Why Do We Struggle With Recruiting?

[GTWT]

1 hour ago, BillySee58 said:

You're mixing up the coaches job of recruiting and the players' results. That player would end up being a poor signing. But it would have taken tremendous recruiting to get him. You can't deny that it would take great recruiting to get a student-athlete to choose UNT over UT, A&M, and Alabama. 

Imagine getting a player to choose those schools over us while they legitimately wanted him and were trying to get him too. Then, that player gets kicked off the team before he ever contributes. You can't just retoractively say "well, it wasn't such a great job to get him to come here after all since it didn't work out."

Yes it was! What happened with that player doesn't change the fact of the recruiting ability displayed to get him.

Then that's a great job of evaluating and developing by the coaches. That's not a great job of recruiting just because he ended up being a good player. You or I could sign a kid like that. 

Do you think a P5 school evaluating the job Littrell did here is going to look at Mason Fine's career and say "gee, that Fine kid sure showed that Littrell is an amazing recruiter!"

No. They're going to see that and realize that he successfully evaluated and offered Fine when no other D1 coach did, and did a great job developing him. Fine helps show Littrell to be more than adequate in those areas, but does not lend credence to him being a good head-to-head recruiter.

I get what you're saying. You're trying to say that a recruiting class and the individual players in it should only be judged by their results in college. And the coaching staff should be measured by how good their signees turned out, and not who they beat them out for before signing day. I COMPLETELY agree with that.

However, you absolutely can tell how good a job our coaches are doing at recruiting and convincing kids to choose us over and other schools on signing day. Like I said, Littrell and his staff have been able to overcome it by winning just enough recruiting battles for guys like Guyton, hitting on their evaluations like Fine, and scooping up guys at the end of the cycle who saw their offers dry up like Nic Smith and Rico Bussey, and developing their players tremendously.

We're about 95% in agreement.  For me, the bottom line is winning with the players you sign.  Beating out a rival school for a kid, or signing a 3-star RB, or having your class ranked higher than that juggernaut in San Antonio looks good to the fans, but what really matters is if the kids you sign contribute to winning 2, 3, and 4 years later.

Besides, signing success often has little to do with the efforts of a coaching staff.  A few years back my best friend's son was offered by several top D1 programs, he chose A&M - not because the Aggies out-recruited the other schools' staffs, but because he had been sold on being at A&M since he was six years old.  There are lots of reasons 18 year-old kids sign a LOI, sometimes it's because a coach did a great sales-job, but sometimes it's just because the kid really likes maroon uniforms. 

[BillySee58]

44 minutes ago, GTWT said:

We're about 95% in agreement.  For me, the bottom line is winning with the players you sign. 

For sure. That's the bottom line for anyone. That doesn't mean we can't evaluate or monitor a coaching staff's ability to win recruiting battles separate from how the players actually turn out. That's all this is.

Quote

A few years back my best friend's son was offered by several top D1 programs, he chose A&M - not because the Aggies out-recruited the other schools' staffs, but because he had been sold on being at A&M since he was six years old. 

And that's a huge difference between us and a program like A&M. We have almost never had that luxury. Which is why our coaches need to be able to sell their program successfully to high school athletes. Luckily our peers don't typically have that luxury either.

Often the kids we recruit know little to nothing at all about our program, or the other G5s recruiting them. Our coaches can shape their perception, to a fairly high degree, about our program.

[UNTLifer]

Well then, what is the purpose of evaluating a coach's recruiting ability and calling him a great recruiter if the player never pans out?  That makes zero sense to me.  Maybe I could not have signed, Fine for example, because I didn't see the potential SL saw.  There has to be some credit given for finding that overlooked recruit, getting him to sign with NT, developing his talent and watching him contribute at a crazy level.  

It that is how you are grading our classes, ability at recruiting, and not grading our recruits, then I don't really care about recruiting.  I care about signing good players that make us winners, regardless of star ratings and offer lists.

[BillySee58]

41 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Well then, what is the purpose of evaluating a coach's recruiting ability and calling him a great recruiter if the player never pans out? 

Because that isn't how real life works. Outliers are exceptions, not the rule. Study after study shows each star rating has a much higher percentage of players who make the NFL than the star rating below it.  

41 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

That makes zero sense to me.  Maybe I could not have signed, Fine for example, because I didn't see the potential SL saw. 

You COULD have signed Fine if you were the NT head coach in 2016. Maybe you would not have chosen to sign Fine because you wouldn't have seen his potential, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have signed him. It should not make zero sense to you, as long as you understand the difference between could not and would not have.

The point is, if you offered, he would have signed to play for you because it meant an FBS scholarship which he did not have elsewhere. It took very little, at most, actual recruiting ability to sign Fine. It took tremendous evaluating ability and a great job of developing him since to get to the point where we are today.

41 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

There has to be some credit given for finding that overlooked recruit, getting him to sign with NT, developing his talent and watching him contribute at a crazy level.  

There is! Have you not been reading any of the posts or are you too busy reading what you want to read and not what is actually said, again? I have commended them in many posts for their evaluating skills, player-development skills, and opportunistic recruiting. 

41 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

It that is how you are grading our classes, ability at recruiting, and not grading our recruits, then I don't really care about recruiting.

It's not. I've explained this to you countless times. I grade classes based on all of their offers that they receive throughout the recruiting process. Not just who is recruiting them when they commit to us. That's for evaluating the players and the class, not the coaches abilities to win recruiting battles.

I also look at head to head recruiting battles SEPARATELY and tracking how our coaches are doing in that regard. There are many layers to recruiting, and different areas to the coaches, and then the players as recruits and college players.

41 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

  I care about signing good players that make us winners, regardless of star ratings and offer lists.

How unique of you. You, along with every single fan. Are people not allowed to observe how well our coaches are doing winning recruiting battles without people like you and GTWT butting in and saying "who cares about that? All that matters is that we are winning?"

[UNTLifer]

Just now, BillySee58 said:

Because that isn't how real life works. Outliers are exceptions, not the rule. Study after study shows each star rating has a much higher percentage of players who make the NFL than the star rating below it.  

You COULD have signed Fine if you were the NT head coach in 2016. Maybe you would not have chosen to sign Fine because you wouldn't have seen his potential, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have signed him. It should not make zero sense to you, as long as you understand the difference between could not and would not have.

The point is, if you offered, he would have signed to play for you because it meant an FBS scholarship which he did not have elsewhere. It took very little, at most, actual recruiting ability to sign Fine. It took tremendous evaluating ability and a great job of developing him since to get to the point where we are today.

There is! Have you not been reading any of the posts or are you too busy reading what you want to read and not what is actually said, again? I have commended them in many posts for their evaluating skills, player-development skills, and opportunistic recruiting. 

It's not. I've explained this to you countless times. I grade classes based on all of their offers that they receive throughout the recruiting process. Not just who is recruiting them when they commit to us. That's for evaluating the players and the class, not the coaches abilities to win recruiting battles.

I also look at head to head recruiting battles SEPARATELY and tracking how our coaches are doing in that regard. There are many layers to recruiting, and different areas to the coaches, and then the players as recruits and college players.

How unique of you. You, along with every single fan. Are people not allowed to observe how well our coaches are doing winning recruiting battles without people like you and GTWT butting in and saying "who cares about that? All that matters is that we are winning?"

Just posting my opinion.  Pick it apart, make it personal if that makes you feel better, etc...  I have seen too many kids signed by us that were highly celebrated, Collins in the Fry era, Stradford, Berglund, Morris, Goree, etc... that didn't live up to their star ratings.  I have also seen young men with limited to no offers become stars, such as Chris Hurd, Scott Hall, Johnny Quinn, Patrick Cobbs, Mason Fine, etc...  My point of reference is what has happened at North Texas.  Sorry, you take offense to my opinion.  It just is a different point of view than your POV.  That is all.

[BillySee58]

Just now, UNTLifer said:

Just posting my opinion.  Pick it apart, make it personal if that makes you feel better, etc...  I have seen too many kids signed by us that were highly celebrated, Collins in the Fry era, Stradford, Berglund, Morris, Goree, etc... that didn't live up to their star ratings.  I have also seen young men with limited to no offers become stars, such as Chris Hurd, Scott Hall, Johnny Quinn, Patrick Cobbs, Mason Fine, etc...  My point of reference is what has happened at North Texas.  Sorry, you take offense to my opinion.  It just is a different point of view than your POV.  That is all.

When did I take offense? And I don't even see that different an opinion from mine. What I did see was you misinterpreting points I made, and explaining why certain things don't matter to you. That's fine that things don't matter to you. People can still evaluate them and discuss them on a message board. That's what message boards are for. Discussion.

And I attempted to clear up confusion on what I actually said and have said in the past. I don't mind a differing opinion. And I did not criticize any of your opinions. But I do mind when my words are being represented differently than they were actually said. 

