Who Are We Competing Against?

AustinFromUNT · February 4, 2018

I’ve seen a lot of talk on the board about how our coaches can’t recruit against other staffs for players, so I decided to do a little number crunching about where players we offer are going. Currently, 100 players we have offered have committed somewhere other than our school.

Power 5 Schools: 61 recruits

Big-12: 33 recruits.

Oklahoma State: 7

Oklahoma: 5

Baylor: 5

Texas Tech: 5

TCU: 4

Texas: 3

K-State: 3

Iowa State: 1

PAC-12: 9

Arizona State: 2

Utah: 2

Colorado: 1

UCLA: 1

Oregon: 1

Stanford: 1

Arizona: 1

SEC: 7

Mizzou: 4

LSU: 2

TAMU: 1

ACC: 5

Duke: 1

Pitt: 1

NC State: 1

Syracuse: 1

Boston College: 1

Big 10: 6

Purdue: 2

Wisconsin: 1

Minnesota: 1

Nortgwestern: 1

Michigan: 1

Independent: 1

BYU: 1

Group of 5: 39

AAC: 15

Tulsa: 6

Houston: 3

SMU: 2

Tulane: 2

Memphis: 1

UCF: 1

C-USA: 13

LA Tech: 5

Rice: 2

UTSA: 2

MTSU: 2

Southern Miss: 1

UTEP: 1

MWC: 5

Colorado State: 2

San Diego State: 1

Boise State: 1

Nevada: 1

Sunbelt: 3

ULL: 1

ULM: 1

Texas State: 1

MAC: 2

Toledo: 1

Bowling Green: 1

Independent: 1

Army: 1

61% of the players we offer go to P5 schools.

An additional 16% go to a conference that is seen as a better conference than our’s (AAC). Adding these together, that means just over 3/4 (77%) go to a school that is perceived as a better conference.

BTG_Fan1 · February 4, 2018

The problem isn't that we are losing kids to P5, to me that is understandable.. the problem is handicapped ourself with the early on recruits with some very unimpressive offer lists. I’m sorry about all the OL we got should be PWO with rh ability for them to compete for a scholarship.

Yes we added some very talented kids in Williams, Gibbs, Shorter, Davis among others. The problem is we have added kids that have very unimpressive offer lists as well. So for every impressive offer list we added, we added 1 with a lacking offer list. We also are lacking that true stud/leader of the class in my eyes.

In the first two classes we added someone that or someone’s that were .84+ and to me that seems like someone who is the cornerstone of that class (and in the eyes of UNT fans, a major get/prospect/recruit). Even though William Johnson never showed up, it was a big get. Guyton was another great building piece and an instant starter. This class, I have questions as to who is a Day 1 starter? I would love to see Williams, Gibbs, etc start and see them grow from Day 1, but we are not sure they are ready (ie build, knowledge, etc) for them to be out there vs SMU.

Not to knock anything but Marshall best out Bama for a WR, UTSA best out (or was the last one standing) Tennessee for their WR; LT landed a WR with multiple P5 offers, FIU added 2 huge DTs with multiple P5 offers and our beat school to beat our was Illinois. We need to find a few solid kids left, because to me it’s disappointing seeing FAU with 11 recruits ranked ahead of UNT with 21 and of that 21 it’s actially 20 with the recent QB being gone the next 2 years

Mean Green Matt · February 5, 2018

Do you have the analysis of who we are beating out for recruits?

Wag Tag · February 5, 2018

1 hour ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

The problem isn't that we are losing kids to P5, to me that is understandable.. the problem is handicapped ourself with the early on recruits with some very unimpressive offer lists. I’m sorry about all the OL we got should be PWO with rh ability for them to compete for a scholarship.

Yes we added some very talented kids in Williams, Gibbs, Shorter, Davis among others. The problem is we have added kids that have very unimpressive offer lists as well. So for every impressive offer list we added, we added 1 with a lacking offer list. We also are lacking that true stud/leader of the class in my eyes.

