We overvalue recruiting way too much

[Highlander]

It's an interesting argument since I do not think CU fans have truly great recruiting up close and personal, probably in about two decades.

Why pick the exception to the rule every time? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Slick's second to last year would have been 1997 (15 years ago) and even his classes were talented but unbalanced.

I hate that this discussion continually pops up every year. It's retarded people, retarded.

Always exceptions, but statistically speaking the star system has proven to be generally accurate - agreed.

Unfortunately - you cannot immediately change the talent on your team. It takes quite a bit of time in football to change the talent. Coaching must therefore adapt and bring out the best in the players on the team.

You can sum up a bunch of our struggles to the refusal to coach to the talent's strengths.

Whoever said, "recruit to the system" is 100% right, in my opinion. That's the secret, at least on the offensive side of the ball.

We will be lucky to recruit any additional significant talent to this year's class, given the on field performance. I'm just crossing my fingers we don't lose what we already have committed.

 

[JWP303]

Whoever said, "recruit to the system" is 100% right, in my opinion. That's the secret, at least on the offensive side of the ball.

This is the #1 reason why we have to hire an experienced coach next. All the talent in the world makes no difference if our coaching staff has no idea how to harness it.

 

[BuffClass90]

When it comes to the impact of coaching, Iowa State is illustrative. They sucked with Chizik, but in Rhoades first year they won their bowl game. UCLA, ASU, AZ are all doing better with new coaches in the first year.

Embree et al must go and the admin must take a crow bar to their frickin' wallets and pay top dollar for a great coaching staff.

 

[DBT]

:wtf:

I know, right? Hard to believe anyone could be smarter than Vince Young.

 

[BlackNGold]

Surprisingly UO hardly ever has a top 10 recruiting class. IMO they're one of the examples as to why a recruit's "stars" are a bit overrated. Kelly recruits for his system and since he gets the leftovers from SO Cal he has to make the best of them. I agree the recruiting "services"(rivals, 24/7, etc.) are way overvalued/hyped, but getting good kids(recruiting) to come to your school is NOT overrated IMO.

This is one of the biggest myths out there. Oregon has been recruiting lights out for awhile. With Knights money they have improved their facilities and are attracting recruits nationwide. They have had a top 15 class 4 out of the last 5 years. They are not taking leftovers from So Cal...they are taking 4 star players from TX, OH, AZ, HI, and CO.

 

[Walter White]

This is one of the biggest myths out there. Oregon has been recruiting lights out for awhile. With Knights money they have improved their facilities and are attracting recruits nationwide. They have had a top 15 class 4 out of the last 5 years. They are not taking leftovers from So Cal...they are taking 4 star players from TX, OH, AZ, HI, and CO.

They're also taking a differnt types of players, guys who fit the Oregon system that other schools, say SC, might not value as highly. Look at Oregon's quarterbacks; SC doesn't want those guys because they dont' fit SC's pro-style offense. Oregon's quarterbacks are really talented, but I doubt they would flourish in the type of offense SC is running.

 

[77buff]

Don't forget in Mac's gravy years at CU in the early 90's, he had top recruiting classes. It wasn't all "Mac Magic". He had some serious, big time, blue chip studs.

 

[Buffnik]

They're also taking a differnt types of players, guys who fit the Oregon system that other schools, say SC, might not value as highly. Look at Oregon's quarterbacks; SC doesn't want those guys because they dont' fit SC's pro-style offense. Oregon's quarterbacks are really talented, but I doubt they would flourish in the type of offense SC is running.

Marcus Mariota is a great example. AllBuffs paid about zero attention when Oregon offered. AB Recruit Profile

 

[MtnBuff]

Chip Kelly may not recruit top 10 according to the services, KjSU as well. That doesn't say that they don't recruit well, instead they recruit guys who are excellent players for their particular systems. Both Kelly and Snyder recruit guys who have speed and have certain skills that fit into their particular systems.

