Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (Continuing my crusade!!!!!)

[FtBendHorn]

I'd do some research on that, but if the data doesn't change much, people are going to yell at me if I reveal it.

Objective truth isn't popular if it interferes with folks cognitive dissonance. But, I'd be surprised if the three stars with multiple tier one commitabe offers don't have a higher success rate.

 

[o5prey]

Objective truth isn't popular if it interferes with folks cognitive dissonance. But, I'd be surprised if the three stars with multiple tier one commitabe offers don't have a higher success rate.

I feel like tier one offers already make three stars into four stars based on confirmation bias of which teams are after them

 

[HookemChargers]

It's way more complicated than stars, for sure. Lot of nuance baked inside the discussion.

How has TCU and Baylor had so many 3 stars drafted in the last 10 years?

 

[jroilers]

I wonder why. Data is a great thing but it does not and cannot absolutely predict everything that there is and what can happen.

I'm not saying a coach shouldn't be questioned but they come to a point where even the best coaches get tired of having a bunch of backseat drivers trying to tell them how to do their job.

And let me be perfectly honest you've got your hackles up a time or two about people telling you how to do yours. Yes you do have a very good brand at what you do But even the best ones make mistakes.

I’m thinking the data can pretty well predict what the odds are for the group of players. Any individual player may indeed break out, but the reality is that most of the 5.7, 5.8 guys we sweat out in recruiting don’t have a large impact on the program.

 

[Ketchum]

How has TCU and Baylor had so many 3 stars drafted in the last 10 years?

they've developed well. showed more patience. Had better coaching.

 

[McGuapo]

Every time you write about this topic it makes it so easy to spot all the dumbasses. They just can’t help themselves. Poor things.

 

[HookemChargers]

they've developed well. showed more patience. Had better coaching.

Any cool stories or news on GP? Will he every have a on field role at Texas?

 

[LonghornsLegend]

I don't think anyone minds your takes and percentages/numbers of history. Personally I think they are interesting. The annoying thing is when you do it in commitment threads of said three stars. If we can't even have that thread to enjoy a kids commitment without you forcing numbers on people where can we?

There's been times where you've tried to force the numbers on people just because they don't share this same take. I appreciate the passion but you've also started doing this in 4 star commitments also and not just three stars.

 

[donjuanovan]

The thing is.,.. other than Poona Ford, Lil'Jordan Humphrey and a couple of others, who are you standing on the table for as quality players?

The problem isn't that these guys aren't getting credit for their contributions, it's that they were asked to contribute too much in the first place.

OMG, Ketch, you were COMPLETELY not giving these kids credit for their contributions!!! Your entire thesis was if they did not get drafted, they were basically a wasted scholly, except for a few exceptions of kids who excelled WAY beyond expectations (Colt McCoy for example). Thus your beating of the drum that our coaches should now only recruit high 4 stars and 5 stars out of high school and get the rest of the team from the portal.

The point is that a 3 Star kid DID HIS PART if he came in and worked his way into eventually becoming a starter at The University of Texas. Don't diminish what those kids accomplished just because they ONLY achieved a level of success commensurate with their 3 Star status - becoming a starter at a DI major program. Anything beyond that is excelling beyond a 3 star expectation, whether that be to become a multi year starter, an all conference kid or the beyond imagination result of making it to the league - whether drafted or not.

So, if as fans we want to bitch because 3 Star kids reaching their EXPECTED level of achievement - becoming a starter in the program at some point - are not as good as we want our starters to be, that is TOTALLY on the coaches for not developing those kids better OR for not recruiting over them for a more talented kid who could keep them from starting in the first place. But the reality is there are 4 star kids and even 5 star kids who bust out completely or get hurt or transfer, so if a dedicated 3 star kid has the drive to reach his core ability of starting, good for him. Don't dismiss him and his achievement because he did what HE was supposed to do, but simply did not get drafted by the NFL.

