Four years of Big 10 recruiting.

Donate To GopherHole
L

LonelyIowaGopher

Banned
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
Points
16
If you go to Rivals and average the recruiting rankings within the conference over the past four years (almost entirely the Brewster era at Minnesota) you get the following yearly average ranks:
Ohio State 1.75
Michigan 2.25
Nebraska 3.75
Penn State 4.50
Iowa 5.00
Michigan State 5.25
Minnesota 7.50
Illinois 7.75
Wisconsin 8.00
Northwestern 10.25
Purdue 10.50
Indiana 11.00
Why shouldn't Minnesota win all the Big 10 games it plays in 2011 against schools ranked lower in recruiting than the Gophers? Also, it looks like Wisconsin has really been "coaching up" its players. If Kill can do the same--even though it's a meaningless concept--can Minnesota win a Big 10 championship soon and go to the Rose Bowl like Wisconsin did on 1/1/11?
 

I don't think anyone is saying that "coaching up" certain players is meaningless, I think they are saying the phrase is overused and they got sick of hearing it.

Also, i'd be willing to bet that if you looked at those recruiting classes and then adjusted them according to the players who were actually still on the team (only count recruits still with their respective schools), that MN's ranking would be much lower.
 

Killjoy asked the question, "What does the phrase "coaching them up" even mean?" to start a thread. There were many responses to the question, some having to do with the importance of recruiting over improvement through coaching. If Killjoy wasn't questioning the concept, why didn't he just say he was tired of the phrase?

Also, are you saying that Brewster wasn't that great of a recruiter after all? Why then all the worry about Kill's recruiting abilities or--on an even more bizzare level here--all the talk about Minnesota needing to get more five and four star recruits? They haven't had a five star recruit in thirty years (according to sources on this board) and now you're saying Brewster's classes studded with four star recruits are suspect.

Finally, what can we expect in terms of Big 10 wins in 2011 with whatever talent Kill has? Have far from the Rose Bowl are the Gophers? How can Wisconsin do so well with average recruiting classes? Wisconsin even has a women's athletic department--although not a Pam Burton--so that shouldn't be an excuse for the Gopher football program versus that of the Badgers. Let's talk about the future. Let's talk specifics.
 

LonelyIowaGopher said:
Killjoy asked the question, "What does the phrase "coaching them up" even mean?" to start a thread. There were many responses to the question, some having to do with the importance of recruiting over improvement through coaching. If Killjoy wasn't questioning the concept, why didn't he just say he was tired of the phrase?

Also, are you saying that Brewster wasn't that great of a recruiter after all? Why then all the worry about Kill's recruiting abilities or--on an even more bizzare level here--all the talk about Minnesota needing to get more five and four star recruits? They haven't had a five star recruit in thirty years (according to sources on this board) and now you're saying Brewster's classes studded with four star recruits are suspect.

Finally, what can we expect in terms of Big 10 wins in 2011 with whatever talent Kill has? Have far from the Rose Bowl are the Gophers? How can Wisconsin do so well with average recruiting classes? Wisconsin even has a women's athletic department--although not a Pam Burton--so that shouldn't be an excuse for the Gopher football program versus that of the Badgers. Let's talk about the future. Let's talk specifics.
Click to expand...

Nice job on your paragraphs, Lonely. They are much better. Keep up the good work.
 

Who was the last 5 star recruit?
 


LonelyIowaGopher said:
Killjoy asked the question, "What does the phrase "coaching them up" even mean?" to start a thread. There were many responses to the question, some having to do with the importance of recruiting over improvement through coaching. If Killjoy wasn't questioning the concept, why didn't he just say he was tired of the phrase?

Also, are you saying that Brewster wasn't that great of a recruiter after all? Why then all the worry about Kill's recruiting abilities or--on an even more bizzare level here--all the talk about Minnesota needing to get more five and four star recruits? They haven't had a five star recruit in thirty years (according to sources on this board) and now you're saying Brewster's classes studded with four star recruits are suspect.

Finally, what can we expect in terms of Big 10 wins in 2011 with whatever talent Kill has? Have far from the Rose Bowl are the Gophers? How can Wisconsin do so well with average recruiting classes? Wisconsin even has a women's athletic department--although not a Pam Burton--so that shouldn't be an excuse for the Gopher football program versus that of the Badgers. Let's talk about the future. Let's talk specifics.
Click to expand...


I assume these questions were to me because I was the only one who had responded.

But yeah, I guess I am saying that the previous classes weren't as good as advertised because of the fact that we have been killed by player attrition. Brewster wasn't recruiting guys who had the ability academically to get into school (or stay) and he had an issue with finding guys who were a perfect fit. So despite the recruiting rankings, I don't think Brewster's classes were effective (besides the 2008 class which looks to still be a good class).

