The Coyle decision

[Alsacs]

Point is, even with the Ensley center, he would/could never recruit as well as he did at TN and it may have marginally helped here if he stuck around. But because SU promised it and didn't build it he is gone, so we will never know will we.

How much better has HCSS's recruiting been with the Ensley Ctr? Marginally better.

Maybe they should promise more coaches better stuff so they can leave disgruntled.

This program has a history of bad decisions and a calamity of errors.

Our recruiting has gone from mid 50s under DM to low 50s under SS.

It is barely better. I don't think SS is a great recruiter. If recruiting is one of his strengths then no wonder we are 13-22.

DM likely recruits better with Ensley. DM wasn't a good fit in College football. He is a pro style coach and that only recruits in college football at factories which can recruit easily.

 

[RF2044]

Our recruiting has gone from mid 50s under DM to low 50s under SS.

It is barely better. I don't think SS is a great recruiter. If recruiting is one of his strengths then no wonder we are 13-22.

DM likely recruits better with Ensley. DM wasn't a good fit in College football. He is a pro style coach and that only recruits in college football at factories which can recruit easily.

I know that is the conventional wisdom on the board, but I don't believe it to be an accurate assessment. The ratings might be similar, but the offers of the players Shafer is bringing in / the skilled offensive talent, which admittedly is young, is exponentially better than what Marrone brought in.

True, Marrone did not have the facilities that we currently have. But to claim that one class is 57 and one is 51, therefore they are roughly equivalent--that isn't an intellectually honest position.

 

[dasher]

I know that is the conventional wisdom on the board, but I don't believe it to be an accurate assessment. The ratings might be similar, but the offers of the players Shafer is bringing in / the skilled offensive talent, which admittedly is young, is exponentially better than what Marrone brought in.

True, Marrone did not have the facilities that we currently have. But to claim that one class is 57 and one is 51, therefore they are roughly equivalent--that isn't an intellectually honest position.

I agree. You have to give the devil his due. SS has been recruiting against P5 schools more than Marrone ever did.

 

[Crusty]

Hmmm... so TCU and Baylor, both in recruiting hotbeds with great coaches that get paid millions more that SU is willing to spend on a HC are comparable programs to SU, they also have ridiculous booster support, both in TX for GOd's sakes.

You couldn't have picked 2 worse schools to compare to SU, they have every advantage that SU doesn't.

Boise is the outlier and there will always be 1 or 2, outliers never prove a point.

Not so sure about that TCU built their program on three star recruits. Baylor is all about Briles. His first three season were losing ones.

Both have to recruit against UT, TAM, Oklahoma, OSU and others.

It is not ALL about coaching, but coaching makes a huge difference

 

[CuseOnly]

Our recruiting has gone from mid 50s under DM to low 50s under SS.

It is barely better. I don't think SS is a great recruiter. If recruiting is one of his strengths then no wonder we are 13-22.

DM likely recruits better with Ensley. DM wasn't a good fit in College football. He is a pro style coach and that only recruits in college football at factories which can recruit easily.

I wish Marrone was still here and they did everything they could to make him happy here, much like Memphis and Houston are doing monetarily for their coaches.

Where would we be if the assclowns in charge had given Marrone what he asked for, which I am pretty sure is what we have now facilities wise. So we are set back another 5 years because some idiot/s on the board of trustees or a booster/s had his/her feathers ruffled.

Just dumb.

 

[Alsacs]

I know that is the conventional wisdom on the board, but I don't believe it to be an accurate assessment. The ratings might be similar, but the offers of the players Shafer is bringing in / the skilled offensive talent, which admittedly is young, is exponentially better than what Marrone brought in.

True, Marrone did not have the facilities that we currently have. But to claim that one class is 57 and one is 51, therefore they are roughly equivalent--that isn't an intellectually honest position.

I agree. You have to give the devil his due. SS has been recruiting against P5 schools more than Marrone ever did.

Guys this is subjective. I think SS has done okay but our classes are bottom of the ACC rankings wise.
Our talent is better no doubt but its not that much better than DM brought in.

 

[CuseOnly]

Not so sure about that TCU built their program on three star recruits. Baylor is all about Briles. His first three season were losing ones.

Both have to recruit against UT, TAM, Oklahoma, OSU and others.

It is not ALL about coaching, but coaching makes a huge difference

Not disagreeing about coaching, it can make up for a lot. Except for when you don't want to pay them.

I didn't say TCU or the other built their programs on 3* recruits I don't believe but I have had a few glasses of wine so anything is possible.

 

[Alsacs]

I agree. You have to give the devil his due. SS has been recruiting against P5 schools more than Marrone ever did.

I am serious here can you please tell me the kids SS has gotten against P5 schools?
I am sure they are some but I went thru the 2014 class and didn't find that many.

 

[RF2044]

Guys this is subjective. I think SS has done okay but our classes are bottom of the ACC rankings wise.
Our talent is better no doubt but its not that much better than DM brought in.

I think that is fair. But I also believe that there is a qualitative difference in the skilled talent. Marrone didn't come close to bringing in QB prospects on par with Dungey, let alone Culpepper or Scott.

But your point is well taken otherwise.