 

[donjuanovan]

Are you saying Marcus Hutchins and Tristan Nickelson were hits? Any metrics that allows you to come to that conclusion is flawed. Most of those players you have underlined played because they had too. Because too many times UT coaches failed in developing quality depth and replenishing talent on the roster. Hence why they don't work for the university anymore.

Yes, they were "hits" from the standpoint that they became starters at UT, which is probably a reasonable expectation for 3 Star recruits, that at some point they are more then special teamers or scout team fodder but actually become regular O and D starters. Anything beyond that is them excelling beyond core expectations.

I agree with you that IF their play as starters is less quality than we as fans and certainly for the coaches expect, then that responsibility falls squarely on the coaches for lack of further development of those players and lack of better recruiting and team player management. But the 3 star was not a bust/bad recruit decision if they were able to develop into a starter - BUT JUST DID NOT GET DRAFTED.

 

[ryano013]

Yes, they were "hits" from the standpoint that they became starters at UT, which is probably a reasonable expectation for 3 Star recruits, that at some point they are more then special teamers or scout team fodder but actually become regular O and D starters. Anything beyond that is them excelling beyond core expectations.

I agree with you that IF their play as starters is less quality than we as fans and certainly for the coaches expect, then that responsibility falls squarely on the coaches for lack of further development of those players and lack of better recruiting and team player management. But the 3 star was not a bust/bad recruit decision if they were able to develop into a starter - BUT JUST DID NOT GET DRAFTED.

I'm not saying every starter needs to be drafted. That's an unreasonable expectation. However, you can't say the @Ketchum 's analysis was faulty then use a metric that says Tristan Nickelson and Marcus Hutchins were hits. Those guys wouldn't have started for any other Big12 program outside maybe Kansas. They started because there was no one else. Those Texas teams were not good. They weren't meeting the standard. The reason they weren't is because the talent wasn't there to compete. They were relying too often on these types of players. Like you pointed out. 51.8% of the 3 star OL started. That doesn't mean they were quality. That just means they were the least worst option. Do you not see the correlation between Texas not having NFL talent and this era of Texas football?

3 stars are still going to be recruited, but it should be guys like Goosby who have a high ceiling to develop into quality starters. We're talking 5 players a year max.

Bottom line is this. The more NFL talent you have on your roster, the more likely you are to compete for titles. If you're relying too often on 3 stars to develop into those kind of players, you will never compete. That's the whole point of Ketch's analysis.

 

[FtBendHorn]

I feel like tier one offers already make three stars into four stars based on confirmation bias of which teams are after them

Probably a lot of validity to the tail wagging the dog theory. At the end of the day with the amount of coverage recruiting gets these days the system is pretty effective at identifying the alpha players. The fact that 3 stars have a much lower success rate than high 4s and 5s really isn't a shocking revelation.

 

[TexasRads]

a. It's fun and exciting. Like new toys when you're 7.

b. Dreaming about the future is always better than hanging on to a shitty past.

c. Not everyone understands the historical failure rates of recruiting.

Ketch I’ve appreciated the dose of reality you provide with your numbers and analysis , even if people don’t like to hear the truth of what these commitments mean and how the players are likely to pan out

I guess a segment of the fan base just cannot hear any criticism , ie losing their mind if any analysts downgrade our player rankings

 

[jspirohorn]

Agree with the thrust of your analysis. Oscar Giles was underrated in the player development category.

 

[Ketchum]

Ketch I’ve appreciated the dose of reality you provide with your numbers and analysis , even if people don’t like to hear the truth of what these commitments mean and how the players are likely to pan out

I guess a segment of the fan base just cannot hear any criticism , ie losing their mind if any analysts downgrade our player rankings

Glad the info was appreciated.

REally didn't think there would be this amount of pushback.

 

[Anwar Richardson]

PFF sucks.

Louisiana doesn't have a top 5 college offensive line.

Not really debating you about your larger point, but that link made me want to vomit.

He said ...

