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

[Ketchum]

Fair enough. There may not be enough data yet but to compare apples to apples you need to use the same metric you use with HS players—getting drafted. Not starting.

totally agree. all of that was done before last season was over, let alone after the draft was done.

I was just giving you what was handy. No one else is doing this type of digging on the science of recruiting. It's a lonely one-man battle.

 

[Ketchum]

Ketch,

I think this is a strong factor and to be fair, we got intoxicated the other way with a couple of coaches who recruited fairly well with star averages, but fell down in a huge way in player developmen, and recruiting STRATEGY and roster building

Using our own data, with these previous coaches, and their misses on most other factors with talent, is interesting but I can go back to MACK. He littered us with crazy star averages, solid strategy, and OK player development. In his 10 year "hayday" streak I believe he was both the winningest coach and had the most current NFL players. As we know was not the greatest player developer, nor an in game genius by "mr February" proved a constant flow of the 4s and 5s was the way to go,

OL is an area we should probably downplay IMO. Development and evaluation seem to be a little more important than stars in this position. This last class aside, arguably the 3 most recent "ready" kids to show up were Cosmi, Hayden Conner, D. Kersetetter, all were 3 stars. Baylor and Okie State will give us all we can handle this year, and others with 3 (and 2) star OLs. Services hit on a few obvious 5 and high 4 star OLs, as I believe they did last year, but for the most part projecting a mid 4 or below vs a high 3 in OL is a crapshoot.

I will also leave out some of the politics around star ranking and the games behind the scenes.

Net-net - This is a new staff, they are grabbing 4s with a dash of High 3s, we could see pretty different results with their crops given the above.

So I am clear, I am a believer in over the long haul, stars do matter. Teams at the top of the recruiting rankings are largely at the top of the win columns over time.

Development is critical. It goers hand in hand.

It can't be said enough, largely because no matter how many times I say it, people think I'm somehow not saying it.

 

[Ketchum]

@Ketchum Love the analysis Ketch! The story is clear. We need to start to perfect our portal recruiting strategy since we will not be able to rely on the long term relationship approach that so many of our recruits rave about.

One question, do our offensive coaches recruit for the defense. Other than Bo Davis, I am not sure I have heard a single defensive coach named by the defense commits or even the OB staff in their commentary. Who is the key to bringing these guys in on defense? Should we be concerned no defense coaches are getting any mentions on recruiting?

a. thanks!

b. The defensive guys lead the charge on the defensive prospects, even if they don't get a ton of run in the process.

 

[Ketchum]

Keep it coming. I love DATA!

Might just be me, you and 5 other nerds.

 

[Ketchum]

My issue with this analysis is that it seems like a false equivalence fallacy. Far more meaningful would be an analysis of these specific coaches producing results (or not) with similar prospects. What this analysis yields instead is not that. None of the coaches responsible for those results are responsible for what this class may become. And saying the specific staff shouldn't matter would be wrong; it's really the only thing that should matter.

EDIT: And that's not to say that an analysis of these coaches would necessarily be different (but it could be). Meanwhile, the perspective that schools should weaponize the portal in ways they may not currently be doing makes sense, regardless, though I think you underestimate the risks to team culture with that approach and are not considering enough the benefits of being able to stash talented players on your roster and develop them for a couple seasons before they see the field (if you can ever raise your program to that level, that is, and who knows if this—or any—staff will be able to do that in this new era of college football?).

EDIT 2: Sark spent a lot of time this off-season identifying culture as something that went wrong last year, and I think the guys we see already committed to this class (and also last class, but maybe not as much) are guys that seem like "culture" guys. Assuming a good to great season this season (a big assumption, I know), I could easily see the types of recruiting changes for which @Ketchum is advocating, starting next year or maybe the year after if the coaches feel one more year of "foundation" building is needed before committing more heavily to the portal as a primary resource.

I do all types of analysis breakdowns. I plan on doing a deep dive on Flood at some point this week.

I'm all for having as much data and information as possible, from as many angles as possible.

 

[Ketchum]

Not disagreeing with you @Ketchum about 3 stars but I'll always believe we have done a rotten job of coaching these kids up.