I'm not really picking a side on this "coaching them up" debate that you want to talk about ad naseum. My thinking is that it sort of happens (coaching them up) but that I was annoyed at hearing that catch phrase over and over again.

Like I said, if you took the last 5 classes and factored attrition (so zero "coaching them up") into the recruiting rankings, I'd imagine the Gophers would be right near the bottom of that ranking. I think with decent coaching we could be a 6-7 win team next season, but I still think we are very away from a Rose Bowl. It's impossible to talk specifics (for me) about the future, because I don't know. I have no idea how well Gray will perform as a full time QB next season, if our secondary can improve, if our defensive line can magically start making a push. I feel more confident now with Kill at the helm than I was with Brewster, but that's really all I know.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
I assume these questions were to me because I was the only one who had responded.

But yeah, I guess I am saying that the previous classes weren't as good as advertised because of the fact that we have been killed by player attrition. Brewster wasn't recruiting guys who had the ability academically to get into school (or stay) and he had an issue with finding guys who were a perfect fit. So despite the recruiting rankings, I don't think Brewster's classes were effective (besides the 2008 class which looks to still be a good class).

I'm not really picking a side on this "coaching them up" debate that you want to talk about ad naseum. My thinking is that it sort of happens (coaching them up) but that I was annoyed at hearing that catch phrase over and over again.

Like I said, if you took the last 5 classes and factored attrition (so zero "coaching them up") into the recruiting rankings, I'd imagine the Gophers would be right near the bottom of that ranking. I think with decent coaching we could be a 6-7 win team next season, but I still think we are very away from a Rose Bowl. It's impossible to talk specifics (for me) about the future, because I don't know. I have no idea how well Gray will perform as a full time QB next season, if our secondary can improve, if our defensive line can magically start making a push. I feel more confident now with Kill at the helm than I was with Brewster, but that's really all I know.
Click to expand...

Retention could have been better (around 75%) but hardly "killed" classes.
 

Future

I'm optimistic but Rose Bowl is too far away to be a discussion. We need to win six games next year. Pirsig and some of these MN recruits have basically said as much saying they want to see how we do next year before deciding on their future.

Bob, I disagree on talent. I do think we have more than we have had in many years. I believe Kill will show that. Not saying we have great talent but I would say middle or bottom middle of the Big Ten talent....kinda like the chart shows. I agree there has been attrition, but there has also been additions with transfers. We got more red shirt people to plug in than in the past. We have some pretty significant walk ons. Bob, you and I end up with the same conclusion...six or seven wins and more confidence in Kill.

Coaching matters! Did the New England Patriots have top 10 NFL talent in 2010? We have enough pieces if Kill can coach. And history says he can. 6 and 6 is a regular season must in 2011. Anything less and I am not optimistic we can recruit or climb. Might feel different depending on circumstances next December. lol I am almost really confident we WILL be 6 and 6 or better in 2011 for sure!
 



I'm not the one who initiated the "coaching them up" phrase. That was Killjoy with a thread he started. I'll keep using the saying, however, so that I can continue hear the reply (ad nauseum), "I'm tired of that phrase."
 

If Hayo Carpentar has been the only five star recruit at Minnesota over the past thirty years, why would they want any more five star recruits? Also, Hayo is not listed by Rivals as a five star recruit. Wasn't he a JUCO transfer?
 

Bob Loblaw,
What else is there besides recruiting and coaching? Playing, I suppose. But don't players have to be recruited and coached? Also, if you can't "coach players up" what can you do as a coach? Recruit? Coach players down?
 

LonelyIowaGopher said:
If Hayo Carpentar has been the only five star recruit at Minnesota over the past thirty years, why would they want any more five star recruits? Also, Hayo is not listed by Rivals as a five star recruit. Wasn't he a JUCO transfer?
Click to expand...


He was a JuCo kid who was a 4 star recruit on rivals and a 5 star recruit on Scout.

The truth is that there is a much better chance that a 5 star recruit will go on to become a star player. It isn't always the case and you can still be succesful without landing many of them, but Khaliq's graph is pretty spot on, there is certainly a quantative correlation between being a 5star or high 4star recruit and being an All American.
 



LonelyIowaGopher said:
If Hayo Carpentar has been the only five star recruit at Minnesota over the past thirty years, why would they want any more five star recruits? Also, Hayo is not listed by Rivals as a five star recruit. Wasn't he a JUCO transfer?
Click to expand...

Scout gave him five stars. Lou Holtz had a good class lined up his last year. Took most of them with him to ND and won a national championship with them.
 

Someone counted Nebraska's national championships as those won by the Big 10. I we now supposed to count five star recruits to Notre Dame as Minnesota players?
 