Show me a great / badass college football offensive line (or any unit) that doesn’t include 60-75 percent future nfl draft picks

I'd like to see any kind of proof to that statement if PFF is trash. Any metrics.

 

[Ketchum]

He said ...

I'd like to see any kind of proof to that statement if PFF is trash. Any metrics.

sounds like more work than I'm willing to commit to. 😂

 

[horns--21]

In my mind, I'm leading the charge of the evolution of how teams are built in college football. I'm way ahead of the curve on all of this, mostly because I've mastered historical data in ways most people haven't even thought to look over.

This info doesn't exist inside of most, if any, college football office.

This is probably what guys used to say to when they were told the RBI didn't matter and that on-base percentage was really important.

Keep repeating it.

 

[horns--21]

He said ...

I'd like to see any kind of proof to that statement if PFF is trash. Any metrics.

PFF is just a data point. It's like the BCS computers or ESPN's Power Index. It's something you look at but it is not and cannot be an end-all singular data point.

For example, my daughter plays select softball. This year she led her team batting average at .600 and on base average at .759. She also led the team in extra base hits and RBIs and tied for first in contact percentage (i.e., she did not strike out much). But when I look at the advanced batting stats in GameChanger, it says she is second in quality at bats on the team. The girl who it says is first was a part-time player who literally went 0 for 9 on the season with 9 strikeouts, however the reason it ranked her first in quality at bats was she walked 17 times on the season and always went deep in counts because she did not swing much. So even when she stuck out (and of course walked) she went deep into the count. GameChanger, in my opinion, overvalues going deep in counts. So, I will consider that GameChanger stat but obviously cannot have it be the only point of information I use to make team decisions.

This supports my point that all statistics, but ESPECIALLY advanced statistics, should be taken as a mere singular data-point that should be considered with ample additional evidence.

 

[caShFLO]

The conversation goes like this on the board (I've been involved in a few):

A: We got {3* prospect woohoo!}
B: So what? They rarely pan out!
A: Why are you such a downer? THIS ONE will be special.
B: Maybe...but probably not.

For person A, chill out. If you get excited for EVERYONE, then by default, that means you think no one is really special. Reserve some hype for legitimately exciting prospects.

For person B, just let the As have their fun (speaking to myself here).

 

[Fplhorns11]

Depends on the size of the class Texas is taking and the success its having in recruiting.

Nothing changes the risk component of the overextension.

The goal is to win the game of fine margins.

The data is the data. The performance levels just aren't good enough to keep doing it because it's what everyone has been doing since the beginning of time.

The Portal changes the game significantly.

You can’t portal 20 kids a year to be depth players. There’s no way you could keep a roster filled with your suggestion. Your points here are valid about the lack of nfl talent in the 3 star camp, but a team still needs 70 players or it’s ****ed when injuries happen. The reality is if you take 3-4 high ranked players, then hit on 10% of the lower ranked players, that’s still 6-7 nfl players from every recruiting class. Combine that with 1-2 difference making portal players each year and you have a team pumping out 7-8 draft picks a year, which makes you a top 5 program.

you’re making a lot of bad assumptions in your roster building suggestion here

 

[Ketchum]

For all of the handful of naysayers, this has been the No.1 10TFTW in terms of views and interactions in all of 2022 thus far.

Posted a few hours before the 4th of July (typically, a very slow traffic day on the site).

🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️

 

[Ketchum]

You can’t portal 20 kids a year to be depth players.

No one said that.

 

[Fplhorns11]

No one said that.

Ok- so assuming we don’t sign 20% of the top 75 kids each year, then how can you have a full roster if you’re not taking low 4 stars 3 stars and not portaging 20 kids a year?

 

[horns--21]

You can’t portal 20 kids a year to be depth players. There’s no way you could keep a roster filled with your suggestion. Your points here are valid about the lack of nfl talent in the 3 star camp, but a team still needs 70 players or it’s ****ed when injuries happen. The reality is if you take 3-4 high ranked players, then hit on 10% of the lower ranked players, that’s still 6-7 nfl players from every recruiting class. Combine that with 1-2 difference making portal players each year and you have a team pumping out 7-8 draft picks a year, which makes you a top 5 program.

you’re making a lot of bad assumptions in your roster building suggestion here

I think the model in the future will be to take semi-full HS classes every year (20 to 25 or so) and then process the kids that won't work hard or are bad apples. Then use those spots, in addition to other attrition, to fill with portal players. That probably gives you 5 to 10 portal players per year.

That seems like the best bet to me.

 

[jspirohorn]

Ketch,

WRONG!!! I read your entire diatribe very carefully. While you did make casual recognition of some non-drafted palyers, you overall tone was still somewhat deprecating about them because they never got drafted, even if some made it the NFL via free agency. Also, why did you only provide the opening sentence of my reply above? Could it be that you did not want restate my primary point because you did not want to actually take the time to address my point to see if it had validity???

Well, it does, as I just took the time to at least do the Offensive players list you provided, and here are my quick findings where all I looked for was if they were significant starters (more than 2-3 games as injury fill in) in at least one season on the 40 acres, and the results prove my point - there are LOTS of valuable contributors to the program/team as starters who never sniff the NFL, that does not mean they were not worth recruiting or that they did not provide starting quality performance for UT for at least a season, if not more. Several of these 3 Stars actually received all conference honors as well and still never sniffed the NFL. Those UNDERLINED below were such starters for UT from your 3 Star lists below (and I provide the corresponding % of such success to contrast your "NFL drafted only" criteria % for those with completed eligibility):

Quarterbacks

2005 Colt McCoy, 2006 Sherrod Harris, 2007 G.J. Kinne, 2019 Case McCoy, 2011 David Ash, 2019 Roschon Johnson and 2021 Charles Wright

NFL Draft rate: 20%

At least 1 season starter rate: 60%



Running backs

2002 Clint Haney, 2005 Jerrell Wilkerson, 2005 Michael Houston, 2006 Antwan Cobb, 2008 Brock Fitzhenry, 2008 Tre Newton, 2008 Ryan Roberson (at fullback), 2011 Joe Bergeron, 2014 Kevin Shorter, 2016 Tristian Houston and 2017 Daniel Young.

NFL Draft rate: 0%

At least 1 season starter rate: 36%



Wide Receivers

2002 Dustin Miksch, 2004 Chris Ogbonnaya, 2004 Nate Jones, 2006 John Marshall, 2011 Miles Onyegbule, 2012 Marcus Johnson, 2013 Montrel Meander, 2014 Dorian Leonard, 2014 Garrett Gray, 2014 Roderick Bernard, 2015 Gilbert Johnson, 2015 Ryan Newsome, 2015 Davion Curtis, 2016 Reggie Hemphill-Mapps, 2017 Jordan Pouncey, 2019 Kennedy Lewis, 2020 Dajon Harrison, 2021 Casey Cain, 2021 Keithron Lee and 2022 Savion Redd

NFL Draft rate: 0%

At least 1 season starter rate: 25%



Tight ends

2003 Steve Hogan, 2004 Peter Ullman, 2006 Britt Mitchell, 2006 Greg Smith, 2007 Ahmard Howard, 2007 Ian Harris, 2009 Trey Graham, 2009 Barrett Matthews, 2013 Geoff Swaim, 2014 Blake Whiteley, 2016 Peyton Aucoin, 2017 Cade Brewer, 2019 Jared Wiley and 2021 Juan Davis.

NFL Draft rate: 7.7%

At least 1 season starter rate: 30.7%

Offensive Linemen

2002 Brett Valdez, 2003 Kyle Thornton, 2003 Dallas Griffin, 2004 Adam Ulatoski, 2005 Charlie Tanner, 2005 Chris Hall, 2006 Roy Watts, 2006 Steve Moore, 2008 Luke Poehlmann, 2009 Paden Kelley, 2011 Taylor Doyle, 2011 Marcus Hutchins, 2013 Desmond Harrison, 2014 Elijah Rodriguez, 2014 Terrell Cuney, 2014 Alex Anderson, 2015 Garrett Thomas, 2015 Ronnie Major, 2015 Tristan Nickelson, 2016 Brandon Hodges, 2016 Tope Imade, 2016 Zach Shackelford, 2017 Sam Cosmi, 2017 Derek Kerstetter, 2018 Reese Moore, 2018 Rafiti Ghirmai, 2019 Willie Tyler, 2020 Andrej Karic, 2020 Jaylen Garth, 2020 Logan Parr, 2021 Hayden Conner, 2022 Lance St. Louis and 2022 Connor Robertson

NFL Draft rate: 3.7%

At least 1 season starter rate: 51.8%



No. 3 - Can I just take a brief moment to say ...

OF THE 81 OFFENSIVE PROSPECTS THAT TEXAS HAS TAKEN SINCE 2002, ONLY FIVE WERE DRAFTED BY NFL TEAMS!!!!!!!!

YET, 29 BECAME SIGNIFICANT STARTERS IN AT LEAST ONE SEASON!!!!! A 35.8% HIT RATE FOR 3 STAR RECRUITS!!!!

So, while looking forward it may be important for our coaches to be more particular with their 3 Star offers given the option of the portal and NIL which did not exist historically for these past players, history shows there is a MUCH higher probability that such 3 Star players actually DO contribute positively to the program then Ketch's "NFL Draftee or bust" criteria indicates. So, while we all desire the 5 Stars and high 4 Stars, it is a mistake to assume that only 10-20% of 3 Starts will "hit" , as my analysis shows they "hit" more at a 35% rate as far as at least being starting level contributors to the program for at least one season.

Without even knowing it you made Ketch's point. You might want to research the records of the teams who started a bunch of 3*s.

 

[Fplhorns11]

I think the model in the future will be to take semi-full HS classes every year (20 to 25 or so) and then process the kids that won't work hard or are bad apples. Then use those spots, in addition to other attrition, to fill with portal players. That probably gives you 5 to 10 portal players per year.

That seems like the best bet to me.

Which is exactly what the staff is currently doing. I’m confused as to what Ketch’s suggestion is. Obviously everyone wishes we could sign 15 5 stars each year- but short of that you have to have a roster

 

[jspirohorn]

Glad the info was appreciated.

REally didn't think there would be this amount of pushback.

I'm not. People simply don't understand statistics. I see the same things in the debate on climate change. People cite one or two weather events to confirm their bias. Climate is measured in broad swaths of latitude and longitude over time; weather is measured at a single point at a point in time. In this case, you can tell the bias by who cites Colt McCoy. When you need to resort to names, you've lost the statistical argument.

 

[The Gnome Man]

@Ketchum, put me in the group that really appreciated this. Good stuff.

 

[Ketchum]

Ok- so assuming we don’t sign 20% of the top 75 kids each year, then how can you have a full roster if you’re not taking low 4 stars 3 stars and not portaging 20 kids a year?

(Posted on page 10 of this thread)

In an 85-man roster, you'd probably hope it looks something like this.

20-25 High level recruits (based on averaging 6-8 per year and knowing that many will leave after three years)

25-30 players acquired in the portal (based on taking 7-10 per year and knowing some are one-year rentals. This number begins to hit this number in 2024. Little too aggressive in the early days of the Portal.)

That's going to leave between 30-40ish prospects to fill out the roster and you're probably taking 10ish per year.

Those 10 prospects per year need to have as little highest risk prospects as possible. At a school like Texas, it's very possible for the overwhelming majority of these prospects be national 250 type guys.

You probably don't need to extend yourself to a three star level tier more than 2-4 times each year.

IF.... IF... IF...

You are recruiting at a true nationally elite level.