How can we land top recruits with a crap game like this?

There are some true disadvantages that the Gophers face, much of it is geography.

It's not that Kill and now Fleck were attempting to go to an Oregon-caliber offense (they've got Nike to accomplish this in a similarly tough area), but both have tried to get a dual threat QB and therefore spread things out a bit, even if it still comes down to running the ball.

Unfortunately, we aren't likely to get a lot of outside talent and dynamic QBs here given location on the map, and surely not depth of it.

Knowing that, you also brought up Wisconsin a few pages back, which has driveable proximity to get the next guys up in large population states like Michigan and Ohio. We aren't obscenely far from those states, but it's 4 hours further to all of them.

I'm not saying Fleck can't do it, but it's a challenge. Our ideal best option would be to mimic Wisconsin and build a top flight rushing team with behemoth linemen, but it's tough to do given that Wisconsin and somewhat Iowa are so established in this that they win battles for those recruits. Note: I'm not saying Fleck should do this. We hope to be a good rushing team but it'll likely be with balance and we'd prefer to have a good QB controlling things out of the gun most of the time.

On top of it all, we've got competitive teams like NDSU to poach some players a bit closer to us, whereas Wisconsin is the only D1 game in town with no FCS or even DII in-state competition. Linemen (and other players) that are developmental would rather walk on there than take a Dakota offer at times. That's helped them churn out several more All Americans and maintain depth.

I disagree with almost all of this. Being "closer" to Michigan and Ohio by 4 hours is a dubious reason to expect better recruiting success. Minnesota could easily counter that flights to Minneapolis are generally significantly cheaper than those to Madison or Iowa City that will almost assuredly require connecting flights. More important than distance is the fact that the Twin Cities community resembles the communities of many of the football recruits much closer than Madison or Iowa City does. The idea that NDSU poaches recruits that could be walkons at Minnesota seems far fetched at best. Iowa has to deal with Iowa State in state and FCS Northern Iowa. Why is NDSU an issue for Minnesota but Wisconsin has 4 FCS schools in bordering Illinois in Illinois State, Western Illinios, Eastern Illinois, and Southern Illinois? I would guess they have as many or more FCS coaches poaching potential walkons as Minnesota does.

The biggest difference in talent at Minnesota compared to Wisconsin and Iowa in the last two decades of Minnesota football ineptitude has been on the offensive line. This has had much less to do with recruiting than it has had to with strength and conditioning and player development/coaching. Wisconsin just had a kid drafted in the first round on the OL that was playing D2 or D3 football before coming to the Badgers, Iowa's had a few home grown instate kids go on to be drafted in the first round of the NFL draft (ex Robert Gallery) who had no other B1G offers. The Gophers haven't had a single first round draft pick on the OL during this stretch. Physically, our kids on the OL (and to a lesser extent DL but still very noticeable) just don't look like the guys that play in the trenches at these schools. We've had a number of guys during this stretch with a recruiting pedigree similar/better to that of many of the Wisconsin/Iowa recruits that ended up in the pros: names like Jimmy Gjere, Jonah Pirsig, Isaac Hayes, Tommy Olsen, Matt Carufel yet none of them were even drafted.
 

Make what up? Why do UCLA and Tennesee have top 10 recruiting classes? Are they historic powers? Why does Kentucky have a top 25 class? Those three teams have been lighting the world on fire.

LOL. You're funny. God I hope this is a bit.

So, you're argument is "winning has little to do with recruiting success". Those are your exact words. Your defense, to such an idiotic statement, is to point out the recruiting rankings of outliers in October?!?!?! LOL.


Do you think maybe, just maybe, if you went back and looked at the recruiting rankings (you know, when they matter, post signing day) and compared the top teams with their win/loss record, that there just might be some connection? You think kids want to compete for Big 10 Championships, National Championships, etc.?

Your post said "winning has little to do with recruiting success". That's idiotic. You could probably get everyone on both sides of the "do recruiting rankings matter?" debate to join sides in laughing at the idiocy of that statement.
 

LOL. You're funny. God I hope this is a bit.

So, you're argument is "winning has little to do with recruiting success". Those are your exact words. Your defense, to such an idiotic statement, is to point out the recruiting rankings of outliers in October?!?!?! LOL.


Do you think maybe, just maybe, if you went back and looked at the recruiting rankings (you know, when they matter, post signing day) and compared the top teams with their win/loss record, that there just might be some connection? You think kids want to compete for Big 10 Championships, National Championships, etc.?

Your post said "winning has little to do with recruiting success". That's idiotic. You could probably get everyone on both sides of the "do recruiting rankings matter?" debate to join sides in laughing at the idiocy of that statement.

Don't be so hard on JB, he is doing everything he can in all threads to protect PJ. It's not a bit, it's called worship.
 

Don't be so hard on JB, he is doing everything he can in all threads to protect PJ. It's not a bit, it's called worship.

What do Tennessee and UCLA have to do with PJ?
 

LOL. You're funny. God I hope this is a bit.

