Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (Time to do away with the scratch-offs...)
- Thread starter Ketchum
- Start date
Brian Kelly on The Portal today.
I think the transfer portal is what I always thought it would be, in that it can't be strictly need based. If you're in the transfer portal for need based -- in other words, your filling needs, you haven't done something right in the natural recruiting season.
Last year it was need based and that's never a good situation when it comes to the development of your football program. I think you need to use the transfer portal to top off the Tank so to speak, right? That you can add to a particular position and almost one that it's not needed, but becomes a luxury.
When you can get to that situation, I think that the transfer portal becomes an effective tool. If it's strictly need based, you're probably in for some rough seas.
I think the transfer portal is what I always thought it would be, in that it can't be strictly need based. If you're in the transfer portal for need based -- in other words, your filling needs, you haven't done something right in the natural recruiting season.
Last year it was need based and that's never a good situation when it comes to the development of your football program. I think you need to use the transfer portal to top off the Tank so to speak, right? That you can add to a particular position and almost one that it's not needed, but becomes a luxury.
When you can get to that situation, I think that the transfer portal becomes an effective tool. If it's strictly need based, you're probably in for some rough seas.
By definition, Sark has to be more accurate in his selections if he has fewer selections. It's not a made up concern; it's math. He can't miss at the same %, make fewer selections, and still have the same # of successful hits.
You like to focus on % of 5 star, 4 star, etc. players that become "successes". Usually for ease, you use NFL draft picks or playing in the NFL as your barometer for success. How many mid-4 star and above players does Sark need to sign to have 50 successful
By definition, Sark has to be more accurate in his selections if he has fewer selections. It's not a made up concern; it's math. He can't miss at the same %, make fewer selections, and still have the same # of successful hits.
Is your proposal that Sark only sign mid-4-star and above players to increase the likelihood of selecting successful players? And if we can't sign a mid-4-star then don't take a chance on anyone lower ranked (unless it's a kicker or punter)? Then UT should use the portal to make up the remaining roster, correct? If so, I missed the section where you articulated the cut-off (e.g., mid-4 star, low-4 star, etc.) on which players UT should sign.
You frequently write about the % of 5 star, 4 star, etc. players that become "successes". Usually for ease, you use NFL draft picks or playing in the NFL as your barometer for success. Taking into account the hit/miss % for 4 and 5 star players, how many mid-4 star and above players does Sark need to sign each year to field a 2 deep of successful players? Then, the last question would be: does Sark have a history of signing enough 4 and 5 star players to reach the number calculated in the last sentence?
On point #1, how many players does Sark currently recruit that he believes won't be on the 2-deep by their 2nd year? Sark, @Ketchum and every OB knows that probably half of every class won't be on the 2-deep by their 2nd year. So, it is undisputed, that the successful hit rate on any overall class is expected to be less than 50%.
But what is the evidence that if we recruit 30% fewer HS players each year that we can keep a high enough successful hit rate to form the foundation of a team...which we can then supplement with portal players?
We could recruit only 5 star and high 4 star players and have a class of ~14 HS recruits each year. And that is fine so long as a very high percentage of those players become successful. But I don't believe the data proves that at any given school (save Alabama and recently UGA), the 4 and 5 star recruits consistently become sucessful. I'm not disputing that across all schools that high/mid 4 stars and 5 stars pan out at a high rate, but there remains a ton of misses. And when we are talking about Texas or any single school, @Ketchum proposed strategy would require at least an average success rate and if there are 2 consecutive seasons where Sark's choices pan out at a lower than expected % then the portal recruiting becomes absolutely need-based and not supplementing the fringes.
Here are the last 10 years of Texas signees with at least a 4 star rating - average is 13 players per season.
2023: 16
2022: 19
2021: 8
2020: 11
2019: 16
2018:18
2017: 8
2016: 14
2015: 15
2014: 6
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I don't see the logic in Ketch's proposal. But I am arguing that there are credible pitfalls and if recruiting drops off even a little then we'd have to start using the portal like Rodney Terry.
I understand that in theory it is better to fill roster spots 60-85 with proven transfer portal guys over 3* projects that miss more than they hit, but in reality, proven transfer portal guys don't want spots 60-85 on a roster. They want to transfer somewhere that they will be a contributor.
You mentioned that NFL rosters have 53 players... that's because you don't really have much use for more than 53 guys on any football team roster.
Spots 60-85 on the roster provide emergency depth if you have a rash of injuries and scout team reps during the season, and maybe some contributors on special teams. I'd contend that the only players that even want to fill those roster spots in today's college football universe are the developmental prospects who are more likely to transfer down than ever contribute.
You mentioned that NFL rosters have 53 players... that's because you don't really have much use for more than 53 guys on any football team roster.
Spots 60-85 on the roster provide emergency depth if you have a rash of injuries and scout team reps during the season, and maybe some contributors on special teams. I'd contend that the only players that even want to fill those roster spots in today's college football universe are the developmental prospects who are more likely to transfer down than ever contribute.
QB is in a far better spot IMO. Sark has talked about year 3 in his system. Quinn is primed. And the backup situation is also in a better place.
OL is in a better spot. More seasoned. Arguably more talented. Overall better.
While I like the talent as WR and TE entering 2024, probably a step back from where we were entering 2023.
I think what we know about Baxter and Blue is more than we knew about Baxter and Brooks entering 2023.
On balance, we are in a better place offensively. Yet another year in the same system. This offense is ready to roll.
DL is a push in my mind. I may get some pushback here given DT, but I think the edge position is in a far better place and DT is worse, but not what people seem to think. Sweat and Murphy were more potential than production entering 2023. We were worried about adequately replacing Coburn and Ojomo. I think Collins is in a very similar spot as Sweat and Murphy were this time last year. And I like the depth added via the portal.
Linebacker will miss 41. Bases on that alone, I’ll say the LB core is worse entering the season, but man there’s a lot to like about A Hill entering year 2, coupled with a nice blend of experience and young emerging talent next to and behind him.
Secondary is where I see a significant improvement. Muhammad and D Williams are a hugely gifted duo - both of whom gained a lot of valuable experience last season. They are primed to make an All SEC team IMO and be projected as first day picks entering next season. Big upgrade over the guys who played last year and transferred out. Mukuba and Williams are a massive upgrade over the safeties we were working with entering 2023. We’ll see who emerges opposite Muhammad, but there’s no shortage of talent vying for that spot. Nickel is in a great spot with Barron and a healthy Gilbeau.
On balance, entering year 4 in the same system, this D is in a better place entering 2024.
Overall, this team has to be more confident than last year’s squad entering the season. They know how to win. They are in year 4 of the same systems. There is clear leadership from the QB position. There is unfinished business. They’ve had the motivation of entering the SEC to fuel the off-season.
LFG
I like the 2023 team better. Offense will be much better in the red zone this year. OL should be better offset by WR being slightly worse. Biggest upgrade is the secondary and DE. Better pressure will result In much Better pass defense. LB will be better also with being all conference. Competition will also be much tougher- I think we go 9-3 but still make the playoffs.
Not if he's recruiting at the same high levels from the last few years. He has to keep it the same. The guys that aren't playing aren't guys that really factor in with how accurate he needs to be. The guys we are removing are the guys that he's horribly inaccurate with.
It's math.
20%.
This only works if you are. national power that recruits at an elite level. This won't work for Texas Tech.
The whole point is that if only elite teams can pull this off, take advantage of that truth.
I know you said "it's math", but I don't think you have a strong grasp of it.
"We could recruit only 5 star and high 4 star players and have a class of ~14 HS recruits each year."
That's literally not anything that was written.
a. Yes, they exist.
b. They would be brought in to be contributors. That's literally the reason for the entire discussion... to replace guys that never play with guys that will.
they want more spacing since part 1 didn't get off to a great start. i've heard part 1 & 2 were shot back to back so unless Coster thinks he needs re-shoots they are just wanting to give part 1 a longer run.
Costner has always trended well with female viewers and most guys are up for a good western so kinda odd it's off to a slow start, the almighty couple is the holy grail of box office and this should have some things going for it.
i think Costner expected his Yellowstone fans to flock to the movie and they didn't. searching showtimes in DFW i see only evening screens and only one screen at that. this movie is going to struggle to break even. he picked a bad time for a western film series and he's competing against himself with Horizon.
I don't agree with about 30% of that, but I appreciate the detailed explanation.
I don't know that I agree about QB... yet.
The WR play is significantly poorer at this point. Same with the interior of the DL. In fact, the WR play has taken such a step back that I don't know how we can say Quinn will be better.
It remains to be seen what that means,.
I'm fascinated by how all of this will break out because hundreds of millions are invested.
post lessCount me in that boat. I have a solid, working understanding of the data/research in terms of recruiting, which has immensely helped shape how I look at recruiting and I've even taken that narrative to friends in conversations. It's good stuff. It matters.
I don't personally care about all names/research behind it, but it's cool that you provide as proof. Lots of hard work, bravo on that. I personally like the output but don't need the cooking.
But this topic feels like it has been the theme of the 10TFTW all off-season and it is a bit grinded at this point. I'm sure there are plenty of 10TFTW that don't involve this stuff at all, but it "feels" like it's been every week. Sure different angles like this week's roster depth, but still thematically the same.
So, my 2 cents is... I get it. I believe it, and mostly agree with it. It's been one of the better "learning" things I've uncovered in CFB in a long time, and I hope you keep tracking the data. But I'm pretty tapped out for this summer.
FYI - When I tried to "educate" my friends about this they could not care less and didn't believe it mattered. Bud Elliot's list is all that's needed. I have suffered your exact pain...
Costner is in for at least 30m i hear. he'll want part 2 released just to try to recoup that. looks like Costner is going old school and they aren't streaming part 1 till it's run in theaters is over which looks not too much longer. so it might have some legs and it might do ok on streaming after that. but a big profit now looks so impossible even "Hollywood accounting" can't find it!
if it pops up on HBO i'll watch it. in fact it's being released to the cable networks like Verizon and Frontier as PPV tomorrow.
Last edited:
First - Sark wiil allow his position coaches to bring in as many hs recruits as they believe have a chance to be a contributor on our team.
Second- Sark will continue to use the vacant roster spots to get the best available players in the portal. So far, it seems like we have mote toster spots available than we can fill from the portal.
Second- Sark will continue to use the vacant roster spots to get the best available players in the portal. So far, it seems like we have mote toster spots available than we can fill from the portal.
1st - that's really a waste and position. coaches shouldn't be trusted with those decisions.
2nd - However it might seem, it's not the case. I literally detailed how many more players this 2024 team could use.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. You are talking about guys who are 3rd and 4th stringers on the depth chart and nowhere to be found on the two deep. Other than at DT and maybe at RB/DE, no other position on the field goes more than two deep in meaningful snaps, because you don't want to take your 1st and 2nd stringers off the field in meaningful snaps.
So you're suggesting that players that are proven contributors at places like Tech and TCU are trading that spot to be a 3rd stringer at Texas and play garbage time only. Doesn't add up to me.
Last edited:
You don't need quality depth until you do.
Improving the team by small margins in ways other schools can't is winning the small margins game.
Again, I'm not saying that what you're suggesting doesn't make Texas a better roster. I'm saying you can't just snap your fingers and convince proven talent at other D1 schools to accept a garbage time/3rd string role at Texas.
You can, though.
There are less quality landing spots available for many of these transfers. Texas would be an attractive place for kids who have limited options because the musical chairs game ended with them havuing less options that thwy want.
Diamonte Tucker-Dorsey wasn't a plus player for Texas, but he was a solid addition. He chose Texas over FAU. His presence made the team better.
Also, having an elite scouting department who is combing the country for players that can fill these roles would/should give Texas a major advantage.
Carl Hubbell says hold his beer. You should see the five straight batters he fanned in the ‘34 All Star game
Most would agree that we have among the best QB situations in CFB. Couldn’t say that entering last season - at all.
You don’t think so?
I don't agree yet that Ewers is an elite player or that we can definitely bank on him being better.
He is saying sign only blues (or their evaluated blues) and above for needs. Full stop. Use portal for other adds with proven players with college film projecting them in the 2 deep.
Yes the staff will have to hit at a higher rate but by eliminating the reach offers (players offered more on growth potential than a players expected to compete in the 2 deep by year 2) they will have reduced the risk of misses based on that same math. It will never be perfect. Some will transfer out yearly as no staff ever keeps 100% of a class. By not recruiting development projects you can put those resources into more proven players and ready that raise the overall talent level and increase competition.
I see your point and share some of the concern (not much though) because we will miss on some players we need to meet those objectives most years. I think college coaches will need to be willing to play freshman players regularly (and strategically) to attract top HS recruits AND put some portal players in the NFL to really get this strategy going. We already have some of this going. Sark is willing to play freshmen that earn it. We have had some portal players drafted. Likely more portal players drafted after this coming season.
Those teams that don’t adapt get left behind. I think Ketch is onto the emerging strategy in the portal era.
I also think it will contribute some to parody as there are more borderline blues and developing 3 stars that spread to lower programs and get playing time they wouldn’t get at top programs.
I have this thing I’ve been doing with a close friend for a very long time where I look around CFB for the team with the best combo of OL and QB and pick that team to finish the season in the top 5. Steak dinner on the line. It rarely fails.
Texas is that team this year.
Curious your thoughts in the secondary. It’s the clearest area of improvement I see.
What do you see?
They have kinda been doing that. The target isn’t to portal in 3rd string players. I doubt they would have taken any of them they didn’t think were an upgrade over their worst player pushing to make the 2 deep.
All this nil/portal stuff is still developing but there are way more players in the portal than ever get signed. Many of these players are better additions to the overall team than underclassmen development projects. It would yield more concentrated reps and coaching for the higher ranked/skilled/ready HS recruits. The portal targets we would be interested in are more experienced, ahead in their development, and hungry to play and not just content to be on the team.
Until proven otherwise, It is still a concern for me. I want to see Manny emerge as “that guy” and see vastly better safety play. Are you confident the other corner is good enough? I have a lot of questions about the defense this year. I am hopeful PK and Nansen can get our D right but I am worried about the interior DL and overall pass defense.
