Class of 2016 Recruiting strategy

[anomander]

I'll start this off by saying I am sure there will be people that totally disagree with this post. That's fine, it's your opinion just like this is mine. I'll also say there is probably no definitive right or wrong answer. Anyways, I have noticed that since Shafer has taken over he has put a huge emphasis on academics. If i'd have to guess, i'd say it's his top selling point. When I say selling point, I not only mean how Syracuse is a top academic school, but also how he requires his athletes to succeed in the classroom by regularly attending class, and the academic support system. Now in no way am I saying this is a bad thing. Obviously academics should be stressed since that's the reason you're going to college in the first place. But that's where the divide starts between Syracuse, and most of the top programs (football wise). I've seen numerous interviews where recruits state that when talking to Syracuse coaches it was all about how they were going to help you be a great student, and then a great football player, while other schools the first thing they stress is how they are going to win championships. Again, i'm in no way saying this is a bad thing, but if we're being honest, I really think that approach can turn off a lot of the top prospects. It's no secret that a lot of these kids (again not all) have no interest in school, and as Cardale Jones put it "I didn't go to school for school, I went to Ohio St for Football". He just said out loud what a lot of these kids think. Now imagine him sitting down with Shafer, and giving him the pitch on how we will help him be a great student. I think that would end all interest on his end then and there. A lot of these kids, especially the best kids, want to go somewhere that will help them be the best player they can be in order to make it to the NFL. It's the exact opposite of what college athletics is supposed to be about, but it's reality. Who knows if it's the reason or not, but could that possibly be a reason why we have should a tough time bringing in highly rated prospects? We are basically one of the only schools who have never landed a ESPN300 athlete. All i'm saying is if we are going to go with this approach we really need to adapt a national recruiting approach, kind of like Stanford, and more recently Duke implement. The only problem with that is our overall academic rankings took a big hit under Cantor. I think with Syverud capping enrollment, or even rolling it back a little will help, but the results may not be seen for a few years. So if we did take the national approach, looking for top athletes, who also put a priority on academics i'm not sure of the success.

So what's everyone's thoughts on this? Do you like our current approach? Would you like to see us obviously still stress academics, but put the stress on football at the same level?

 

[jekelish]

I think we need to hold off on making any proclamations one way or the other, to be honest. Robert Washington has said flat out that how good a school is academically will be one of the major factors in his decision, for example.

 

[Bambrewer]

You know it's funny when we met with position coaches it was all about academics and how only a few make to the NFL and school is what's really important. When we got in with coach Shafer it was I will get you ready to play in the NFL. He said everyone talks about how schools important but let's face it the goal is the NFL.

 

[anomander]

I think we need to hold off on making any proclamations one way or the other, to be honest. Robert Washington has said flat out that how good a school is academically will be one of the major factors in his decision, for example.

Sure he's 1 example. Never said they're weren't kid who don't put an emphasis on academics. I'm willing to bet he's in the minority though.

 

[CUSU]

I like the approach to build the team up with solid guys that have their head on straight. Eventually if we gain some respect and better our perception we may need to re-evaluate that approach. At that point it may be possible lure in some guys like you mentioned. This may be Shafer's way to learn a little more about each kid, and may be what he believes the team needs in order to turn this thing around for good. Character guys that don't shy away from hard work. We also can't afford to mess around with any academic issues right now.

Also, remember that all the kids we have recruited the past couple years aren't necessarily "great" students. We have a few kids struggling to qualify this year. That's not what Shafer is doing, combing for great students and football players. That may be a byproduct of him combing for hard workers and great football players. A kid who is willing to work hard in the classroom and not be scared to do so, I would tend to think would work equally hard on the field for him.

This is just my perspective and I don't necessarily disagree with the alternative approach. With that said, if that is what Shafer believes the program needs then I'll defer judgement to him. He has far more inside knowledge on the team chemistry, potential recruits, and school perception than I. I also think that is what he knows and feels comfortable building.

