Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (Recruiting: The past, future and now...)

[Ketchum]

Your third paragraph.....plus, much better execution are the keys.

The thing Strong did do was leave an underclassmen pool full of players that should turn out come guys, maybe a lot with the right direction.

 

[EG-man]

The thing Strong did do was leave an underclassmen pool full of players that should turn out come guys, maybe a lot with the right direction.

That's what we're all hopin' for baby!

 

[psychotic_genius]

How you know Book?

BTW, are you aware of how good he was?

Our fathers used to work together back in the day. His pops was a preacher so we would go to his Sunday service from time to time. I also played baseball with several of his cousins.

If I remember correctly we went to see y'all play the ducks in Taylor one night. I found out that night that he was baller.

 

[FTP Horn]

I think w/ D'Onta, a lot of the analysts had caught wind of the fact that he was an extreme longshot to qualify and just didn't dog in on him as much. Just IMO - only way I've been able to justify it in my own thinking.

He was a 3 star on all other sites and a 3 star on the 247 Composite:

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/player/_/id/168310/donta-foreman
http://247sports.com/Player/DOnta-Foreman-20929?PlayerInstitution=33302
http://www.scout.com/player/172430-d-onta-foreman

Not sure why Rivals was an outlier here.

 

[cagrafft]

Recruiting matters.

No. 5 – Buy or sell …

BUY or SELL: The Austin Metro Area is the 35th most populous area and growing as of July 2015 and is the seconnd largest metro area (Vegas is #1) without a Pro Sports Team. B/S: Austin will gain a MLB, NFL, NHL or NBA team in the next 10 years?

(Sell) The University of Texas is this city’s pro sports franchise.

If Austin ever gets a Pro Sports Team it will be an MLS team imo. I could see the Aztecs being back in a year or two with their own stadium, and the USL and MLS doing a promotion/relegation-type deal. Austin could definitely support a soccer club if they put the stadium in the right spot.

 

[Ketchum]

Our fathers used to work together back in the day. His pops was a preacher so we would go to his Sunday service from time to time. I also played baseball with several of his cousins.

If I remember correctly we went to see y'all play the ducks in Taylor one night. I found out that night that he was baller.

Oh yeah, he went big against the Ducks. Played both ways. I remember him nearly knocking a dude out that night on defense.

He was a legit four-star type guy.

 

[Ketchum]

He was a 3 star on all other sites and a 3 star on the 247 Composite:

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/player/_/id/168310/donta-foreman
http://247sports.com/Player/DOnta-Foreman-20929?PlayerInstitution=33302
http://www.scout.com/player/172430-d-onta-foreman

Not sure why Rivals was an outlier here.

I think I was the only one that had him in the top 100.

 

[Ketchum]

If Austin ever gets a Pro Sports Team it will be an MLS team imo. I could see the Aztecs being back in a year or two with their own stadium, and the USL and MLS doing a promotion/relegation-type deal. Austin could definitely support a soccer club if they put the stadium in the right spot.

That would be very cool.

 

[ICUerrrbody]

Did I miss Michael Huff's ranking somewhere?

 

[Ketchum]

He was Class of 2001. 5.7 three-star

 

[tc144509]

Your research is appreciated, Geoff, but I draw completely different conclusions from it. Statistics are subjective in their significance and meaning. No one ever said that recruiting doesn't matter. It is the recruiting ratings that are in question.

The fact that you point out that the Longhorns have been all over the board in terms of meeting the national averages for recruits being drafted based upon their ratings as recruits goes to show that the averages are not a reliable prognosticator of a player, or team's success. That is the definition of pseudoscience: "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" - Mirriam-Webster.

Both rocket science and surgery of any kind stand in contrast to recruiting in terms of accuracy and predictability.

A couple of other points. Players drafted is some barometer of recruiting success, but a flawed one. There is a wide variance in college football careers that simply being drafted does not distinguish between. Vince Young and Geoff Swaim are given equal weight in such an analysis.

And teams recruit purely for success in college. Some good college players go undrafted. Guys like Brian Carter and Billy Pittman played key roles on the 2005 national championship team, but weren't drafted, so they count as busts in any draft analysis. Even most national championship teams have historically relied on many average players (Alabama less so).

Also, the distribution of talent among the positions is not considered in an analysis of drafted players. What if a team does well recruiting all the positions except quarterback, and fail at that position? How successful can a team be without a good quarterback (or at least 2, really)? What if the distribution of talent is lopsided on one side of the ball or stockpiled at a few positions to the neglect of others?

Recruiting is all about filling needs on the roster. Ratings may, or may not, be reflective of having done that. And that can never be known on signing day, but only as those recruits' careers play out. However you slice it, more recruits are usually busts than dependable players in college.

Recruiting ratings are fun, but the very definition of a pseudoscience, IMO. Interesting topic, though.

Great response finally someone that understands the process!

 

[tc144509]

Great response finally someone that understands the process!

You must be a coach..

 

[Ketchum]

Great response finally someone that understands the process!

Yeah, I think some of this went right over a few heads.

 

[tc144509]

Yeah, I think some of this went right over a few heads.

I get sick of seeing it over and over, it's like listening to parents at a LL BASEBALL game, comical to witness it..very few understand the science behind it..

 

[matamoroshorn]

Yeah, I think some of this went right over a few heads.

Yep, no doubt.

You won't see an exact correlation. You will see that the best recruiting teams over the long haul are the best teams on the field.

Bama, Clemson and Ohio State have been at the top of recruiting over the last 4 years. Every now and then a good coaching job (Washington) will get you to the top, but I would rather have great players with great coaching.

 

[Vinsanity12]

@Ketchum

Five-star recruits in the last five years:

Alabama -- 23
Clemson -- 5

— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) January 10, 2017

 

[Vinsanity12]

Your research is appreciated, Geoff, but I draw completely different conclusions from it. Statistics are subjective in their significance and meaning. No one ever said that recruiting doesn't matter. It is the recruiting ratings that are in question.

The fact that you point out that the Longhorns have been all over the board in terms of meeting the national averages for recruits being drafted based upon their ratings as recruits goes to show that the averages are not a reliable prognosticator of a player, or team's success. That is the definition of pseudoscience: "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" - Mirriam-Webster.

Both rocket science and surgery of any kind stand in contrast to recruiting in terms of accuracy and predictability.

A couple of other points. Players drafted is some barometer of recruiting success, but a flawed one. There is a wide variance in college football careers that simply being drafted does not distinguish between. Vince Young and Geoff Swaim are given equal weight in such an analysis.

And teams recruit purely for success in college. Some good college players go undrafted. Guys like Brian Carter and Billy Pittman played key roles on the 2005 national championship team, but weren't drafted, so they count as busts in any draft analysis. Even most national championship teams have historically relied on many average players (Alabama less so).

Also, the distribution of talent among the positions is not considered in an analysis of drafted players. What if a team does well recruiting all the positions except quarterback, and fail at that position? How successful can a team be without a good quarterback (or at least 2, really)? What if the distribution of talent is lopsided on one side of the ball or stockpiled at a few positions to the neglect of others?

Recruiting is all about filling needs on the roster. Ratings may, or may not, be reflective of having done that. And that can never be known on signing day, but only as those recruits' careers play out. However you slice it, more recruits are usually busts than dependable players in college.

Recruiting ratings are fun, but the very definition of a pseudoscience, IMO. Interesting topic, though.

You NAILED it

 

[Ketchum]

@Ketchum

Five-star recruits in the last five years:

Alabama -- 23
Clemson -- 5

— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) January 10, 2017

what is your point?

DeShaun Watson was a five-star. Ben Boulware was a four-star. Mike Williams is another national 250 prospect.

2013: 14th
2014: 13th
2015: 4th
2016: 6th

It's not an accident that Clemson won that game. It also has highly rated guys and they hit boom in areas that they needed to, overperforming against the national mean.

 

[Ketchum]

You NAILED it

except in nailing it, he completely missed the point.

 

[txfight]

I am pretty shocked at Ketch's prediction that Strong will get another Power 5 head coaching job in the next 3 years. CS was brutally bad at UT and is approaching 60 ... no way would I feel he could suddenly become a top notch HC.

Think about the bar for some of the Power 5 schools though. Do you think a team like Rutgers, Indiana, Kansas, Wake Forest, Boston College, Iowa State would turn down a coach like Strong if he goes 9-3, 8-4, 10-2 and has a school like Texas on his resume? If he puts together those types of records, and he could at FSU, then the Texas stop on his resume will be explained away as a learning experience where things weren't really set up for him to win. (That's his agent talking, not my opinion )

Besides, black don't crack, he doesn't look anywhere near 60.

I think Ketch was spot on with this one, although I was surprised to hear him say it too!

 

[txfight]

Am I the only one who looks at the ESPN Top 300 littered with Bama, Ohio St and Georgia recruits and starts getting short of breath?

I think Texas Tech has the highest ranked commit in the Big 12 so far and even he is at 42nd? Texas' highest rated player (Toneil) is 96 and we've got schools like Iowa, Maryland, Oregon, UCLA (3 players) all with recruits rated higher.

@Ketch, Are these rankings in line with Rivals and if so can you talk about where the conference stand against each other in ranking so far? Seems like the Big 12 is behind every one of the Power 5.

 

[Ketchum]

Am I the only one who looks at the ESPN Top 300 littered with Bama, Ohio St and Georgia recruits and starts getting short of breath?

I think Texas Tech has the highest ranked commit in the Big 12 so far and even he is at 42nd? Texas' highest rated player (Toneil) is 96 and we've got schools like Iowa, Maryland, Oregon, UCLA (3 players) all with recruits rated higher.

@Ketch, Are these rankings in line with Rivals and if so can you talk about where the conference stand against each other in ranking so far? Seems like the Big 12 is behind every one of the Power 5.

Yes, the Big 12 is very much behind in recruiting.

 

[txfight]

Yes, the Big 12 is very much behind in recruiting.

Thanks for the confirmation. Is this standard or does it speak to the weakness of the conference as a whole? Maybe a good topic for it's own post, but after getting shut out of the playoff combined with an ACC national championship winner, but it sure feels like the Big 12 is suddenly the worst conference of the Power 5 by a longshot.

 

[Ketchum]

Thanks for the confirmation. Is this standard or does it speak to the weakness of the conference as a whole? Maybe a good topic for it's own post, but after getting shut out of the playoff combined with an ACC national championship winner, but it sure feels like the Big 12 is suddenly the worst conference of the Power 5 by a longshot.

It's getting worse and worse. It has one natural resource (the state of Texas) and it bleeds it dry.

 

[FloFootball]

You can watch Chase Griffin live tomorrow on FloFootball.com when Hutto vs A&M Consolidated.

Kickoff at 7:30 PM, you can watch the stream here: http://bit.ly/2jM8K0d

 

[FloFootball]

You can watch Chase Griffin live tomorrow on FloFootball.com when Hutto vs A&M Consolidated.

Kickoff at 7:30 PM, you can watch the stream here: http://bit.ly/2jM8K0d