The latest all encompassing recruiting thread

Bulldog04

Starter
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
1,267
Like
3,972
I don’t think the recruiting is what it could be (yet) but I’m also a realist and no matter who is on the field, nothing is going to stop me from having season tickets and going to every game every year. Being a fan is fun and yes it’s fun for them to win but I mainly only care for the players and coaches and hoping they have the joy of winning much more than I do
 

General Joe

2nd String
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
674
Like
422
Good post, RF

Syracuse is just a tough sell and I think we have five coaches that would all agree. P, GROB, Marrone, Shafer and now Dino. but the 6th coach will be the guy that can really recruit!!!! That's where the magic potion is. NO EXCUSES!!! Again, there is a logical progression here and a path for reasoning but many don't want to follow. Tough week on the recruiting forum

Hell GROB all things considered was probably the best recruiter of any of them but by far the worst coach obviously. The best two teams we have had the past 10 years had some great seniors that were all pretty much 3 star kids that developed and got the most out of their ability. That's syracuse recruiting. 3 star kids with some flyers on athletic 2 stars that need coaching and a lot of work. Take it or leave it
Those two points can BOTH be true. Syracuse might be a tough sell (depending on the other options) and we might have had a string of below avg recruiters. Do you except the possibility that we have had some bad recruiting coaches?
 

General Joe

2nd String
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
674
Like
422
A broken clock is right twice a day, too. The major difference being that a broken clock doesn't break it's arm attempting to pat itself on the back for being accidentally right.

Get over yourself. I'm sorry if my post above was pointed -- but some things need to be said.

I'm going to go back to ignoring you.
No offense taken. I have read many of your posts over the years and respect your opinion. We just look at recruiting through polar opposite lenses.

Its really easy to predict where a program will be (barring major injuries) based on recruiting from the previous 2 or 3 cycles. I see another 4 or 5 wins (including Colgate and Liberty wins smh)MAXIMUM if this season is played. Its just frustrating.
 

IthacaBarrel

Shaky Potatoes
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,104
Like
11,141
Those two points can BOTH be true. Syracuse might be a tough sell (depending on the other options) and we might have had a string of below avg recruiters. Do you except the possibility that we have had some bad recruiting coaches?

All 5 head coaches couldn't recruit? Do you think a guy like Ty Wheatley who worked for Marrone wouldn't be able to get respect out there and get some kids? A lot of times the best sales guys still need a decent product.

You are just delusional when it comes to recruiting.
 

721Comstock

2019-20 Iggy Co-Winner Leading Rebounder
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
6,545
Like
20,275
No offense taken. I have read many of your posts over the years and respect your opinion. We just look at recruiting through polar opposite lenses.

Its really easy to predict where a program will be (barring major injuries) based on recruiting from the previous 2 or 3 cycles. I see another 4 or 5 wins (including Colgate and Liberty wins smh)MAXIMUM if this season is played. Its just frustrating.
I’m un-ignoring you here at my peril.

NO - it is NOT “really easy” to predict where a program will be based on 2-3 cycles of recruiting.

If it was, explain:

Our 10 win season - recruiting 2-3-4 years prior was the same mid-pack “meh” it’s always been.

LLVLL and their meltdown season that got Petrino canned.
They had been consistently very solid in recruiting for many years prior.
How can that possibly happen??

The U - Miami always gets lots of good ‘croots, but never really does anything with them.

FSU - a MONSTER in recruiting for literally DECADES, won a Natty a few years ago, and yet have struggled mightily for the past few years.

But, but, recruiting rankings say all of that is unpossible!! :rolleyes:
 

General Joe

2nd String
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
674
Like
422
I’m un-ignoring you here at my peril.

NO - it is NOT “really easy” to predict where a program will be based on 2-3 cycles of recruiting.

If it was, explain:

Our 10 win season - recruiting 2-3-4 years prior was the same mid-pack “meh” it’s always been.

LLVLL and their meltdown season that got Petrino canned.
They had been consistently very solid in recruiting for many years prior.
How can that possibly happen??

The U - Miami always gets lots of good ‘croots, but never really does anything with them.

FSU - a MONSTER in recruiting for literally DECADES, won a Natty a few years ago, and yet have struggled mightily for the past few years.

But, but, recruiting rankings say all of that is unpossible!! :rolleyes:
You make some good points... about stuff and teams nobody is talking about. Let me clarify so we are all clear. I have consistently said this for 3 years now

I am referring to Syracuse under HCDB and HIS Recruits to Syracuse University.

Eric Dungey and 6 of 7 O-lineman that started heavily during our 10 win season were HCSS recruits. Last year and of course this upcoming year we fielded a HCDB recruited team.

So that we are clear I am talking about Syracuse football when I talk about our recruiting unless otherwise noted.

With that in mind, based on the prior 3 HCDB recruiting classes I see 5 wins max including wins over the football powerhouses of Liberty and Colgate.
 

billsin01

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,753
Like
5,706
The tackle you referenced is Marcus Eason. Very talented football player with offers from Tex Tech, Iowa ST, Ole Miss, Miss st, Rutgers Syracuse and a ton of non P5 teams EVEN with his injury, move and problems in the classroom. Many talented athletes haven't had the opportunity to showcase that talent because of grades. Its too bad wishing him the best.

But now to the breaking news.
Just so we are clear, are you indeed saying our recruiting needs to improve? If so how would you currently assess it under HCDB? Good, below avg, bad?

BTW I thought the sky had fallen. I believe you and I had a back and forth a year ago when i predicted a 6 win or less season based on our recruiting classes while many ( and i think you) in your lets say group screamed 10 or 11 wins and battling Clemson for the title. We finished 2 and 9 vs P5 teams. There is no sky it fell with HCDB's recruiting.
preseason optimism -- sometimes unbridled -- is a rite of passage on message boards. You could argue the best part of being a syracuse football fan is the preseason. Let folks enjoy it.
 

RF2044

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
23,229
Like
56,722
No offense taken. I have read many of your posts over the years and respect your opinion. We just look at recruiting through polar opposite lenses.

Its really easy to predict where a program will be (barring major injuries) based on recruiting from the previous 2 or 3 cycles. I see another 4 or 5 wins (including Colgate and Liberty wins smh)MAXIMUM if this season is played. Its just frustrating.
Even that is a mischaracterization -- we don't look at things opposite, the difference is that you completely disregard any data about recruiting except for stars / offers, while I recognize that at our level, at this stage in the program reconstruction, we need to look deeper. For example -- camp offers matter, irrespective of what their ratings are.

I think / believe that there is a group of posters who took our 2018 season as a sign that we were going to start reeling in 4 and 5 star talent since we'd won 9 games. That has never really been the case, even when things were going gangbusters in the glory days of the late 80s / 90s. Which is why I pay attention to several posters here who can peel the onion back a little bit and dig a little bit deeper about the quality of any individual recruit we land. There are objective benchmarks [ratings] and subjective [offers, stars] factors -- and BOTH are relevant, not just one set of data.
 

billsin01

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,753
Like
5,706
Good post, RF

Syracuse is just a tough sell and I think we have five coaches that would all agree. P, GROB, Marrone, Shafer and now Dino. but the 6th coach will be the guy that can really recruit!!!! That's where the magic potion is. NO EXCUSES!!! Again, there is a logical progression here and a path for reasoning but many don't want to follow. Tough week on the recruiting forum

Hell GROB all things considered was probably the best recruiter of any of them but by far the worst coach obviously. The best two teams we have had the past 10 years had some great seniors that were all pretty much 3 star kids that developed and got the most out of their ability. That's syracuse recruiting. 3 star kids with some flyers on athletic kids with potential 2 stars/ low 3 that need coaching and a lot of work. Take it or leave it.

What's funny is those teams were all lead by seniors who were recruited by another head coach that couldn't recruit or win enough games.
This is always my point with the recruiting services. If we somehow start landing a handful of 4-star kids or more each cycle -- maybe if we establish a pattern of consistent winning for a few years -- that's awesome. Unlikely, IMO, but awesome. We'll all take 4- and 5-star kids.

But what we're going to be signing for the time being is 3-star and 2-star kids and while there are really good prospects and not so good prospects at this level, I think it's really hard for those services -- which I rag on but I enjoy them nonetheless -- to have any real way of truly telling you weather your class of 2/3s is better or worse than oregon state's class of 2/3s. Especially since so much has to do with system, a kid's work ethic, attrition due to various factors (grades, discipline, injury, etc.), S&C, etc.

It's interesting if you look at the top 25 from the end of the season and take a look at their recruiting classes since '15 (redshirt seniors this past season):

10. Minnesota -- Best ranking was 38 in 2018. Otherwise in the 40s/50s/60s since 15
16. Utah -- Utah topped out at 33 in 2018 and generally has had pretty solid rankings with the lowest being 45 in 2015.
17. Memphis -- 56th in 2017 is the highest ranking
19. App St -- In the 90s or 100s since 2015
20. Navy -- High-water mark was 91 in 2016
21. Cincy -- Ranked 49th in 2018 and otherwise in the 60s and 70s
22. Air Force -- Ranked worse than 100 every year since '15
23. Boise -- 54th in 2019 was their best class since '15
24. UCF -- Since '15, best class ranking is 55

Folks love to write this stuff off as one-offs, but really? That's 9 teams in the top 25 with a combined zero top 25 classes and only three total classes (Utah two, Minnesota 1) ranked in the top 40 in the past five years.

The bottom line is you need to hope your staff can evaluate, that they have a ton of energy and personality, that they are willing to turn over every rock and then hope that you find enough under-the-radar kids and then, hopefully, you can build off that.

But looking at the random 4-digit composite number from a recruiting site and your general ranking amongst your peers is a pointless exercise -- at least until you start plucking a few kids away from wisconsin or michigan or bigger name schools.
 

FloridaFan

All American
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
5,500
Like
6,307
I think General Joe is a plant by the staff to gauge fan perception of recruiting. If people start to agree with him they know they need to kick it up
 

chugg21

Gritty, High IQ, Scrappy, Gym Rat, Lunch Pail Guy
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,521
Like
5,535
This is always my point with the recruiting services. If we somehow start landing a handful of 4-star kids or more each cycle -- maybe if we establish a pattern of consistent winning for a few years -- that's awesome. Unlikely, IMO, but awesome. We'll all take 4- and 5-star kids.

But what we're going to be signing for the time being is 3-star and 2-star kids and while there are really good prospects and not so good prospects at this level, I think it's really hard for those services -- which I rag on but I enjoy them nonetheless -- to have any real way of truly telling you weather your class of 2/3s is better or worse than oregon state's class of 2/3s. Especially since so much has to do with system, a kid's work ethic, attrition due to various factors (grades, discipline, injury, etc.), S&C, etc.

It's interesting if you look at the top 25 from the end of the season and take a look at their recruiting classes since '15 (redshirt seniors this past season):

10. Minnesota -- Best ranking was 38 in 2018. Otherwise in the 40s/50s/60s since 15
16. Utah -- Utah topped out at 33 in 2018 and generally has had pretty solid rankings with the lowest being 45 in 2015.
17. Memphis -- 56th in 2017 is the highest ranking
19. App St -- In the 90s or 100s since 2015
20. Navy -- High-water mark was 91 in 2016
21. Cincy -- Ranked 49th in 2018 and otherwise in the 60s and 70s
22. Air Force -- Ranked worse than 100 every year since '15
23. Boise -- 54th in 2019 was their best class since '15
24. UCF -- Since '15, best class ranking is 55

Folks love to write this stuff off as one-offs, but really? That's 9 teams in the top 25 with a combined zero top 25 classes and only three total classes (Utah two, Minnesota 1) ranked in the top 40 in the past five years.

The bottom line is you need to hope your staff can evaluate, that they have a ton of energy and personality, that they are willing to turn over every rock and then hope that you find enough under-the-radar kids and then, hopefully, you can build off that.

But looking at the random 4-digit composite number from a recruiting site and your general ranking amongst your peers is a pointless exercise -- at least until you start plucking a few kids away from wisconsin or michigan or bigger name schools.
Counterpoint re: the teams you used. They all outside of Minnesota and sort of Utah play in non-P5 conferences where recruiting at those levels is good enough to be in the upper tier of their conference. None of them would be ranked in the top 25 if they had to play a SEC schedule on a weekly basis.

Minnesota I think we can pretty much point to PJ Fleck's arrival and he may just be a force of nature that elevates everyone around him. Utah is another odd one because they primarily just live off of Mormons and are loaded with Polynesian kids and end up mauling teams on a yearly basis.
 

FloridaFan

All American
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
5,500
Like
6,307
Counterpoint re: the teams you used. They all outside of Minnesota and sort of Utah play in non-P5 conferences where recruiting at those levels is good enough to be in the upper tier of their conference. None of them would be ranked in the top 25 if they had to play a SEC schedule on a weekly basis.

Minnesota I think we can pretty much point to PJ Fleck's arrival and he may just be a force of nature that elevates everyone around him. Utah is another odd one because they primarily just live off of Mormons and are loaded with Polynesian kids and end up mauling teams on a yearly basis.
The Utes actually don’t stock up on tons of Mormons. They typically go to BYU
 

General Joe

2nd String
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
674
Like
422
Even that is a mischaracterization -- we don't look at things opposite, the difference is that you completely disregard any data about recruiting except for stars / offers, while I recognize that at our level, at this stage in the program reconstruction, we need to look deeper. For example -- camp offers matter, irrespective of what their ratings are.

I think / believe that there is a group of posters who took our 2018 season as a sign that we were going to start reeling in 4 and 5 star talent since we'd won 9 games. That has never really been the case, even when things were going gangbusters in the glory days of the late 80s / 90s. Which is why I pay attention to several posters here who can peel the onion back a little bit and dig a little bit deeper about the quality of any individual recruit we land. There are objective benchmarks [ratings] and subjective [offers, stars] factors -- and BOTH are relevant, not just one set of data.
So having said that in your opinion has the recruiting been good, below avg or bad?
 

billsin01

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,753
Like
5,706
Counterpoint re: the teams you used. They all outside of Minnesota and sort of Utah play in non-P5 conferences where recruiting at those levels is good enough to be in the upper tier of their conference. None of them would be ranked in the top 25 if they had to play a SEC schedule on a weekly basis.

Minnesota I think we can pretty much point to PJ Fleck's arrival and he may just be a force of nature that elevates everyone around him. Utah is another odd one because they primarily just live off of Mormons and are loaded with Polynesian kids and end up mauling teams on a yearly basis.
So I don't disagree with these points by and large (though anytime I've pointed out any team over the years posters tend to point out how they're an exception). But generally I agree with you.

My larger point is this -- all of those teams were better than us by a fairly wide margin yet you'd never know it from recruiting rankings. With essentially the same recruiting rankings/talent level, we had a 10-win season in 18 and a season where we not only dropped to 4 wins, but had just two legitimate wins and some absolutely horrifyingly bad losses -- umd in particular.

Lastly -- there are also a ton of teams who have shown up regularly in the top 10 or 25 class rankings and then fallen as a program. USC is a great example of this -- almost always top 10 in talent, but really struggling on the field of late. Notre Dame was that way in the Ty Willingham era -- not falling out of the top 25 until it was clear that ND was a middle of the road team at best on the field.

So, at the end of the day, no matter what your rankings I think two things are true:

1) You need coaches who identify talent that has an upside and then put that talent in an S&C environment and offensive/defensive system to help them max out. Obviously this is much less important for the Bamas, Clemsons, Gerogias, Ohio States, etc., but it still matters.

2) Your rankings will get better after you start winning games consistently. If fleck stays at Minny and they put together another good season -- I guarantee you we see them in the top 25 recruiting classes. If USC can't get their act together and is losing games, we'll see it reflected in their rankings. But the rankings NEVER change first.
 

General Joe

2nd String
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
674
Like
422
Counterpoint re: the teams you used. They all outside of Minnesota and sort of Utah play in non-P5 conferences where recruiting at those levels is good enough to be in the upper tier of their conference. None of them would be ranked in the top 25 if they had to play a SEC schedule on a weekly basis.

Minnesota I think we can pretty much point to PJ Fleck's arrival and he may just be a force of nature that elevates everyone around him. Utah is another odd one because they primarily just live off of Mormons and are loaded with Polynesian kids and end up mauling teams on a yearly basis.
I agree. If we were in the AAC our MAC our current level of recruiting would be great compared to the other teams in our conference. We would win 8 to 9 games every year and be ranked and go to bowl games every single year blah blah blah. Its kinda like taking the worst MLB team and putting them in triple A. They would be a top 3 team every year if not the perennial champ.

But we are in the ACC and Power5 aka Major Leagues not Triple A. Every single year under HCDB we have been 9 or worse in ACC recruiting based on the dreaded rating services. I dont need or expect a bunch of 4 or 5 star recruits. But I do expect our recruiting classes to be made up of more recruits with 5 or more P5 offers than those with 1 or less. The ratio of the two shouldn't even be close. That would be a start for us to

It would seem regardless of how many stars, camp visits or great highlights a kid has, a really good barometer would be how many other P5 offers a kid has. So as a bare minimum I would expect a top half ACC team to recruit more players with multiple other P5 offers than players with only 1 P5 offer. In our case the ratio of committed players with 5+ P5 offers vs those with 2 or less is not good. Again not 100% metric. But if you just think about it. We are bound to perform better if we have players that 10% of the top teams in college want instead of players that just Syracuse wants.
 
Last edited:

billsin01

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,753
Like
5,706
So having said that in your opinion has the recruiting been good, below avg or bad?
Relative to the past 20 years? Probably average. Maybe even above average. Seriously, we haven't recruited *well* since the late-ish 90s. That speaks to far more than jettisoning the current staff and bringing in another one.
 

billsin01

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,753
Like
5,706
I agree. If we were in the AAC our MAC our recruiting would be great. We would win 8 to 9 games every year and be ranked and go to bowl games blah blah blah.

But we are in the ACC and every single year we have been 9 or worse in recruiting under HCDB. I dont neccesarily need or expect a bunch of 4 or 5 star recruits. But its not acceptable to consistently be lowest 3 or 4 in our conference AND the entire P5.
Let's try this a different way -- explain to me how these sites scientifically and objectively rank the 3,000 or so prospects nationwide each year?

Edit: and for the record, each of those teams was better than us. OK, we played a tougher schedule, we also lost to just about everyone on it.
 
Last edited:

General Joe

2nd String
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
674
Like
422
Let's try this a different way -- explain to me how these sites scientifically and objectively rank the 3,000 or so prospects nationwide each year?

Edit: and for the record, each of those teams was better than us. OK, we played a tougher schedule, we also lost to just about everyone on it.

For Arguments sake lets just agree that "we lost to just about everyone on it (our schedule)". I feel the reason is our recruting the prior three years under HCDB. What do you think is the reason?

BTW our schedule wasn't tough
UMD 3-9was a mess and won 3 games only vs the 3worst teams on its schedule put 69 on us
BC 6-7 humiliated us and they were a mess. Ask Adazio if you dont believe me. A backup rb went for 172 BUT after Dillon went for 242. 496yds rushing vs us. The most humiliating football game I have ever attended
NCST 4-8 and 1 win in ACC. 1 guess who that team was
FLST 6-7 was a mess with cupcake schedule including Alabama ST UL Monroe only win vs a P5 team above .500 was Lousiville
LOUISVILLE scored 49 points in 3 quarters then ran out the clock literally with 370yds rushing

The Players we put on the field didnt measure up. The coaching wasn't good either. But thats a different argument for a different forum
 

chugg21

Gritty, High IQ, Scrappy, Gym Rat, Lunch Pail Guy
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,521
Like
5,535
Let's try this a different way -- explain to me how these sites scientifically and objectively rank the 3,000 or so prospects nationwide each year?

Edit: and for the record, each of those teams was better than us. OK, we played a tougher schedule, we also lost to just about everyone on it.
I actually took some time last year and went through to see how they were doing it because people were using our average recruit rating to say that we were definitely getting better players than we were previously despite our class rankings remaining pretty stagnant.

Turned out that the only thing that was happening was that they were ranking more and more kids with each passing year and giving most of them 3 stars. The amount of 3 stars had gone up tremendously and was therefore pushing up the average recruits rating and since we fish only in the 2 and 3 star ponds, that had made it appear that we were having a big uptick in the caliber of recruits despite our class ranking and wins not moving up accordingly.
 

Sudano

Starter
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,473
Like
1,647
This is always my point with the recruiting services. If we somehow start landing a handful of 4-star kids or more each cycle -- maybe if we establish a pattern of consistent winning for a few years -- that's awesome. Unlikely, IMO, but awesome. We'll all take 4- and 5-star kids.

But what we're going to be signing for the time being is 3-star and 2-star kids and while there are really good prospects and not so good prospects at this level, I think it's really hard for those services -- which I rag on but I enjoy them nonetheless -- to have any real way of truly telling you weather your class of 2/3s is better or worse than oregon state's class of 2/3s. Especially since so much has to do with system, a kid's work ethic, attrition due to various factors (grades, discipline, injury, etc.), S&C, etc.

It's interesting if you look at the top 25 from the end of the season and take a look at their recruiting classes since '15 (redshirt seniors this past season):

10. Minnesota -- Best ranking was 38 in 2018. Otherwise in the 40s/50s/60s since 15
16. Utah -- Utah topped out at 33 in 2018 and generally has had pretty solid rankings with the lowest being 45 in 2015.
17. Memphis -- 56th in 2017 is the highest ranking
19. App St -- In the 90s or 100s since 2015
20. Navy -- High-water mark was 91 in 2016
21. Cincy -- Ranked 49th in 2018 and otherwise in the 60s and 70s
22. Air Force -- Ranked worse than 100 every year since '15
23. Boise -- 54th in 2019 was their best class since '15
24. UCF -- Since '15, best class ranking is 55

Folks love to write this stuff off as one-offs, but really? That's 9 teams in the top 25 with a combined zero top 25 classes and only three total classes (Utah two, Minnesota 1) ranked in the top 40 in the past five years.

The bottom line is you need to hope your staff can evaluate, that they have a ton of energy and personality, that they are willing to turn over every rock and then hope that you find enough under-the-radar kids and then, hopefully, you can build off that.

But looking at the random 4-digit composite number from a recruiting site and your general ranking amongst your peers is a pointless exercise -- at least until you start plucking a few kids away from wisconsin or michigan or bigger name schools.
The error your making is not considering their recruiting to whom they are competing with for those wins to be rated so highly. Only 2 of those teams are P5 teams. App St is not in the ACC, Memphis is not in the SEC.
SU is in the ACC and are competing on the field for wins vs those level teams. Not Western Carolina or Radford. They are recruiting very well for their competition scheduling and thus Top 25. We are recruiting better than them but aren't playing their schedule hence why we need to compare how we're doing to the ACC not the Mountain West or Sunbelt etc.
 

Online statistics

Members online
18
Guests online
462
Total visitors
480

Top Bottom