 

[Crusty]

I know that is the conventional wisdom on the board, but I don't believe it to be an accurate assessment. The ratings might be similar, but the offers of the players Shafer is bringing in / the skilled offensive talent, which admittedly is young, is exponentially better than what Marrone brought in.

True, Marrone did not have the facilities that we currently have. But to claim that one class is 57 and one is 51, therefore they are roughly equivalent--that isn't an intellectually honest position.

I think there was a story in SBN that cited a fairly credible statistical analysis that supported the notion that ratings do matter and are fairly accury in the aggregate.

They are analogous to SAT scores as a reasonable predictor of results at the college level. Difficult to argue against the results.

 

[RF2044]

I think there was a story in SBN that cited a fairly credible statistical analysis that supported the notion that ratings do matter and are fairly accury in the aggregate.

They are analogous to SAT scores as a reasonable predictor of results at the college level. Difficult to argue against the results.

I don't believe that report had anything to do with ratings [as in, what are the classes rated numerically], and more to do with stars of the players comprising the class.

I don't dispute those findings.

 

[Alsacs]

I think that is fair. But I also believe that there is a qualitative difference in the skilled talent. Marrone didn't come close to bringing in QB prospects on par with Dungey, let alone Culpepper or Scott.

But your point is well taken otherwise.

I give TL credit for finding the top uncommitted QB and getting Dungey. However, I don't think our recruiting is that much better.
McDonald recruited Estime/Ishmael to SU.

 

[RF2044]

I give TL credit for finding the top uncommitted QB and getting Dungey. However, I don't think our recruiting is that much better.
McDonald recruited Estime/Ishmael to SU.

If the OL redshirting this year pan out, then along with Dungey / Fredericks / Strickland / Culpepper / Scott, I'll respectfully disagree. The talent level is improved. Depth is improving. But coaching isn't where it needs to be.

 

[Crusty]

I don't believe that report had anything to do with ratings [as in, what are the classes rated numerically], and more to do with stars of the players comprising the class.

I don't dispute those findings.

It measured w-l success based on weighed stars. It concluded that the more stars a team had the more wins. I don't know what else you need to measure

 

[TheCusian]

Be fair. When did Marrone recruit with this. SS is not this great recruiter. He might be slightly better than DM at recruiting but overall as HC worse.

Shafer's had one year of that.

 

[RF2044]

It measured w-l success based on weighed stars. It concluded that the more stars a team had the more wins. I don't know what else you need to measure

Correct. Stars. Not what the numerical rating of the class is.

That study correlated number of stars for individual prospects, not whether a class was rated 50 versus 40 versus 30.

 

[TheCusian]

"Well documented". It is? Seems at one point it became "documented" as a result of Shafer losing games and wanting to pin blame on something/someone. It fits some peoples narrative well. I'll say it again for the 100th time. Ask any recruit that did or didn't come here what they thought of Marrone, and while you're at it, ask the parents too. 95% or more thought very highly of Marrone. So if it's well documented, the recruits never got the memo.

Parents and recruits play the game of recruiting just like anyone else. No one is talking bad about a HC of a team that offered on the record.

Proof is in the results.

Shafer's been a touch better. It's truly apples and oranges - it's an unwind able argument for both sides.

 

[TheCusian]

Our recruiting has gone from mid 50s under DM to low 50s under SS. It is barely better. I don't think SS is a great recruiter. If recruiting is one of his strengths then no wonder we are 13-22. DM likely recruits better with Ensley. DM wasn't a good fit in College football. He is a pro style coach and that only recruits in college football at factories which can recruit easily.

Robinson - Marrone - Shafer... All needed to do better on the recruiting trail. Not one of those guys ever lifted us to where we need to be talent wise.

 

[Crusty]

Correct. Stars. Not what the numerical rating of the class is.

That study correlated number of stars for individual prospects, not whether a class was rated 50 versus 40 versus 30.

A distinction without a difference. Class rankings are done either by average rating or total number of stars. The results are the same.

 

[RF2044]

A distinction without a difference. Class rankings are done either by average rating or total number of stars. The results are the same.

Not exactly. The study doesn't evaluate the difference between landing the #40 class versus the #35 class. They evaluate the difference of having 5 stars versus 4 stars versus 3 stars versus 2 stars. I understand that it seems the same, and that there is a correlation between stars and rankings, but it isn't quite the same.

 

[TheCusian]

I give TL credit for finding the top uncommitted QB and getting Dungey. However, I don't think our recruiting is that much better. McDonald recruited Estime/Ishmael to SU.

Shafer gets credit for that. Unless you're loping off all the defensive recruits that Shafer brought in for Marrone.

 

[Crusty]

Not exactly. The study doesn't evaluate the difference between landing the #40 class versus the #35 class. They evaluate the difference of having 5 stars versus 4 stars versus 3 stars versus 2 stars. I understand that it seems the same, but it isn't.

Not the study I read.

 

[RF2044]

Not the study I read.

Okay, well I'm not going to argue. There have been numerous statistical analyses published over the last few years. I haven't seen the one you're referring to, but obviously won't say that you're wrong. I just haven't seen that one--I've seen numerous that correlate number of stars with on field performance.

 

[Crusty]

 

[RF2044]

Interesting. Hadn't seen that before. But was that just a B1G analysis, or...?