The current Buffs roster would not win big regardless of who the coach is or the system being run. On the other hand I have no doubt that with the right coach they would be much better. This team should have 4 wins right now. A coach would not make this an 8-9 win team but a quality coach could get us to 5-6 this year.

I could also almost guarantee that our recruiting for next year would be way better with 4 wins instead of 1.

 

[Duff Man]

Oregon values speed. Most teams pay it lip service, but they actually do it.

 

[Buffnik]

Oregon values speed. Most teams pay it lip service, but they actually do it.

Miami's 5 national titles in 19 seasons sort of suggests that it's good to have a speed advantage. I'm still waiting for more evidence before I suggest that CU put a premium on recruiting speed, though.

 

[Walter White]

Marcus Mariota is a great example. AllBuffs paid about zero attention when Oregon offered. AB Recruit Profile

Bingo.

I believe there is a very deep well of talent out there if you know what to look for. I would call these guys "tweeners", the types of players who can dominate the college game, but might not get a look at the NFL because they don't fit the Prototype. The smart coaches exploit this.

 

[Duff Man]

Miami's 5 national titles in 19 seasons sort of suggests that it's good to have a speed advantage. I'm still waiting for more evidence before I suggest that CU put a premium on recruiting speed, though.

Heh. Oregon's team speed on defense is what has taken them to the next level.

 

[Walter White]

Bingo.

I believe there is a very deep well of talent out there if you know what to look for. I would call these guys "tweeners", the types of players who can dominate the college game, but might not get a look at the NFL because they don't fit the Prototype. The smart coaches exploit this.

This is not new. Look at someone like Darian Hagan.

 

[Walter White]

If I were in charge i would go out and recruit three athletic, running quarterbacks. Build the offense around those guys. Ask any DC what they hate the most and they always comment on how hard it is to account for a running QB. I don't know crap about football, but it makes a lot of sense to me, just as a fan. It's almost like taking a player away from the defense, in a way.

 

[TDbuff]

Bingo.

I believe there is a very deep well of talent out there if you know what to look for. I would call these guys "tweeners", the types of players who can dominate the college game, but might not get a look at the NFL because they don't fit the Prototype. The smart coaches exploit this.

Kenjon Barner's another one. A 5-10(maybe) 170, 3 star RB with 2 other offers(ASU,UTEP) out of high school. At Oregon he's a star, not sure he'd fit in many offenses, probably be recruited for special teams and db.

And this guy wasn't an underrecruited tweener by any means, but I wonder what D'Anthony Thomas would look at USC if he would've stuck with them? He'd probably still be doing pretty well, but he'd probably be reduced to special teams and bubble screens in their offense.

 

[o_robbie]

Kenjon Barner's another one. A 5-10(maybe) 170, 3 star RB with 2 other offers(ASU,UTEP) out of high school. At Oregon he's a star, not sure he'd fit in many offenses, probably be recruited for special teams and db.

And this guy wasn't an underrecruited tweener by any means, but I wonder what D'Anthony Thomas would look at USC if he would've stuck with them? He'd probably still be doing pretty well, but he'd probably be reduced to special teams and bubble screens in their offense.

I think USC wanted Thomas as a DB and that is why he went to Oregon instead.

 

[TDbuff]

I think USC wanted Thomas as a DB and that is why he went to Oregon instead.

That was the rumor, and makes sense, USC's always refuted it though.

 

[MtnBuff]

Kelly has proven he can recruit. He and his staff have a system that works. They then identify talent that fits their system and close them.

A lot of the guys they get are reasonably highly rated by the services, some are not as highly rated but the point is they aren't taking scaps, they're getting the guys they want, and it shows on the field.

 

[Bama Charlie]

I remember when the 'recruiting is overrated' threads when UA had Shula bringing in Top Twenty classes and going 7-5 every year. Last year UA had 4 drafted in the first round-2 4 stars and 2 5 stars. If you post 'diamond in the rough' you have an agenda or are clueless.

 

[BuffaloChuck]

"Value of Recruiting RANKING" is certainly the most doubtful issue.

But some coaching staffs know how to teach skills, and how to recruit teachable players. That's a big difference. Snyder's hired so many excellent teachers on his staff that also have excellent appraisal-of-talent abilities, too.

College Football is still mostly about teaching good skill-sets, and knowing how to utilize what skills the players offer. Some coaches know this, and other coaches get to sit on couches for four or five years with tons of blind fan supports.

 

[o_robbie]

Another thing about K.State is they hit the lotto with Klein. He is playing like a 5 star dual threat QB recruit. Once he is gone I am sure they will remain competitive in the Big 12 but I don't think they will be a Top 15 program.

CU has yet to hit the lotto with any of there young guys. No one is jumping off the board to me as a guy who has played better than their rating. I do believe that comes down to coaching them up but there is certainly a luck factor that CU hasn't been able to have either.

Jimmy Smith is the last guy I can think of in our program who has played above his star rating.

Another thing with recruiting is the big boys are bringing in way more 4 star recruits than we have. That gives them more margin for error with the superior athletes and development guys. We have mostly whiffed with all of our 4 star and higher recruits for the past decade which means we need to develop more of the 2 star guys and fringe 3 star guys. We have been equally as poor as this.

So yeah recruiting is really important here at CU and becomes even more important when we can't coach up the guys with less athletic ability.

 

[Buffnik]

I remember when the 'recruiting is overrated' threads when UA had Shula bringing in Top Twenty classes and going 7-5 every year. Last year UA had 4 drafted in the first round-2 4 stars and 2 5 stars. If you post 'diamond in the rough' you have an agenda or are clueless.

Once you're outside the Top 20 team rankings for recruiting, the star and positional rankings start to become a lot less meaningful. At the top, it's pretty clear who those best 200-250 players are every year. As you go deeper, things get muddled. I'd always rather have 4* recruits than 3*. I'll always be that much more excited for a 5*. But with 3* prospects I don't trust the recruiting services.

 

[DenverBuff77]

"Value of Recruiting RANKING" is certainly the most doubtful issue.

But some coaching staffs know how to teach skills, and how to recruit teachable players. That's a big difference. Snyder's hired so many excellent teachers on his staff that also have excellent appraisal-of-talent abilities, too.

College Football is still mostly about teaching good skill-sets, and knowing how to utilize what skills the players offer. Some coaches know this, and other coaches get to sit on couches for four or five years with tons of blind fan supports.

Agreed. K-State is coached to protect the ball(only team this year without any pts off turnovers given up) and play smart football. He emphasizes the fundamentals. I was really hoping we hired Mac back because even though he had been out of FB for 20 years I believe his style would still work perfectly today. No way we're a 1 win team today with him.

Football is the one sport where coaching matters almost as much as the players(CFB it's even, Pros talent has a slight edge). Getting good talent is important, but unlike basketball where a marginal coach like Spoelstra can win a championship on talent alone or in baseball where a manager can outsmart the other guy with lesser talent(small ball teams), football requires a healthy balance of a good coach and good players. Right now CU has below average talent and horrible coaching. We were really lucky to win at WSU and should be a zero win team.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

So who wants to have a new Sisyphean argument about recruiting? I figure it's offseason, so why not take another look at one of everyone's favorite topics: the value of star-ratings.

I found some stats that I am sure have been posted at some point in the past year regarding players drafted in the first round over the last five years.

Summary 2008-2012 first rounders by star rating (159 picks)

• 26 2-stars (16.4 percent)
• 40 3-stars (25.3 percent)
• 63 4-stars (39.6 percent)
• 27 5-stars (17 percent)
• Three players were unranked (1.9 percent)
• Forty-three percent of the players selected were underrated as either a zero, two or three-star player.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2013/recruiting-rankings-nfl-draft/


Summary of the 2013 draft by star rating
http://blogs.clarionledger.com/recr...-did-the-players-rank-in-recruiting-rankings/
Five-star: 5
Four-star: 13
Three-star: 10
Two-star: 2
Unranked: 2

This recent article was pretty poignent and the most comprehensive. It has some great stats (SIAP): http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21641769

Here are totals for players signed by FCS schools. (FWIW, I would definitely prefer to see stats from the BCS conferences only, but this is what I got.)

Obviously 5* tends to live up to their ranking and the four stars also keep up a pretty good rate. The drop off is pretty dramatic there. for 3*s representing such a large chunk of athletes it is much more rare for them to play at the same level as the others.

Rather than look at first round draft picks we might prefer to look at the highest performing college players, the all americans. Here are those odds:

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by Recruiting Ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.
All FBS Signees: 1 in 45.

This isn't anything new, I suppose. but it offers some perspective. Mostly that when you point out a 2 or 3 star player say he should be ranked better the odds you are correct aren't great, and trying to thrive on diamonds in the rough means you better be a soothsayer. Just looking at the past year's first round, the lower ranked players also tended to come from the top tier programs, thus the rankers missed something those schools saw. So offer list is the next clear indicator of an underrated player (stating the obvious.)

Finally, the head-to-head winning percentages by teams overall given a star ranking by that article is also really interesting. It shows that even though we may be able to get that random win against the high ranking programs, the long term success rates don't really work out.

It is a pessimistic view, but until we can actually recruit the 4s and 5s I feel like all we can hope for is the chance for a bowl game (which we'd sadly beg for right now.) A couple stand outs from 3/2 stars is possible, but we won't build a champ out of them.

 

[Burrito]

My brother's bar.

Semper Gumby

 

[Buffnik]

Thanks for posting, Timmy.

I don't know why this topic gets so much argument.

All the people who defend the star rankings are saying is: the best high school talents are more likely to become the best college talents and are also more likely to make it to the NFL -- therefore, if you sign more of the best high school talent you are more likely to have a more talented college team that wins more games.

Exceptions do not disprove the generalization and you can't plan on being an exception. The only fans who argue that recruit rankings don't matter are fans of teams who don't do well in recruit rankings.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

Yeah, and there are the optimists that want to look at every player as the exception, but creates great discussion but is generally a futile belief. The long end short is just that until we can recruit we shouldn't get too excited. :huh:

 

[Buffnik]

Yeah, and there are the optimists that want to look at every player as the exception, but creates great discussion but is generally a futile belief. The long end short is just that until we can recruit we shouldn't get too excited. :huh:

I think the one place where you can find real exceptions is with guys who don't get recruited until they blow up their senior year. The star rankings are really based on what you did as a junior. So are all the offers we're seeing right now. So guys like Rodney Stewart and Josh Tupou end up as 2* prospects but the senior film says that there's no way in hell those aren't high 3* guys. I've talked to Adam about this and he agrees. In fact, he has said that he thinks it would make a lot of sense, for this reason, for a program like CU that is forced to look for hidden gems to focus a lot of its recruiting efforts on the late developers who bust out their senior year. A lot of colleges are filled up at that point and it would give the Buffs an opportunity to punch above our weight in recruiting by signing a third to half the class from among those guys.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

Then I suppose that gets to the bottom of a big question: How can you identify the diamonds in the rough?

If the best ones are the highest performing seniors I would hope CU will make it a special point to seize those kids before the other programs do, and obviously we're planting seeds right now in hopes they blow up next year, too. Perhaps this is adds to why Embree couldn't pull off the recruiting expectations we held him to. He wanted "football guys" but the diamonds in the rough may have just been physical specimens that found the sport late. He couldn't get the known commodities and didn't look at the high potential candidates.

Another obvious thought is that as long as we can recruit okay (class ranks of 30-50) the team should be okay under a good coach. Stepping out of a three-digit preseason ranking will go a long way towards the climb to becoming relevant to solid recruits. I want a quick fix, but this is the realistic one that represents a long road to success.