 

[CuseLegacy]

I think that stressing academics isn't a bad thing. I see that quite a few of the kids we have been offering also have Ivy or service academy offers. Part of this may be due to the fact that the qualification requirements are going to increase for the 2016 class. I wonder if this is going to cause more schools to be fighting over the same kids.

 

[jekelish]

Honestly, I think with the potential example of Chris Borland (who I think will be a vast minority example, but still) it's smart to sell academics. You want to be able to offer a backup plan so that, even if you do make the NFL, if your career is short for whatever reason you're going to be set for another career.

 

[anomander]

It's definitely not a bad thing to recruit kids with strong academics. I just wonder if we alienate a certain amount of recruits because we stress academics, above football. Again, not saying we shouldn't, but maybe put them on the same level in the pitch?

 

[PhatOrange]

I'd rather they stress academics than the cluster that is Fab Melo.

it's not like we're recruiting Stanford level academic kids. Think about it, kids like would Marquise Blair would not be clearing Stanford admissions. We're admitting kids who just meet NCAA minimum standards.

I understand Cuse stresses academics but if you're qualified you'll get in. And yes you'll have to go to class.

 

[anomander]

That's kid of my point. We aren't exclusively recruiting kids with strong academic records, but we are stressing academics as the #1 priority to those same recruits. Obviously you have a few kids like JT, Blair, and Strickland who buy in ( plus I think us having a plan to get them qualified is a big factor), but just think how many kids who don't have a strong academic record that are totally turned off by the stress on academic ahead of football.

I'll say again this is in now way a bad thing. All I am saying is I think the approach could really alienate a large amount of prospects.

 

[javadoc]

That's kid of my point. We aren't exclusively recruiting kids with strong academic records, but we are stressing academics as the #1 priority to those same recruits. Obviously you have a few kids like JT, Blair, and Strickland who buy in ( plus I think us having a plan to get them qualified is a big factor), but just think how many kids who don't have a strong academic record that are totally turned off by the stress on academic ahead of football.

I'll say again this is in now way a bad thing. All I am saying is I think the approach could really alienate a large amount of prospects.

Football isn't like hoops, in the sense that almost every kid is going to be on campus for four years. Unless you have enablers in the NCAA who will refuse to enforce any academic standards on your program, you need kids who at least understand that they have to do some classwork. Pending the disposition of the NCAA case against us, we have little choice but to toe the line on academics.

I think that by definition, when you are selling something and emphasize factor X, you are going to alienate some portion of your potential customers, who either don't like X, or don't care and would rather hear about factor Y. I've been on record as saying that I don't care if kids get a degree in Mathematics with a concentration in Combinatorics - as long as they stay out of trouble, put in the required effort in football, and get out of school with their eyes opened a bit toward the academics, I'm fine. It's a minor league to me. That said, I would rather have us stressing the academics right now, purely as insurance against the kakistocracy that is the NCAA.

 

[JackBauer44]

I can personally tell you that I "feel the room" when I am giving pitches. If I know parents/family/student athlete are interested in the academic side of college - I am pouncing on our academic rankings, graduation/retention statistics, Fulbright scholarship opportunities, etc. If I feel the prospect is interested in the athletic side more - I'm pumping how strong of a program we have and how they could fit into that. I truly think it's situational.

 

[tep624]

My impression, at least with Shafer's staff and their priorities and approach, is that we wouldn't be recruiting the Cardale Jones type recruit anyway, for better or for worse. If a kid is strictly going to college to play ball, then that's not the type of recruit we're targeting. We want kids that both want to play ball, and be a leader while doing it (the emphasis on targeting kids that are team captains) and kids that want an education as well. You can move the needle in either direction, but the desire for both has to be there.

And there's a big difference between rolling the dice on a kid that's an academic risk that wants an education and that you think will thrive with the support system Syracuse offers and pursuing kids that have no interest whatsoever in the academic side of being a student. The latter is what factories do and we're never going to be a factory.