LonelyIowaGopher said:
Bob Loblaw,
What else is there besides recruiting and coaching? Playing, I suppose. But don't players have to be recruited and coached? Also, if you can't "coach players up" what can you do as a coach? Recruit? Coach players down?
Click to expand...


Lonely, I think the key factor that a lot of people are missing is the recruits ability to get into school and to stay into school. The U gets credit (by Rivals rankings) for guys like V. Hill, B. Smith, Lipscomb, Searcy, Maresh, Whaley, T. Combs, Tatum and Kerry Lewis who are signed by the U, but they don't (for a variety of reasons) see more than really limited PT (if any) before moving elsewhere. The good programs recruit guys that they will be able to coach and prepare for 4-5 seasons.

Whether that is looking closer into their academics or doing a better job of fleshing out who really wants to be here and who is willing to put the 4-5 years in that makes players succesful, I don't know. However, the good programs that are similar to us, retain players at a much higher rate than we do, so they are much more experienced teams.

I guess you could call that part of recruiting, but it is a part of recruiting that the databases are sort of unable to calculate.
 

Keeping kids in school is also part of coaching. Kill has said that each position coach is responsible for making sure the players that assistant coach is responsible for succeeds with his academics.
 

harrys ghost said:
Retention could have been better (around 75%) but hardly "killed" classes.
Click to expand...

I actually ran some numbers because I obviously have way too much time on my hands, but you'd be surprised at how poorly we've done at retaining players, especially with the upperclassmen. It's easier to retain FR than SRs, obviously.

But I ran some numbers the U, Iowa, Wi and NWestern...

What I did was I looked at their recruiting classes in 2006-2008. I picked those classes because they would be the three most experienced classes in their respective programs (RS-SR - RS-SO).

MN still had 29 of those signed players on their roster.
Wisconsin still had 39 of those players on their roster.
Iowa still had 41.
NWestern still had 43.

-That is a pretty stark contrast

Now...

MN's 29 players averaged 2.79 stars
WI's 39 players averaged 2.87 stars
Iowa's 41 players averaged 2.73 stars
NWestern's 43 players averaged 2.44 stars

So, when you look at this entire 3 year group of the most experienced players who were actually on the team (rather than merely signed 5 years ago):

MN had 81 recruiting stars total
WI had 112 recruiting stars total
Iowa had 112 recruiting stars total
NWestern had 105 recruiting stars total

My point? Retention matters. If you can recruit guys who will stay in the program long enough to be "coached up", you have a better chance of success. If we signed a whole bunch of 4 star kids and none of them became SRs in the program, the 3 and 2 star kids would have been better.
 

LonelyIowaGopher said:
I'm not the one who initiated the "coaching them up" phrase. That was Killjoy with a thread he started. I'll keep using the saying, however, so that I can continue hear the reply (ad nauseum), "I'm tired of that phrase."
Click to expand...

The horse is dead. Elvis has left the building.
 

LonelyIowaGopher said:
Someone counted Nebraska's national championships as those won by the Big 10. I we now supposed to count five star recruits to Notre Dame as Minnesota players?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make which team they ended up on if, as you maintain, recruiting doesn't matter?
 

LonelyIowaGopher said:
Keeping kids in school is also part of coaching. Kill has said that each position coach is responsible for making sure the players that assistant coach is responsible for succeeds with his academics.
Click to expand...

It's also part of recruiting. Many of these guys that we get credit for signing never step foot on the campus (Hill, Combs, Searcy, Lipscomb, etc.). It's also about recruiting the right kinds of kids and being able to flesh out who is going to be a headache and who isn't. There are a lot of kids that even with the proper guidance aren't going to succeed at the U (whether it's trouble or academics or whatever). It's on our coach to be able to figure that out. Kill even said that he liked to recruit kids for over a year and meet with their guidance counselors, teachers, parents, etc.....that's the fleshing out that I was talking about, that is part of recruiting. I get that there are "coaching" aspects of keeping kids in line as well, but it doesn't really matter to me. You can call it coaching or recruiting, whatever you want, I have no interest in getting in a "coaching them up" vs. Rivals rankings debate.
 

Bob Loblaw,
Thanks for your research effort. You make more points then those upon which you commented. As Jerry Kill said this week, initial recruiting ratings are less meaningful than widely advertised. He said you cannot know until at least two years after a recruit is enrolled how he will do--on the field and in the classroom.

Kill also said (I think it was yesterday) that the research you do during the recruiting process (e.g., double checking with guidance counselors and so forth) matters a lot in recruiting. And can there be any doubt that the football staff has to work very closely with players to make sure they are succeeding in the classroom?

I guess what this really means is that we won't know until 2014 how Kill's first class of his own pans out. What does that leave us to talk about between now and September?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I actually ran some numbers because I obviously have way too much time on my hands, but you'd be surprised at how poorly we've done at retaining players, especially with the upperclassmen. It's easier to retain FR than SRs, obviously.

