30th/5/11-2
2012 -- 6th/2nd/8-5
2013 -- 4th/2nd/7-6
2014 record was 5-7

So, here's my point: Michigan's recruiting, per one service, was incredibly consistent with only one year falling outside the top 20 (2011), yet the records -- which go from the end of the carr era, through the rich rod debacle and then the brady hoke years -- are all over the map.

How would it be possible to land classes ranked 5th, 10th, 11th and 11th and then go 3-8? Then land another top 10 class and go 5-7? Then they landed the 30th best class (not great but not atrocious), 6th and 4th best classes in 11, 12 and 13 but went 5-7 in 14?

Obviously the point is simple -- maybe richrod was a terrible fit and the players he inherited were bad for his system. Maybe Hoke was a bad replacement and maybe Harbaugh is a good but not incredible coach (he's won 38 in four years with similar recruiting numbers).

But the point is the recruiting rankings were pretty stable and we'd absolutely kill for those. Yet the records fluxuated wildly.

It's only one program but I think it illustrates the point that getting good players is important but that the health of the program goes a long way in determining not only what your record is, but how those kids produce in your program.

This is GREAT work. And I really can't disagree with the conclusion. Ultimately I'm not sure there's a irrefutable, causal link between recruiting rankings and on-field success. The data is far too noisy, and even the definition of "success" is tricky to pin down.

To be honest, personally this is why I don't spend much time following recruiting. My POV is that it's on the coaches to land the players they think they need to run their system. I'll evaluate how well that's going when I see players on the field. It's why I thought the support for Shafer in year 3, based on his recruiting, was ludicrous. Because I saw with my own eyes how our players didn't stack up to our ACC peers. These days it seems clear that we have the athletes to compete.
 
The one problem with your analysis is that any particular year's recruiting class won't show up on the field in a meaningful way until about 3 years later.

How do you figure? Michigan went 5th, 10th, 10th and 11th and then finished 3-8 in ‘08. Landed another top 10 class and went 5-7 the year later. My point is the recruiting has been generally consistent but the records have been all over
 
How do you figure? Michigan went 5th, 10th, 10th and 11th and then finished 3-8 in ‘08. Landed another top 10 class and went 5-7 the year later. My point is the recruiting has been generally consistent but the records have been all over

I think you picked one team that fit your argument. I don’t have the time now but on the old board I ran a crap load of stats on teams at the high end and low end over 5-8 yr period of time (don’t remember the exact time range). Anyway, other then some outliers, teams in the top 10 at least but even top 15 year after year after year, have highly rated classes. If your classes consistently rank at the bottom of your conference, it’s not a good sign.

We had one good season. I don’t think that’s an anomaly but time will tell. But I don’t think we’ll have the seasons everyone wants to have if we are near the bottom in conference recruiting rankings every year over the next 5 years.
 
comparison of Baylor's record to its recruiting rankings. not a perfect match because Baylor hired a high school coach from texas and because it is in a fertile recruiting ground. the record for 2018 and recruiting rankings for class of 2019 are on the same line and so on.

year win/loss recruiting rankings
2018 7-6 35
2017 1-11 29
2016 7-6 40
2015 10-3 40
2014 11-2 36
2013 11-2 25
2012 8- 5 27
2011 10-3 26
2010 7- 6 46
2009 4-8 38
2008* 4-8 53
2007 3-9 58

*art briles first year as coach
 

Similar threads

    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
8
Views
476
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
5
Views
452
    • Love
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
5
Views
491
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
6
Views
386
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
5
Views
607

Forum statistics

Threads
167,144
Messages
4,682,980
Members
5,901
Latest member
CarlsbergMD

Online statistics

Members online
221
Guests online
1,333
Total visitors
1,554


Top Bottom