100-percent correct.

 

[Ketchum]

How easy is it to poach these portal players? Doesn't seem so easy so far.

fairly easy. No harder than recruiting HS players.

 

[Ketchum]

Is it me or have I read this exact column like 15 times on here?

You haven't... anywhere.

This particular analysis has never been done before anywhere. If I'm wrong, feel free to show me a link.

 

[Ketchum]

I am a firm believer in math and data. I feel that Geoff’s point has been made as well.and clearly as it can be by now. Moving forward the transfer portal needs to be exploited.

I also think that the recruiting to a consistent, repeatable, system corollary is important. TCU’s defense under Patterson is a great example of that. Texas’ staff churn and impatience is a good (or bad if you prefer) example of inconsistency. It’s not particularly surprising that our develop has lagged others in light of that.

Moving forward I am hopeful that the current staff’s three star takes are indicative of their movement towards the repeatable system model. In this case the system is very large humans to compete in the SEC. If this is this case and there is a structured plan I find it hopeful and not inconsistent with Geoff’s view.

It's ll about being on the front foot of the evolution of the sport that is taking place.

This staff is making progress in that area IMO.

The goal should be being THE leader and not someone that is responding five years after everyone else.

 

[Ketchum]

Ok first off I would say I really appreciate this response because it makes sense to go use something like this

Two hard parts for me to use it

1) I don’t understand their grading system at all - and they don’t explain it ever / or go over it in detail for a game as an example like Alex does his ….. and for some Texas players in the past that have been super highly rated or even wel rated in the last five to eight years it’s made zero sense to me no matter how hard I’ve tried to understand it

It makes me think their ratings are very superficially done in some weird way? Which somewhat makes sense because where is the monitory value in them having someone grade each olinemam at the level Alec does after each game (each team getting six hours of a breakdown etc)

2). A hard thing for both their and Alex grading system is it doesn’t take into account opponent value

When Texas beats the crap out of rice the players get a good score / even though they played a dogshit team - so teams that are the king of their little conference like Louisiana- they end up very high on these lists based on whatever the criteria is / but if they played in the SEC they wouldn’t be there

But Kentucky over the last several years has had some very top guys drafted on the other hand

3) my knowledge of the current lines isn’t high enough to project the drafts over the next three years - and draft look ahead s aren’t that accurate that far out either they usually just use recruiting rankings based on what I can see

4) if we were going to try to make this argument what I’d say we need is

Some teams that had good / great offensive lines - 3years of earlier ago / in a major conference / that then didn’t have draft picks on it

I’m not saying it doesn’t exist - just the ones I think of don’t meet that test

@Ketchum including you here for your thoughts

Anwar i would actually be willing to put in some legwork to help with this question if either of you would be interested in looking at it and we could come up with some parameters

@Alex Dunlap would tell you that PFFs grading sucks.

 

[Ketchum]

This ×1000. I was excited to read 10 Thoughts last night and then saw it was the same rhetoric that has already been pounded on the table endlessly so I didn't even bother to read any of it until B/S.

and yet on a holiday, this column's performance numbers are incredibly strong.

It has more viewership and interaction by 10am on a national holiday than almost all of the other content we will produce all week.

 

[Ketchum]

*David Abiara. Put a little respek on his name.

forgive me, I've had virtually zero sleep.

 

[o5prey]

@Alex Dunlap would tell you that PFFs grading sucks.

Yeah I was more thinking teams from 2013-2018 based on average rushing yards per attempt and sacks allowed

Major conferences only

And then look at drafted lineman from the squads and relating that to the offensive performance as an indicator of the lines performance at the college level

To show the correlation between on field and draft results

 

[Ketchum]

The rest of the world made Sweet Child their only #1 single.

In this case, the list I linked was comprised of the band's fans.

🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️

 

[Ketchum]

Gat dammit Geoff….I enjoyed that.

I knew you would!

 

[Ketchum]

I was just tired. No offense. I’m a fan of your work and I do realize how much time you put into that. I was being assholish as my sciatica is a beast right now. Keep on trucking.

Likewise, my man. I got three hours of sleep. I'm wiped out, myself.

 

[Ketchum]

Absolutely. Stranger things is an extremely well done show

you have me tempted.

 

[Ketchum]

@Ketchum: "This is going to sound harsh, but I'd make the case that one of the problems Texas football has had in the last 15 years is that too many of those players ended up playing a lot of snaps for the program."

I think this is spot on. The results on the field support it. This is sober column this week and I have wondered about the 3* UT has been recruiting. This column reiterates points made in prior weeks re the portal and how player acquisition strategy is changing.

💘💘💘💘💘💘

 

[Ketchum]

We’ll stated sir. What Power Five program follows your tecommended script for recruiting?

🙃

I'm not sure any of them do... yet.

I'm not enough of an expert on the ins and outs of all other programs.

 

[Ketchum]

Byron Vaughns was a national top 50 portal player?
he played well against lesser competition at Utah state after riding the pine at Texas …
.. so you’d put that same guy in the portal success category and also the recruiting 3 star failures category?
Huh.

His career isn't over. Ask me in two years.

He's a perfect example, though, of the lack of patience that exists with both players and coaches. He would have played a lot last season for Texas... he just got tired of waiting.

It’ll be interesting to see how many players in that top 50 list get drafted.
Because a lot of them sound like they started but weren’t plus player enough to get drafted. And that’s the top 50… the top 50 out of high school recruits hit at a high rate, right?

I actually came across feeling the exact opposite. There was much larger high-level success than I anticipated going into the research of the topic last season.

It isn’t any easier to land 10 top 50 transfers than 10 top 50 recruits. Probably harder. And the portal guys out below the top 50 are the guys less promising than Byron Vaughns? … woof.

The Portal is deeper and surer than HS recruiting.

Ask the 2021 Baylor Bears.

I get the data on the recruiting side, just not sold on the presumption of higher success on the portal side.

That's fair and I respect needing to see the data before believing it.

Texas hasn’t had much success via transfers by the standard of getting drafted.

transfers have gone undrafted-
Parker braun
Calvin Anderson
Tre Watson
Thornton
Gabriel Watson
Darion Dunn
Ben Davis

Kind of apples to oranges. Those were mostly low-level grad transfers.

Not the same as Ewers, Neyor, Hall, etc...

That being said, the program was better off for having Braun, Anderson and a Dunn in it than they were had they not been on the teams they played for.

They just weren't high-level players.

 

[Ketchum]

Can you really tell how posts he has made? Do you know how many I have made in the last 120 days? On two occasions I've deleted well over 100 posts... I've deleted numerous others. Lol 😉

Every person has a count meter on their profile.

 

[Ketchum]

Ketch,
Taking the gist of your current article & adding to it your previous findings that there is virtually no difference in the results of low 4 star vs. high 3 star, are you stating that if the recruit isn't at least consensus rated as a mid 4 star or higher we should just pass & try to snag from the portal? Or is high 3 star the acceptable limit?

Are there enough Portal options that can make a positive impact for us to get the % of them required to fill in the holes this new recruiting system would create, knowing that we won't get them all?

a. I think coaches just need to draw a line of sorts in the sand and teach themselves that there are less risky plays to be made. It's more of an analytical approach to roster building than the traditional confirmation bias-driven approach.

It's looking at humans as data points and a lot of people aren't ready for that at all.

b. Yes, there are. And those options are only going to grow in the coming years.. largely because of the NIL value kids will find by entering the portal.

 

[Ketchum]

Yeah I was more thinking teams from 2013-2018 based on average rushing yards per attempt and sacks allowed

Major conferences only

And then look at drafted lineman from the squads and relating that to the offensive performance as an indicator of the lines performance at the college level

To show the correlation between on field and draft results

good suggestion

 

[RTR]

That's not even remotely what transpired. This class is on its way to a possible No.1 overall ranking.

This column was about fine-tuning future decision-making to a higher level.

And it was about education and establishing proper expectations.

As you point out, Facts can be very inconvenient things

 

[Mike.Tip]

Or a program can just plan smarter.🤷‍♂️

I was goofing and actually agree BUT their are only so many high 4 star to 5 star players available to take. There has to be a balance between waiting for potentially available players in the portal and taking kids in recruiting.
I see your point on 3 star players. If you get a down recruiting year in Texas do you take a class of 11 or 12 players and hope for good portal Karma or do you look at 3 star projects with plenty to work with (Stroh/Walton types)? I think this will unfold as the “new” wears off the portal and teams get a better expectation on what normal is in this new age of college football.

 

[styrbjorn]

Here’s what it boils down to for me:

1. Previous coaching staffs kind of sucked at evaluating talent
2. Previous coaching staffs kind of sucked at developing talent
3. Given 1 and 2, we have had above average bust rates regardless of star rankings
4. Given 1 and 2, we have also had mixed results in the transfer market
5. Unless this staff is doing a better job of evaluating and developing talent, we will suck until we don’t

 

[LonghornCPA82]

Texas track record on 3 stars is relevant, but I would like to see it compared to schools like Okie Lite, Baylor, TCU, KState who live off 3 Stars and seam to have been better evaluating that level. Numbers could play out the same but they gave fielded competitive teams without the high team rankings. So maybe its not the 3 stars in general, its getting the right 3 stars…

Or the ability to coach them up.

 

[ERosey]

This whole “star” rankings thing is nearly as old as this site. It’s really not that hard. The overwhelming majority of 3 and 4 stars don’t make it to the NFL. Given that only around 2000 persons make NFL rosters a year, it is not shocking that only about 10% of all college football players ever make it to the League.

Heck, it’s probably less than that.

 

[H8Toujohn]

Likewise, my man. I got three hours of sleep. I'm wiped out, myself.

But I do believe our program is getting back on track to being nationally relevant again. I’m an old who remembers Street to Paschel in 69 and jumping for joy watching Vince becoming a legend. I just want to see us in the mix before I see the other side. I do believe Ewers is the guy to help make that happen.

 

[UTeach]

I do all types of analysis breakdowns. I plan on doing a deep dive on Flood at some point this week.

I'm all for having as much data and information as possible, from as many angles as possible.

I look forward to it!

 

[Ketchum]

@Ketchum

I'm the initial one that suggested a connection between wealth and recruiting classes and you said "sell."

You just gave hudsonlonghornfan a thumbs up for the same thing. 🙄

In the list of 20 schools there were 3 football programs in it. They are 3 of the top recruiting classes. Notre Dame #1, Texas #3, USC #1 recruiting class.

(I suspect Notre Dame receives random support from Catholics from all over the place)...

(I can't prove it, but I doubt we can compete with USC for star transfer players. We need to accept that.)


@HudsonLonghornfan I liked your comments.

USC is struggling to give Jordan Addison the money it promised him.

Texas had a better NIL deal in front of him.

Maybe things change for USC with the move to the Big 10, but they don't belong in the same sentence from an NIL perspective as Texas IMO. Not at this exact moment.

 

[Old Tascosa]

Ketch,
Thanks for the analysis, the article, & the answers. It sounds like Texas needs to add a few more support staff for portal recruiting, along the lines of Oakland's Moneyball approach.

 

[Ketchum]

As you point out, Facts can be very inconvenient things

on a daily basis.

 

[Ketchum]

I was goofing and actually agree BUT their are only so many high 4 star to 5 star players available to take. There has to be a balance between waiting for potentially available players in the portal and taking kids in recruiting.
I see your point on 3 star players. If you get a down recruiting year in Texas do you take a class of 11 or 12 players and hope for good portal Karma or do you look at 3 star projects with plenty to work with (Stroh/Walton types)? I think this will unfold as the “new” wears off the portal and teams get a better expectation on what normal is in this new age of college football.

We're trying to catch a rocket by the tail. This is a shifting world and it's hard to pin down the exact correct percentages at the very beginning of the evolution.

I think something like 65-35 in favor of HS prospects is probably the future for most schools.

 

[RLong68]

There’s a further reality that even if you develop 3-stars, if they are everywhere on your field then your ceiling will generally not be high,