But I ran some numbers the U, Iowa, Wi and NWestern...

What I did was I looked at their recruiting classes in 2006-2008. I picked those classes because they would be the three most experienced classes in their respective programs (RS-SR - RS-SO).

MN still had 29 of those signed players on their roster.
Wisconsin still had 39 of those players on their roster.
Iowa still had 41.
NWestern still had 43.

-That is a pretty stark contrast

Now...

MN's 29 players averaged 2.79 stars
WI's 39 players averaged 2.87 stars
Iowa's 41 players averaged 2.73 stars
NWestern's 43 players averaged 2.44 stars

So, when you look at this entire 3 year group of the most experienced players who were actually on the team (rather than merely signed 5 years ago):

MN had 81 recruiting stars total
WI had 112 recruiting stars total
Iowa had 112 recruiting stars total
NWestern had 105 recruiting stars total

My point? Retention matters. If you can recruit guys who will stay in the program long enough to be "coached up", you have a better chance of success. If we signed a whole bunch of 4 star kids and none of them became SRs in the program, the 3 and 2 star kids would have been better.
Click to expand...

Great stuff. Thanks for the research.
I think with the players from those classes that have been retained, a more telling number would be how many have earned all Big 10. At that point who cares what they are rated as HS seniors. All that matters is if they can play.
 

Bob Loblaw,
If you don't care to get in a recruiting versus coaching debate, then don't.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
I actually ran some numbers because I obviously have way too much time on my hands, but you'd be surprised at how poorly we've done at retaining players, especially with the upperclassmen. It's easier to retain FR than SRs, obviously.

But I ran some numbers the U, Iowa, Wi and NWestern...

What I did was I looked at their recruiting classes in 2006-2008. I picked those classes because they would be the three most experienced classes in their respective programs (RS-SR - RS-SO).

MN still had 29 of those signed players on their roster.
Wisconsin still had 39 of those players on their roster.
Iowa still had 41.
NWestern still had 43.

-That is a pretty stark contrast

Now...

MN's 29 players averaged 2.79 stars
WI's 39 players averaged 2.87 stars
Iowa's 41 players averaged 2.73 stars
NWestern's 43 players averaged 2.44 stars

So, when you look at this entire 3 year group of the most experienced players who were actually on the team (rather than merely signed 5 years ago):

MN had 81 recruiting stars total
WI had 112 recruiting stars total
Iowa had 112 recruiting stars total
NWestern had 105 recruiting stars total

My point? Retention matters. If you can recruit guys who will stay in the program long enough to be "coached up", you have a better chance of success. If we signed a whole bunch of 4 star kids and none of them became SRs in the program, the 3 and 2 star kids would have been better.
Click to expand...

Great stats, but retention can only be compared if you have somewhere to start from. How many players did each team have the opportunity to retain? How many signed?
 

16FeetUnder said:
Great stats, but retention can only be compared if you have somewhere to start from. How many players did each team have the opportunity to retain? How many signed?
Click to expand...

Well, I get your point, but everyone is allowed 85 scholarships, so they really are starting from the same point. I mean, because of the 85 scholarship limit, if you lose a bunch of extra guys in one class, you would have the opportunity to sign more players with your following class.

I also am not 100% sure how much it matters what the sizes of the classes were because when you line up on saturday, all that really matters is who is there and who is not. That's where rivals and scouts fail.
 

LonelyIowaGopher said:
Bob Loblaw,
If you don't care to get in a recruiting versus coaching debate, then don't.
Click to expand...


I'm not, it's way too simple to have any relevance whatsoever.

For me, it's about recruiting the best possible players who will be a fit to the program, have a good chance of staying in school and that fit your particular style of a football. I think blanket statements like "recruiting doesn't matter" are complete nonsense just as I think "coaching is irrelevant" doesn't really fit. The two things go hand-in-hand, so it's not important to label something like keeping players in school simply part of "recruiting" or simply part of "coaching them up". Who cares?
 

LonelyIowaGopher said:
I guess what this really means is that we won't know until 2014 how Kill's first class of his own pans out. What does that leave us to talk about between now and September?
Click to expand...

There are lots of topics such as: 1. Spring practice 2. What it felt like to be a tackling dummy 3. The upcoming spring game 4. Post spring game debriefing 5. Starting lineup for the first game 6. 2012 recruits and recruiting 7. Seat locations 8. Alcohol at the stadium 9. Etc. Etc.

But don't worry; we can always fall back on the old reliables. I am sure there will be at least 25 strings or high jacked strings on Mason vs. Brewster and recruiting stars. If we developed a number to go with each of our true and tried standard arguments we could save a lot of time by just typing in the number that goes with that argument.

Oh, how could I forget tail gating? I am getting hungry for a brat right now.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom