Don't get me wrong, I want as highly ranked of a class as possible, but VaTech almost won it all without a top25 class.
The key is to get guys with the right attitude that will stay in school vs. just athletes (see: Marcus Mosely, Odell James).
<A HREF="http://www.sptimes.com/News/012800/Sports/Recruiting_a_hitmiss_.shtml" TARGET=_blank>http://www.sptimes.com/News/012800/Sports/Recruiting_a_hitmiss_.shtml</A>
Nice article on why the ranking of recruits may not matter as much as you think
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Nice article on why the ranking of recruits may not matter as much as you think
by GoRedGoBlue » Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:27 am
- GoRedGoBlue
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: dallas,tx,usa
Re: Nice article on why the ranking of recruits may not matter as much as you think
by GoRedGoBlue » Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:43 pm
Well, no one read this...
Recruiting a hit/miss proposition
High school statistics and signing-day grades are no guarantee of NCAA championships.
By PETE YOUNG
© St. Petersburg Times, published January 28, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1 Florida State and No. 2 Notre Dame battled valiantly, but the Seminoles were too tough. They defeated the Fighting Irish in the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 4, 2000, for their second national championship.
For weeks prior to before the game, many argued that two other teams, either Penn State or Southern California, deserved Notre Dame's spot in the title game. The Fighting Irish earned it, however, based on their consensus No. 1 recruiting class in 1995 backed up by top-10 classes in 1996 and 1997 ...
That's the way things might have been if a great recruiting class foreshadowed a great football team. Of course, it actually was Virginia Tech that challenged Florida State for the national title, losing 46-29 in the Sugar Bowl, and no one was arguing that Penn State or USC deserved to be there instead.
A look at the recruiting classes from 1995, '96 and '97, when the third- , fourth- and fifth-year players who formed the majority of the two-deep lineups in college football this season were recruited, reveals that Notre Dame, Penn State, USC and several others would have been considered far more likely than Virginia Tech to achieve such success.
How much more likely? According to recruiting analyst Bobby Burton, Virginia Tech had the 26th-best recruiting class of 1997 and the 38th-best of 1996. In 1995, Burton ranked just the top 25; the Hokies weren't on the list.
"I probably should have had them rated higher than that," Burton said this week as he reviewed Tech's class of '96, which included standout running back Shyrone Stith and star defensive back Ike Charlton.
By comparison, Florida State was rated No. 2 in 1995, No. 3 in '96 and No. 1 in '97. Penn State, a contender for the national title after a 9-0 start before losing its last three games of the regular season, was rated No. 4 in '95 and '96. USC, which went 6-6 this season, was rated No. 8 in '95 and No. 2 in '96.
Obviously, often there isn't a correlation between success in recruiting and success on the field, and there are infinite reasons why. Among them:
Recruits not qualifying academically/never enrolling; injuries; lack of continued dedication to football; transferring; getting kicked off the team/quitting; turning pro/declaring for the NFL draft; poor team chemistry/ineffective coaching; choosing to play another sport; coaching staff upheaval; the inexactness of the process of evaluating recruits; and misfortune.
How do schools such as Virginia Tech or Kansas State, which was ranked No. 6 in the final AP poll this season but didn't sniff the top 10 in recruiting from 1995-97, overcome the supposed talent differential? By minimizing the aforementioned problems, and also by culling talent from what Burton calls "non-traditional" sources.
"They get many of their kids via prep school, via (junior college)," Burton said. "They do a better job recruiting in those areas and they seem to find kids who really want to play."
Dan Mitchell, a writer for the Osceola, a magazine that covers Florida State, said the Seminoles are reeling in not only the most talented players, but those who thrive on competition.
"They recruit not just because a kid's an All-American, but because they see something in him they like," Mitchell said. "They have to have a great work ethic and not mind competing with other great players."
On Sept. 11, 1999, Baylor made the bonehead decision of the year. On the final play of the game, with a 24-21 lead and the ball near the UNLV goal line, the Bears tried to score a touchdown. The running back fumbled. A UNLV defender returned it for the winning score.
It was symbolic of Baylor's season, as the Bears went 1-10. Which probably isn't how the faithful in Waco, Texas, envisioned the future when Baylor had the nation's No. 10 recruiting class in 1996.
A lot can happen from signing day until a recruiting class finishes its five-year cycle.
Auburn had a consensus No. 3 recruiting class in 1995. Coach Terry Bowden had gone 20-1-1 the two previous seasons. Auburn's future looked as rosy as Bowden's cheeks.
Today, Bowden is a television analyst. From 1995-97, Auburn was a solid 26-11, but in 1998, with his team foundering at 1-5, Bowden resigned. The promise of the recruiting class of 1995 was unfulfilled.
Even the most successful schools sometimes miss the mark with recruits.
Do you know the names Khalid Abdullah, Jeremy Brett, Marcus Bullock, Billy Brown and Richard Brown? Probably not. But if you looked at an alphabetical list of Florida State's signees on signing day 1995, from that stellar, consensus No. 2-rated class, those are the first five players.
Of course, that class also includes major contributors to the Seminoles' success, players such as Theon Rackley, Jerry Johnson, Ron Dugans, Sean Key, Jason Whitaker and Peter Warrick. Also, Corey Simon, who originally signed with Georgia in 1995, was one of the nation's top defensive lineman for FSU this season.
"You rate the kids and the classes based on their ability and potential," Burton said. "But so much else is factored in along the way. It's a projection, but you just can't see into the future. So much can happen."