[greenminer]

Recruiting is a game of averages.  I'll never understand why some people refute it.

[BillySee58]

15 minutes ago, greenminer said:

Recruiting is a game of averages.  I'll never understand why some people refute it.

Because as long as their are outliers and exceptions, people will have something to point to on the contrary. Especially because when an outlier does occur, people like to drill the point home that an outlier occurred.

[Caw Caw]

I think at North Texas, at least currently, evaluating and developing under-recruiting talent is a huge key to why this staff has been successful. It's definitely is a huge step forward from the previous staffs. I'd genuinely say we had some natural QB talent that went squandered here because we lacked development under previous staffs.

All that being said, it still doesn't make us good recruiters. It makes our staff good coaches and evaluators, which we obviously want, but that doesn't make them good salesman. I guess I think of it like this, if you invest in and fine tune a Honda Civic you can get a lot out of that car. More than most expected, but imagine you invest in and fine tune Lambo, your results will still be better.

We are in the best place this program has ever been in, since at least Dickey, if you throw in facilities, conference and leadership maybe the best position we've ever been in. It is no secret this staff can do a lot with less, but I'd like to see what they can do with a couple top 5 recruiting classes as well. I trust them to dig up gems and evaluate and develop kids like Lawrence, Fine and Evan Johnson. I know they will offer kids early that other people don't see the potential or the fit in their systems. I'm fine with that, but we have to want them to win this part of the game too.

[GOMG2013]

There's a lot more that determine on the field success, so to use that to judge recruiting is misleading.  Good recruiting (collecting the most talent) is a big start to success though. But not the only thing.

Examples are A&M, LSU, Texas...their recruiting success has not translated on the field.  Does that mean those high rated recruits are overrated?  Nope. Because the talent was still there at one point and maybe it wasn't the right fit.  Maybe they were out of position, bad coaching etc.

Players from A&M, LSU, and Texas are still going pro though.  Even though it has not translated on the field, the talent was still there.  

For those that think the ratings don't matter, then look at what happens when you plug in a talent like Guyton.  

[Wag Tag]

On 11/26/2017 at 12:52 AM, BillySee58 said:

Because that isn't how real life works. Outliers are exceptions, not the rule. Study after study shows each star rating has a much higher percentage of players who make the NFL than the star rating below it.  

You COULD have signed Fine if you were the NT head coach in 2016. Maybe you would not have chosen to sign Fine because you wouldn't have seen his potential, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have signed him. It should not make zero sense to you, as long as you understand the difference between could not and would not have.

The point is, if you offered, he would have signed to play for you because it meant an FBS scholarship which he did not have elsewhere. It took very little, at most, actual recruiting ability to sign Fine. It took tremendous evaluating ability and a great job of developing him since to get to the point where we are today.

There is! Have you not been reading any of the posts or are you too busy reading what you want to read and not what is actually said, again? I have commended them in many posts for their evaluating skills, player-development skills, and opportunistic recruiting. 

It's not. I've explained this to you countless times. I grade classes based on all of their offers that they receive throughout the recruiting process. Not just who is recruiting them when they commit to us. That's for evaluating the players and the class, not the coaches abilities to win recruiting battles.

I also look at head to head recruiting battles SEPARATELY and tracking how our coaches are doing in that regard. There are many layers to recruiting, and different areas to the coaches, and then the players as recruits and college players.

How unique of you. You, along with every single fan. Are people not allowed to observe how well our coaches are doing winning recruiting battles without people like you and GTWT butting in and saying "who cares about that? All that matters is that we are winning?"

Would you rather coach up a 3 star or a 2 star? Seth has proven he can coach up players. Now get the better ranked ones! I am hoping for a top 5 C-USA class and one rated in the top 80%. GMG

Edited November 27, 2017 by Wag Tag

[UNTLifer]

22 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

Because as long as their are outliers and exceptions, people will have something to point to on the contrary. Especially because when an outlier does occur, people like to drill the point home that an outlier occurred.

Maybe it was due to our old recruiting process, or that we took chances on some players with size concerns, Booger, Fine, etc... but we seem to have a greater number of "outliers" than other programs.  Maybe this is why I have my point of view.  I appreciate the time you put in to research our recruiting and recruiting in general.  I think my real issue is when people criticize us signing a young man, or criticize our coach's lack of recruiting prowess, which is an indirect slap at the young man signed, without giving them a chance to contribute.