In the first two classes we added someone that or someone’s that were .84+ and to me that seems like someone who is the cornerstone of that class (and in the eyes of UNT fans, a major get/prospect/recruit). Even though William Johnson never showed up, it was a big get. Guyton was another great building piece and an instant starter. This class, I have questions as to who is a Day 1 starter? I would love to see Williams, Gibbs, etc start and see them grow from Day 1, but we are not sure they are ready (ie build, knowledge, etc) for them to be out there vs SMU.

Not to knock anything but Marshall best out Bama for a WR, UTSA best out (or was the last one standing) Tennessee for their WR; LT landed a WR with multiple P5 offers, FIU added 2 huge DTs with multiple P5 offers and our beat school to beat our was Illinois. We need to find a few solid kids left, because to me it’s disappointing seeing FAU with 11 recruits ranked ahead of UNT with 21 and of that 21 it’s actially 20 with the recent QB being gone the next 2 years

The more 3* players we have the odds are better to find that player or players who will have an impact. We had only 6 3* last year compared to 8 3* signed or committed this year. If we can end this year like the last two years and find those gems could be a really good class! GMG

AustinFromUNT · February 5, 2018

31 minutes ago, Mean Green Matt said:

Do you have the analysis of who we are beating out for recruits?

Sure. We have 22 recruits that have a combined 45 FBS offers.

Power 5: 8

Big 10: 4

Illinois: 2

Indiana: 1

Purdue: 1

PAC-12: 2

Utah: 1

Arizona: 1

SEC: 1

Arkansas: 1

Big-12: 1

K-State: 1

Group of 5: 37

Sunbelt: 15

ULL: 3

Texas State: 3

Liberty: 3

ULM: 2

New Mexico State: 1

Arkansas State: 1

South Alabama: 1

Troy: 1

AAC: 7

Navy: 2

Tulane: 1

Tulsa: 1

Memphis: 1

SMU: 1

Houston: 1

C-USA: 6

UTSA: 2

LA Tech: 2

Rice: 1

Southern Miss: 1

MAC: 6

Bowling Green: 2

Akron: 1

Kent State: 1

Ohio: 1

Toledo: 1

MWC: 3

New Mexico: 2

Colorado State: 1

BTG_Fan1 · February 5, 2018

Just now, Wag Tag said:

The more 3* players we have the odds are better to find that player or players who will have an impact. We had only 6 3* last year compared to 8 3* signed or committed this year. If we can end this year like the last two years and find those gems could be a really good class! GMG

Yes we signed/have 8 3* committed with multiple others having been rated a 3* and now lowered (LeBlanc, Nixon, etc).. but 1 of those 8 is a QB who we have to remember many people had questions about as to why he wasn’t the QB1.. Another 3* is a undersized RB that is coming into a stable of RBs that has 2 higher rated 3*s in place (Smith and Siggers). The WRs will see limited action, so again why would we play them if they only get 70-90 reps the entire season? That alone is half the 3*s that will likely not see the field this year. The defensive 3*s we have no idea. Davis has changed positions, Gibbs is in a position that we don’t know which side of the ball, Williams is the highest rated but does he have the size to play Day 1? Shaw will likely be a rotational piece.

Again it’s great we are adding 3* but this is a team has been adding them in areas we have mostly quality players/depth at. The LBs need a lot of help and more size, and the DL needs more size as well.

Wag Tag · February 5, 2018

23 minutes ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

Yes we signed/have 8 3* committed with multiple others having been rated a 3* and now lowered (LeBlanc, Nixon, etc).. but 1 of those 8 is a QB who we have to remember many people had questions about as to why he wasn’t the QB1.. Another 3* is a undersized RB that is coming into a stable of RBs that has 2 higher rated 3*s in place (Smith and Siggers). The WRs will see limited action, so again why would we play them if they only get 70-90 reps the entire season? That alone is half the 3*s that will likely not see the field this year. The defensive 3*s we have no idea. Davis has changed positions, Gibbs is in a position that we don’t know which side of the ball, Williams is the highest rated but does he have the size to play Day 1? Shaw will likely be a rotational piece.

Again it’s great we are adding 3* but this is a team has been adding them in areas we have mostly quality players/depth at. The LBs need a lot of help and more size, and the DL needs more size as well.

Yea and who was our leading receiver last year. A walk on! If we can’t get HS D-Lineman then we better start developing them through PWO and redshirts.

MCMLXXX · February 5, 2018

To answer your question. Ourselves.

BTG_Fan1 · February 5, 2018

5 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

Yea and who was our leading receiver last year. A walk on! If we can’t get HS D-Lineman then we better start developing them through PWO and redshirts.

Yes Lawrence lead this team, but Guyton opened it up for multiple people at times and RICO/Smiley did solid things as well.

I understand we have “hit” on under offered, players like Lawrence and Fine. But we need to start figuring out and closing out on guys in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Adding OL with multiple G5 offers is a must, DL and LBs with size are needed. Shaw is a solid addition but we need more size up front to go with him. The LBs got destroyed and ran over plenty last year when they had to try and get off blocks or make a critical tackles.

The point I’m making is we have the ability to recruit the skilled spots, but now the focus needs to be on the bigger guys. If we want to close out this recruiting with success we need to add some beef to the OL/DL/LB

UNTLifer · February 5, 2018

Sorry, but your arguement was lost on me when you use William Johnson, a player that never set foot on campus, as an example of successful recruiting. Guyton was your other example and outside of two games, he was relatively quiet even with a high rating. Also, expecting or wanting freshman to arrive and start is an indictment on what we already have in house. We better get to the point that our incoming players are redshirting and adjusting to college ball/life unless they are an over the top type of talent.

We have a good class and we need to keep grinding to finish out on a high note.

BTG_Fan1 · February 5, 2018

1 hour ago, UNTLifer said:

Sorry, but your arguement was lost on me when you use William Johnson, a player that never set foot on campus, as an example of successful recruiting. Guyton was your other example and outside of two games, he was relatively quiet even with a high rating. Also, expecting or wanting freshman to arrive and start is an indictment on what we already have in house. We better get to the point that our incoming players are redshirting and adjusting to college ball/life unless they are an over the top type of talent.

We have a good class and we need to keep grinding to finish out on a high note.

A good class? We are below 100, and may not even be a top 10 class again..

Also, Guyton presence alone created space for other players and allowed for the likes of Rico, Smiley, etc to slot into the correct spots as well instead of forcing Smiley/Rico into being the #1 WR that neither of them was ready for.

Since you don’t like the Johnson line, you can still plug in Jenkins from that class as a plug and play player and by far the highest rated recruit in that class.

Edited February 5, 2018 by BTG_Fan1

Ben Gooding · February 5, 2018

1 hour ago, UNTLifer said:

Sorry, but your arguement was lost on me when you use William Johnson, a player that never set foot on campus, as an example of successful recruiting. Guyton was your other example and outside of two games, he was relatively quiet even with a high rating. Also, expecting or wanting freshman to arrive and start is an indictment on what we already have in house. We better get to the point that our incoming players are redshirting and adjusting to college ball/life unless they are an over the top type of talent.

We have a good class and we need to keep grinding to finish out on a high note.

A good class? You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. You can't try hushing people that voice concerns about poor recruiting with your logic of we won't know what we have yet until 4 years. Then, turnaround and state we have a good class. Because, I thought it would be 4 years until we know?

We are getting peoples attention more frequently now than a few years ago. We are being widdled down into kids' top 5 or so more often. There are some nice commits in this class with many of offers. But kids, when given more than 3 or 4 choices, typically are not commiting to this staff. It's OK to say this staff can't recruit well if they can't. I mean are some on here paid to come on here in defense of any and all of our present or past coaches and administrators? Because it damn sure seems that way at times.

UNTLifer · February 5, 2018

No, but as noted above, we currently have more 3 stars than last year. I do ultimately prefer to see how classes play out over 3,4 or 5 years to properly rate them because you just never know how kids will pan out, but for the sake of argument, I just don't see the purpose of criticizing a class when the comparison is a player that never set foot on campus. I guess we will know how this class initially rates when it is completed on Wednesday.

TheReal_jayD · February 5, 2018

giphy (10).gif

Ben Gooding · February 5, 2018

29 minutes ago, TheReal_jayD said:

Ok....

But this is definitively a 10th place or worse class in CUSA this cycle. We're 9th as it stands, so 5 programs are behind us. All but 1 program (ODU) still have 10+ ships to handout to boost their classes. Laugh all you want, but when recruiting stays like this it's the opposition that will be getting the last laugh on most Saturday's.

Wag Tag · February 5, 2018

8 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

Ok....

But this is definitively a 10th place or worse class in CUSA this cycle. We're 9th as it stands, so 5 programs are behind us. All but 1 program (ODU) still have 10+ ships to handout to boost their classes. Laugh all you want, but when recruiting stays like this it's the opposition that will be getting the last laugh on most Saturday's.

Do you judge based on C-USA rankings or Nat'i Rankings or how many more additional 3* we sign? If you look at the class so far as a whole it is a solid improvement over the last 2 years. Hope we find a few more Michael Lawerence type players. I still think a big negative for us at this time is the IPF (is about $700,000 short) and the weight room. How are you going to make me a better player with limited facilities on the development side? I hope the student fee passes and we can get started on the IPF SOON!

Edited February 5, 2018 by Wag Tag

AustinFromUNT · February 5, 2018

11 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

Do you judge based on C-USA rankings or Nat'i Rankings or how many more additional 3* we sign? If you look at the class so far as a whole it is a solid improvement over the last 2 years. Hope we find a few more Michael Lawerence type players. I still think a big negative for us at this time is the IPF (is about $700,000 short) and the weight room. How are you going to make me a better player with limited facilities on the development side? I hope the student fee passes and we can get started on the IPF SOON!

For the record, we currently have 23 players committed. 1 of those won’t be here for 2 years, and another is a blue shirt. So really that number is 21. Currently, we have 12 players who either are right now, or at one point were rated as 3* players (over half of our players lost a couple points when they committed to us). 12/21 is a pretty good percent (57%). Last year 6/20 were 3* (30%), and the year before that was 4/20 3* (20%), I won’t count Johnson who LITERALLY had no eligibility left or Hoston who didn’t qualify.

Ben Gooding · February 5, 2018

20 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

Do you judge based on C-USA rankings or Nat'i Rankings or how many more additional 3* we sign? If you look at the class so far as a whole it is a solid improvement over the last 2 years. Hope we find a few more Michael Lawerence type players. I still think a big negative for us at this time is the IPF (is about $700,000 short) and the weight room. How are you going to make me a better player with limited facilities on the development side? Its hope the student fee passes and we can get started on the IPF SOON!

I go by 247, the most comprehensive rating system out there. Also, I just look at the offer lists. And offer lists and only offer lists is the reason why I have been saying we have improved a bit. But the improvement is closer to microscopic than it is to substantial...I mean, it's not hard to improve recruiting around here. So to be frank, that's not saying a whole bunch.

What is hurting this class, the ranking and perception, is for every kid that commits here with a solid offer sheet, we have 2 that are committing with minimal to 0 FBS offers other than us, much like last year.

Also, I don't fault the staff for trying to go after guys with P5 offers. I mean, why not? But at the same time, there has to be some realistic effort put into guys that you really want, and obvious less effort with guys that you are just dropping a hook. We need to go after and go hard after guys that are in the 3-6 FBS offer range. Stay away from guys with 50%+ P5 offers unless you think there is some legitimate shot at landing him. Put that time and effort solidly into the 3-6 FBS offer guys and don't waste time on dropping wishful thinking hooks in the water. The 70%+ of our offers are P5 commits. Work smart, not hard.

