jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
11/26/2010, 01:18 PM
i used to follow recruiting a lot closer than i do now. but based on some of the things that i've seen over the last couple of years, here are a couple of the points that i think are important when we look back at classes.
1. is the recruiting pool up or down
2. are the best athletes in high school the best athletes in college
3. are the best football players in high school the best athletes in college
my case study has been the state of texas, which we recruit heavily. it typically puts about 300 football players into D1 every year.
if all 3 of these are true, the program that benefits the most is UT. the second tier below that is OU and aTm, heavily dependent on record. then everyone else falls into some constantly changing pecking order to grab up the rest.
is the recruiting pool up or down
if it is up, more teams that recruit texas heavily will tend to be ranked. this is because the number of players that can be taken from the top teams is a fairly constant number.
if it is meh, only the name teams will be ranked
if it is down, only the top teams will be ranked
are the best athletes in high school the best athletes in college
basically, what this alludes to is that 6'1 190 lb burner becoming a 6'1 220 lb tweener at the college level. its also that 5'8 no name 2* becoming a burner at the college level and making all-american.
a good way to think about this is the receiver class of 2000. BJ johnson #1, roy williams #2, sloan thomas #3, devaughn darling #4, vontez duff #5, will peoples #9, devard darling #10, some guy for aTm #14, mark clayton #20.
when they got to college it was Roy Williams #1, mark clayton #2, guy for aTm #3, the darlings, will peoples, bj johnson, sloan thomas, vontez duff.
are the best football players in high school the best athletes in college
this is a little different from above, these are guys who just know how to play the game. think about adding a wes welker to the above list and where he would have ranked according ot the gurus (last) and then think about that list in terms of knowing how to play the game. welker would lead that list, but be middle of the pack athletically.
so what does this mean?
basically, each class will fall onto some spectrum of the above 3 (there is probably a 4th called grades). each school has a certain amount of risk depending on the values of all 3 conditions, but they are inversely related. this means that TCU (bottom of pecking order) is hurt by the pool being down (less players to trickle down to them), but is helped by 2 and 3 being negative. contrary to this, texas isn't effected by #1 at all, but heavily effected by either 2 or 3 being negative.
obviously this is the swing we are in right now. you need no further evidence than what is going on at texas vs TCU, aTm, pokey state (and to a lesser extent us).
so now you begin to see why the coaches went outside the state of texas last year. the players they brought in were by and large better than the texas players in front of them.
1. is the recruiting pool up or down
2. are the best athletes in high school the best athletes in college
3. are the best football players in high school the best athletes in college
my case study has been the state of texas, which we recruit heavily. it typically puts about 300 football players into D1 every year.
if all 3 of these are true, the program that benefits the most is UT. the second tier below that is OU and aTm, heavily dependent on record. then everyone else falls into some constantly changing pecking order to grab up the rest.
is the recruiting pool up or down
if it is up, more teams that recruit texas heavily will tend to be ranked. this is because the number of players that can be taken from the top teams is a fairly constant number.
if it is meh, only the name teams will be ranked
if it is down, only the top teams will be ranked
are the best athletes in high school the best athletes in college
basically, what this alludes to is that 6'1 190 lb burner becoming a 6'1 220 lb tweener at the college level. its also that 5'8 no name 2* becoming a burner at the college level and making all-american.
a good way to think about this is the receiver class of 2000. BJ johnson #1, roy williams #2, sloan thomas #3, devaughn darling #4, vontez duff #5, will peoples #9, devard darling #10, some guy for aTm #14, mark clayton #20.
when they got to college it was Roy Williams #1, mark clayton #2, guy for aTm #3, the darlings, will peoples, bj johnson, sloan thomas, vontez duff.
are the best football players in high school the best athletes in college
this is a little different from above, these are guys who just know how to play the game. think about adding a wes welker to the above list and where he would have ranked according ot the gurus (last) and then think about that list in terms of knowing how to play the game. welker would lead that list, but be middle of the pack athletically.
so what does this mean?
basically, each class will fall onto some spectrum of the above 3 (there is probably a 4th called grades). each school has a certain amount of risk depending on the values of all 3 conditions, but they are inversely related. this means that TCU (bottom of pecking order) is hurt by the pool being down (less players to trickle down to them), but is helped by 2 and 3 being negative. contrary to this, texas isn't effected by #1 at all, but heavily effected by either 2 or 3 being negative.
obviously this is the swing we are in right now. you need no further evidence than what is going on at texas vs TCU, aTm, pokey state (and to a lesser extent us).
so now you begin to see why the coaches went outside the state of texas last year. the players they brought in were by and large better than the texas players in front of them.