So, you're argument is "winning has little to do with recruiting success". Those are your exact words. Your defense, to such an idiotic statement, is to point out the recruiting rankings of outliers in October?!?!?! LOL.


Do you think maybe, just maybe, if you went back and looked at the recruiting rankings (you know, when they matter, post signing day) and compared the top teams with their win/loss record, that there just might be some connection? You think kids want to compete for Big 10 Championships, National Championships, etc.?

Your post said "winning has little to do with recruiting success". That's idiotic. You could probably get everyone on both sides of the "do recruiting rankings matter?" debate to join sides in laughing at the idiocy of that statement.

Of course they want to compete for championships but they also want to play right away and make the NFL. Texas has the number 2 recruiting class in the country coming off a horrible season. Oregon and Notre Dame both have top 10 classes coming off horrible seasons. Miami has a top 10 class after finishing 4th in the ACC Coastal division. Of course you're too stupid to look at these things. Kids aren't choosing schools mainly based on how they do in one or two particular seasons.
 


I disagree with almost all of this. Being "closer" to Michigan and Ohio by 4 hours is a dubious reason to expect better recruiting success. Minnesota could easily counter that flights to Minneapolis are generally significantly cheaper than those to Madison or Iowa City that will almost assuredly require connecting flights. More important than distance is the fact that the Twin Cities community resembles the communities of many of the football recruits much closer than Madison or Iowa City does. The idea that NDSU poaches recruits that could be walkons at Minnesota seems far fetched at best. Iowa has to deal with Iowa State in state and FCS Northern Iowa. Why is NDSU an issue for Minnesota but Wisconsin has 4 FCS schools in bordering Illinois in Illinois State, Western Illinios, Eastern Illinois, and Southern Illinois? I would guess they have as many or more FCS coaches poaching potential walkons as Minnesota does.

The biggest difference in talent at Minnesota compared to Wisconsin and Iowa in the last two decades of Minnesota football ineptitude has been on the offensive line. This has had much less to do with recruiting than it has had to with strength and conditioning and player development/coaching. Wisconsin just had a kid drafted in the first round on the OL that was playing D2 or D3 football before coming to the Badgers, Iowa's had a few home grown instate kids go on to be drafted in the first round of the NFL draft (ex Robert Gallery) who had no other B1G offers. The Gophers haven't had a single first round draft pick on the OL during this stretch. Physically, our kids on the OL (and to a lesser extent DL but still very noticeable) just don't look like the guys that play in the trenches at these schools. We've had a number of guys during this stretch with a recruiting pedigree similar/better to that of many of the Wisconsin/Iowa recruits that ended up in the pros: names like Jimmy Gjere, Jonah Pirsig, Isaac Hayes, Tommy Olsen, Matt Carufel yet none of them were even drafted.

Proximity is huge in football recruiting. Maybe not for every player, but enough that it hurts your depth of recruiting.

You seriously are not boiling down all of this to S&C, are you? You've got that figured out but the last 10 coaches that we've had haven't a clue?

I forgot to mention that Minnesota and to an extent, Wisconsin, does not churn out a giant number of D1 football players mostly due to population.

Take a look at this: https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/RecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool&State=OH

It goes out in rungs. The top players either stay with OSU or are poached by helmet schools or go to Kentucky or Michigan because they live near those borders.

Then in the teens/20s/30s you get a Pitt, a Wisconsin, a Penn State, a UConn. Why aren't the top kids also choosing Alabama or USC regularly? Strange. And those are helmet schools.

Have a look at Michigan and California. Sure, California, Texas, and Florida are so rich with talent that you'll get a handful going to far away helmet schools or a random Virgina from California type thing, but the bulk stay home, west coast next, then they may travel to find a D1 opportunity.

Minnesota isn't a Hawaii or Alaska in distance away from some hotbed states, but every little bit further can hurt.
 

How did Maryland land them after being **** for so many years under Edsall?

They have the best facilities in the country arguably, and a great high-school talent base in the area. Oh, and not to mention that contract with Under Armour, which absolute is a big deal.
 

Of course they want to compete for championships but they also want to play right away and make the NFL. Texas has the number 2 recruiting class in the country coming off a horrible season. Oregon and Notre Dame both have top 10 classes coming off horrible seasons. Miami has a top 10 class after finishing 4th in the ACC Coastal division. Of course you're too stupid to look at these things. Kids aren't choosing schools mainly based on how they do in one or two particular seasons.

I'm glad to see you've backed off of your idiotic statement that "winning has little to do with recruiting success". With the endless stream inane nonsense you type, that one really took the cake.

As far as the rest of your post, that has nothing to do with anything that I said. I never said that current win/loss record is the ONLY thing that matters when it comes to recruiting. There are other things that matter like the prestige of the school (see Texas and Notre Dame), playing time and geographic advantages. I never said or implied those things didn't matter. I simply pointed and laughed the idiocy in the statement "winning has little to do with recruiting success".

Now, if you want to argue with me, your argument has to be that "winning does not matter when it comes to recruiting". Now I know this is like 6th grade level logic, but that does not mean that it's the ONLY thing that matters. I never implied that. I laughed at the notion that "winning has little to do with recruiting success".
 

Washington State had 10 straight losing seasons (including 2 3-9 stinkers under Leach) before finally becoming decent in 2015. For a spell they were the worst P5 conference team. They play in Pullman, WA...notable for having very little local talent and the climate/landscape/local scene of the Crookston campus.

Now they have had their breakthrough it seems and are rolling near the top 10 and just beat USC on national TV. They have a QB who is a stud and may go Rd1 in April. How did they ever get recruits? A famous and charismatic coach like PJF or Mike Leach is a good start.

(BTW I wanted the Pirate Leach badly when they hired Kill)
 




Washington State had 10 straight losing seasons (including 2 3-9 stinkers under Leach) before finally becoming decent in 2015. For a spell they were the worst P5 conference team. They play in Pullman, WA...notable for having very little local talent and the climate/landscape/local scene of the Crookston campus.

Now they have had their breakthrough it seems and are rolling near the top 10 and just beat USC on national TV. They have a QB who is a stud and may go Rd1 in April. How did they ever get recruits? A famous and charismatic coach like PJF or Mike Leach is a good start.

(BTW I wanted the Pirate Leach badly when they hired Kill)

He did it with recruiting classes ranked in the 50s...sound familiar? So WSU has the same lack of talent and depth issues Gophs do...?
 

Washington State had 10 straight losing seasons (including 2 3-9 stinkers under Leach) before finally becoming decent in 2015. For a spell they were the worst P5 conference team. They play in Pullman, WA...notable for having very little local talent and the climate/landscape/local scene of the Crookston campus.

Now they have had their breakthrough it seems and are rolling near the top 10 and just beat USC on national TV. They have a QB who is a stud and may go Rd1 in April. How did they ever get recruits? A famous and charismatic coach like PJF or Mike Leach is a good start.

(BTW I wanted the Pirate Leach badly when they hired Kill)

I like Mike Leach, but is Wash St really that good? The only thing I hate more than big reactions to early season games is preseason rankings. Let it all play out. We don't really know anything until 9-10 weeks into the season.

(BTW I'm with you on Leach. He'd be awesome here. Don't recall if he was ever considered or offered at the time.)
 

I like Mike Leach, but is Wash St really that good? The only thing I hate more than big reactions to early season games is preseason rankings. Let it all play out. We don't really know anything until 9-10 weeks into the season.

(BTW I'm with you on Leach. He'd be awesome here. Don't recall if he was ever considered or offered at the time.)

I think WSU is good, but probably not nearly as good as their ranking.
 



I think WSU is good, but probably not nearly as good as their ranking.

Agreed. In S&P+, they are 21. They are 19 according to Sagarin. My guess is that they will lose 2-3 games and finish somewhere in the 20-25 ranking; not Elite, but much better than they have been historically. If they do better than that, they will have earned it - road games @Washington, @Oregon, @Cal, @Utah, @Arizona, and home games vs. Stanford and Colorado. They don't have a gimme in the schedule. They don't play any Elite teams (Washington possibly excepted), but every team is a top 50/60-type team.
 

Of course they want to compete for championships but they also want to play right away and make the NFL. Texas has the number 2 recruiting class in the country coming off a horrible season. Oregon and Notre Dame both have top 10 classes coming off horrible seasons. Miami has a top 10 class after finishing 4th in the ACC Coastal division. Of course you're too stupid to look at these things. Kids aren't choosing schools mainly based on how they do in one or two particular seasons.

In the past 12 years, Texas has won and played for another National Championship. Oregon and Notre Dame have also played for National Championships. Your logic is completely insane JB. And quit changing the subject or deflecting when you are called out on any of your ridiculous statements.
 

Agreed. In S&P+, they are 21. They are 19 according to Sagarin. My guess is that they will lose 2-3 games and finish somewhere in the 20-25 ranking; not Elite, but much better than they have been historically. If they do better than that, they will have earned it - road games @Washington, @Oregon, @Cal, @Utah, @Arizona, and home games vs. Stanford and Colorado. They don't have a gimme in the schedule. They don't play any Elite teams (Washington possibly excepted), but every team is a top 50/60-type team.

I agree with this take.

I think they are a bit overrated now, but I think they'll actually finish the year slightly underrated. They have a tough schedule and I'd guess they'll lose 3-4 games and finish unranked. I do think they are one of the 25 bestish teams in the country, they just don't have an easy schedule.
 

I agree with this take.

I think they are a bit overrated now, but I think they'll actually finish the year slightly underrated. They have a tough schedule and I'd guess they'll lose 3-4 games and finish unranked. I do think they are one of the 25 bestish teams in the country, they just don't have an easy schedule.

All with recruits similar to the Gophs. Huh.
 

In the past 12 years, Texas has won and played for another National Championship. Oregon and Notre Dame have also played for National Championships. Your logic is completely insane JB. And quit changing the subject or deflecting when you are called out on any of your ridiculous statements.

My entire point was one or two seasons at 6-6 is not going to really hurt a teams who averages 7-8 wins a season.
 




Top Bottom