*Also, our lack of IPF is not hurting this program in recruiting. More don't have them than have them as of right now. What is hurting this program in recruiting is having a staff that can't recruit. We knew what we were getting when the powers that be hired SL, an X and O guy, not a recruiter. That mentality has evidently permeated down into his staff mentality and/or his staffing hires.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Ben Gooding

Ben Gooding · February 5, 2018

1 minute ago, AustinFromUNT said:

For the record, we currently have 23 players committed. 1 of those won’t be here for 2 years, and another is a blue shirt. So really that number is 21. Currently, we have 12 players who either are right now, or at one point were rated as 3* players (over half of our players lost a couple points when they committed to us). 12/21 is a pretty good percent (57%). Last year 6/20 were 3* (30%), and the year before that was 4/20 3* (20%), I won’t count Johnson who LITERALLY had no eligibility left or Hoston who didn’t qualify.

Are these numbers being accounted for in the once upon a time a three star like the 2018 percentage?

AustinFromUNT · February 5, 2018

Just now, Ben Gooding said:

Are these numbers being accounted for in the once upon a time a three star like the 2018 percentage?

To the best of my memory, yes. Even if you give each of those classes an extra 2 3* guys, this class is still better than the last 2.

Ben Gooding · February 5, 2018

Polishing a turd is still polishing a turd.

But you added 4, maybe even 5 wishful thinking 3 stars to this class.

Look, it gets tiresome looking for reasons under the microscope as to why we don't suck rather than being able to point at concrete proof as to why we're doing a good job.

AustinFromUNT · February 5, 2018

2 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Polishing a turd is still polishing a turd.

But you added 4, maybe even 5 wishful thinking 3 stars to this class.

Look, it gets tiresome looking for reasons under the microscope as to why we don't suck rather than being able to point at concrete proof as to why we're doing a good job.

I do wish our recruiting was better. I wish we could pull in a class of all 3* guys. But, I realize that type of thing doesn’t happen over night. It takes time. I’m seeing progress in recruiting, so I’ll give the staff a pass. As long as the improvement continues I’ll be happy. This isn’t a class that smacks a 5, but this a class that can beat a lot of G5. Also, guess I should have taken a screenshot of each of these guys before they committed to us. If you don’t believe me, ask @BTG_Fan1

GrandGreen · February 5, 2018

Any team can offer any player they want, it means next to nothing. As stated, I doubt anyone really expects NT to consistently beat any P5 school in recruiting. What I do expect and other G5's manage, is to win a few of those battles.

What does matter is how NT compares to their G5 peers. NT in recent years has beat a few Belt teams and UTEP but hardly anyone else in recruiting head to head battles. That has changed this year, but NT still has a long way to go.

Ben Gooding · February 5, 2018

6 minutes ago, AustinFromUNT said:

I do wish our recruiting was better. I wish we could pull in a class of all 3* guys. But, I realize that type of thing doesn’t happen over night. It takes time. I’m seeing progress in recruiting, so I’ll give the staff a pass. As long as the improvement continues I’ll be happy. This isn’t a class that smacks a 5, but this a class that can beat a lot of G5. Also, guess I should have taken a screenshot of each of these guys before they committed to us. If you don’t believe me, ask @BTG_Fan1

No, no, I believe you. I am just not sure we are giving the previous classes due credit in order to boost this class and the job the staff is doing.

The improvement is visible. It's just not good enough. WKU is the least supported program outside of maybe Charlotte in CUSA and they are rolling deep. Their top 2 rated prospects have about half of FBS offers of UNT's entire committed class. This is WKU we're talking about. They have 0 support. Average facilities at best. And are located in rural Bowling Green, Kentucky. We can make excuse after excuse after excuse for our poor lil ol Mean Green, but other programs with far more disadvantages continue to get it done year after year.