What do the recruiting gurus have to say about the next few years? It looks like more tomahawk chopping: Florida State had the consensus No. 1 class in 1997, No. 5 in 1998.
So what became of Notre Dame this season, when the No. 1 recruiting class of 1995 should have been reaching maturation? The Fighting Irish went 5-7, losing their last four games.
But at least they had a 25-24 win over USC.
Recruiting a hit/miss proposition
High school statistics and signing-day grades are no guarantee of NCAA championships.
By PETE YOUNG
© St. Petersburg Times, published January 28, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1 Florida State and No. 2 Notre Dame battled valiantly, but the Seminoles were too tough. They defeated the Fighting Irish in the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 4, 2000, for their second national championship.
For weeks prior to before the game, many argued that two other teams, either Penn State or Southern California, deserved Notre Dame's spot in the title game. The Fighting Irish earned it, however, based on their consensus No. 1 recruiting class in 1995 backed up by top-10 classes in 1996 and 1997 ...
That's the way things might have been if a great recruiting class foreshadowed a great football team. Of course, it actually was Virginia Tech that challenged Florida State for the national title, losing 46-29 in the Sugar Bowl, and no one was arguing that Penn State or USC deserved to be there instead.
A look at the recruiting classes from 1995, '96 and '97, when the third- , fourth- and fifth-year players who formed the majority of the two-deep lineups in college football this season were recruited, reveals that Notre Dame, Penn State, USC and several others would have been considered far more likely than Virginia Tech to achieve such success.
How much more likely? According to recruiting analyst Bobby Burton, Virginia Tech had the 26th-best recruiting class of 1997 and the 38th-best of 1996. In 1995, Burton ranked just the top 25; the Hokies weren't on the list.
"I probably should have had them rated higher than that," Burton said this week as he reviewed Tech's class of '96, which included standout running back Shyrone Stith and star defensive back Ike Charlton.
By comparison, Florida State was rated No. 2 in 1995, No. 3 in '96 and No. 1 in '97. Penn State, a contender for the national title after a 9-0 start before losing its last three games of the regular season, was rated No. 4 in '95 and '96. USC, which went 6-6 this season, was rated No. 8 in '95 and No. 2 in '96.
Obviously, often there isn't a correlation between success in recruiting and success on the field, and there are infinite reasons why. Among them:
Recruits not qualifying academically/never enrolling; injuries; lack of continued dedication to football; transferring; getting kicked off the team/quitting; turning pro/declaring for the NFL draft; poor team chemistry/ineffective coaching; choosing to play another sport; coaching staff upheaval; the inexactness of the process of evaluating recruits; and misfortune.
How do schools such as Virginia Tech or Kansas State, which was ranked No. 6 in the final AP poll this season but didn't sniff the top 10 in recruiting from 1995-97, overcome the supposed talent differential? By minimizing the aforementioned problems, and also by culling talent from what Burton calls "non-traditional" sources.
"They get many of their kids via prep school, via (junior college)," Burton said. "They do a better job recruiting in those areas and they seem to find kids who really want to play."
Dan Mitchell, a writer for the Osceola, a magazine that covers Florida State, said the Seminoles are reeling in not only the most talented players, but those who thrive on competition.
"They recruit not just because a kid's an All-American, but because they see something in him they like," Mitchell said. "They have to have a great work ethic and not mind competing with other great players."
On Sept. 11, 1999, Baylor made the bonehead decision of the year. On the final play of the game, with a 24-21 lead and the ball near the UNLV goal line, the Bears tried to score a touchdown. The running back fumbled. A UNLV defender returned it for the winning score.
It was symbolic of Baylor's season, as the Bears went 1-10. Which probably isn't how the faithful in Waco, Texas, envisioned the future when Baylor had the nation's No. 10 recruiting class in 1996.
A lot can happen from signing day until a recruiting class finishes its five-year cycle.
Auburn had a consensus No. 3 recruiting class in 1995. Coach Terry Bowden had gone 20-1-1 the two previous seasons. Auburn's future looked as rosy as Bowden's cheeks.
Today, Bowden is a television analyst. From 1995-97, Auburn was a solid 26-11, but in 1998, with his team foundering at 1-5, Bowden resigned. The promise of the recruiting class of 1995 was unfulfilled.
Even the most successful schools sometimes miss the mark with recruits.
Do you know the names Khalid Abdullah, Jeremy Brett, Marcus Bullock, Billy Brown and Richard Brown? Probably not. But if you looked at an alphabetical list of Florida State's signees on signing day 1995, from that stellar, consensus No. 2-rated class, those are the first five players.
Of course, that class also includes major contributors to the Seminoles' success, players such as Theon Rackley, Jerry Johnson, Ron Dugans, Sean Key, Jason Whitaker and Peter Warrick. Also, Corey Simon, who originally signed with Georgia in 1995, was one of the nation's top defensive lineman for FSU this season.
"You rate the kids and the classes based on their ability and potential," Burton said. "But so much else is factored in along the way. It's a projection, but you just can't see into the future. So much can happen."
What do the recruiting gurus have to say about the next few years? It looks like more tomahawk chopping: Florida State had the consensus No. 1 class in 1997, No. 5 in 1998.
So what became of Notre Dame this season, when the No. 1 recruiting class of 1995 should have been reaching maturation? The Fighting Irish went 5-7, losing their last four games.
But at least they had a 25-24 win over USC.
- GoRedGoBlue
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: dallas,tx,usa
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest