All Time Recruiting

Donate To GopherHole
Face The Facts said:
<b>Or you could say it's the best or second best class we've had in the internet rankings era.</b>
Funny how you decided to go negative spin with that while being a Gopher fan.
Click to expand...

You are suggesting he make things up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gopherjay said:
Any Grandma can pick a 5 star and maybe a 4 star. Beyond that, you need a good coach to pick'em. Sure, a team of 5 and 4 stars has a good potential to be good. Stars in the end mean nothing to a staff that can coach. See Wisconsin, Iowa....they get their share of "high" stars but with elite coaching, they win with the same talent we have.
Click to expand...

Amen Jay. No one would dispute Alabama’s class is better than ours. If you are going to compare a team of 4/5 star kids to one of 3’star kids then rankings do matter. I have been saying for a while that 1~20 are better than ~50+, but between those ranges it is a crap-shoot. Coaching, fit, team need, academics, and being able to identify high potential under-recruited kids will dictate which of those classes are “better”. That is why I still don’t think Brewster was a good recruiter despite the (BS) rankings he got.

With that said few debates are more comical to read than the ranking guys start pointing out “high 3-Star” vs “mid” or “low” 3-star kids.

Also worth mentioning that 247 basically acknowledged the (many) shortcomings of recruiting rankings with their coveted “Talent Rankings” (and the stats they publish on win percentage of higher talent-ranked teams while including games like AL vs GA-So in those calculations).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gopherjay said:
Any Grandma can pick a 5 star and maybe a 4 star. Beyond that, you need a good coach to pick'em. Sure, a team of 5 and 4 stars has a good potential to be good. Stars in the end mean nothing to a staff that can coach. See Wisconsin, Iowa....they get their share of "high" stars but with elite coaching, they win with the same talent we have.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, are you really stating that we have had the same level of talent as Wisconsin and Iowa recently?
 

Spoofin said:
Amen Jay. No one would dispute Alabama’s class is better than ours. If you are going to compare a team of 4/5 star kids to one of 3’star kids then rankings do matter. I have been saying for a while that 1~20 are better than ~50+, but between those ranges it is a crap-shoot. Coaching, fit, team need, academics, and being able to identify high potential under-recruited kids will dictate which of those classes are “better”. That is why I still don’t think Brewster was a good recruiter despite the (BS) rankings he got.

With that said few debates are more comical to read than the ranking guys start pointing out “high 3-Star” vs “mid” or “low” 3-star kids.

Also worth mentioning that 247 basically acknowledged the (many) shortcomings of recruiting rankings with their coveted “Talent Rankings” (and the stats they publish on win percentage of higher talent-ranked teams while including games like AL vs GA-So in those calculations).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I agree with this. But I would add being consistently in 30s or 40s is better than 50s or 60s.

Not part of any ranking however is a score for how many games they will actually play for your team.

If a coach has the ability to avoid duds, suddenly you become a much better coach.
 

Face The Facts said:
Or you could say it's the best or second best class we've had in the internet rankings era.
Funny how you decided to go negative spin with that while being a Gopher fan.

Or you could have taken the "rankings don't matter" angle and instead specified what areas of need we have, and what areas the next class is heavy in. (Defensive Line) and said, despite the rankings, we might have some candidates to "coach 'em up" that fit our areas of need.

But, you chose to choose a negative angle, and that's fine. Gopher football has a good amount of negative fans right now.


What's funny is when talking about recruiting in the last two years, the negative Gopher fans haven't said much about the classes and how some players might be able to get "coached up". Evidently that can't happen here anymore no matter who the coordinators are because somehow that ended and isn't possible anymore according to the negative Gopher fans.
Click to expand...

I've said it before in many other posts that I definitely think there's a lot to the angle of stars don't matter IF you can find the right players that fit your system and can coach them up. That's why I gave Kill and Co. a pass to a large degree on recruiting since it seemed to work ok for them. Sure would have liked to see the success they could have had with even higher rated players.

I'm getting tired of hearing people brag about our recruiting rankings and how that will solve everything, but when you look at the star rating we are really not doing that well compared to our peers (the Big Ten). Maybe we are getting players that will work well for our system, but they are really not that highly ranked. Maybe they'll work out just fine. I am just tired of hearing how our supposedly amazing recruiting class will solve all of our problems when they are ranked so low.

Maybe 2020 will be the year we break into the top 8 in the Big Ten in recruiting rankings?
 


short ornery norwegian said:
Better to under-promise and over-deliver than to over-promise and under-deliver.

Fleck was sold as a hot-shot recruiter.

Right or wrong, fair or not, at least some fans expected Fleck to bring in a caliber of recruits that was clearly better than previous coaches. There has been improvement - but probably not as much as people hoped for or expected. If you hire a new salesman, and he tells you he'll boost your sales 10% - and in fact he boosts sales 5% - well, that's improvement - but not the improvement you thought you were promised.

So, in my book, better to promise 4% growth and provide 5% than to promise 10% and provide 5%. It's the same growth either way, but the perception is different. and perception matters when that perception impacts ticket sales and public opinion.
Click to expand...

Wasn't one of the reasons Coyle gave for firing Claeys that his recruiting was lagging? Haven't seen a big bump yet with the new regime. I agree its improved, but not enough to have us pass any of our peers that typically are ahead of us.
 

Another thing I'd expect for a "great recruiter"....when you have a 6-8 250 pound sophomore lineman in your own backyard(that started as a Frosh. in a 6A program), you don't let Wisconsin and Nebraska offer before you do. Oh, wait....the U hasn't even offered him. Maybe, he's not good enough for the U only good enough for WI and NE.


edit: added link https://247sports.com/Player/Riley-Mahlman-46053457/
 
Last edited:

Spoofin said:
Amen Jay. No one would dispute Alabama’s class is better than ours. If you are going to compare a team of 4/5 star kids to one of 3’star kids then rankings do matter. I have been saying for a while that 1~20 are better than ~50+, but between those ranges it is a crap-shoot. Coaching, fit, team need, academics, and being able to identify high potential under-recruited kids will dictate which of those classes are “better”. That is why I still don’t think Brewster was a good recruiter despite the (BS) rankings he got.

With that said few debates are more comical to read than the ranking guys start pointing out “high 3-Star” vs “mid” or “low” 3-star kids.

Also worth mentioning that 247 basically acknowledged the (many) shortcomings of recruiting rankings with their coveted “Talent Rankings” (and the stats they publish on win percentage of higher talent-ranked teams while including games like AL vs GA-So in those calculations).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Darn, I was hoping you learned that simple statistics prove this post wrong during your hiatus. My expectations were too high I guess.
 

Word said:
I've said it before in many other posts that I definitely think there's a lot to the angle of stars don't matter IF you can find the right players that fit your system and can coach them up. That's why I gave Kill and Co. a pass to a large degree on recruiting since it seemed to work ok for them. Sure would have liked to see the success they could have had with even higher rated players.

I'm getting tired of hearing people brag about our recruiting rankings and how that will solve everything, but when you look at the star rating we are really not doing that well compared to our peers (the Big Ten). Maybe we are getting players that will work well for our system, but they are really not that highly ranked. Maybe they'll work out just fine. I am just tired of hearing how our supposedly amazing recruiting class will solve all of our problems when they are ranked so low.

Maybe 2020 will be the year we break into the top 8 in the Big Ten in recruiting rankings?
Click to expand...

I agree with your first paragraph.

Regarding your second paragraph, players Fleck is recruiting so far "appear" to be incrementally better than we recruited before, but at the same time while we wait to see if they are really better, many have closed their mind to the idea that Fleck will also be able to "coach players up".

Meanwhile, at this point, the few instances of Fleck coaching his own recruits (which have been few) has shown that he can coach guys up. Zack Annexstand / walk on starter. Could be serviceable to decent.
Howden / walk-on, has started games as a walk on freshman. Bad games and one or two decent games. Future unknown. The other guys Fleck has played are either higher recruits or simply way to easy to mark as being able to coach up or not.
Autman-Bell - wasn't a high recruit necessarily and looks promising.


The only players the books can be closed on at this point are the ones which are negative which left the program. We don't call players collegiate successes 1/2 through their freshman season. All we can do is start to track if they are producing early or not.
 



Face The Facts said:
I'll continue to take classes like Alabama signs over any past class we've signed.
That's just me and I'm kind of one of those guys who think rankings can be an indicator of future results.
Click to expand...

Me too. When does that start? The 2019 class looks more like historical classes than the promised upgrade. Looking forward to Fleck out recruting the Big Ten. To those who said all we have to do is out recruit the west, waiting for that too.
 

Word said:
I've said it before in many other posts that I definitely think there's a lot to the angle of stars don't matter IF you can find the right players that fit your system and can coach them up. That's why I gave Kill and Co. a pass to a large degree on recruiting since it seemed to work ok for them. Sure would have liked to see the success they could have had with even higher rated players.

I'm getting tired of hearing people brag about our recruiting rankings and how that will solve everything, but when you look at the star rating we are really not doing that well compared to our peers (the Big Ten). Maybe we are getting players that will work well for our system, but they are really not that highly ranked. Maybe they'll work out just fine. I am just tired of hearing how our supposedly amazing recruiting class will solve all of our problems when they are ranked so low.

Maybe 2020 will be the year we break into the top 8 in the Big Ten in recruiting rankings?
Click to expand...

I agree with your first paragraph.

Regarding your second paragraph, players Fleck is recruiting so far "appear" to be incrementally better than we recruited before, but at the same time while we wait to see if they are really better, many have closed their mind to the idea that Fleck will also be able to "coach players up".

Meanwhile, at this point, the few instances of Fleck coaching his own recruits (which have been few) has shown that he can coach guys up. Zack Annexstand / walk on starter. Could be serviceable to decent.
Howden / walk-on, has started games as a walk on freshman. Bad games and one or two decent games. Future unknown. The other guys Fleck has played are either higher recruits or simply way to easy to mark as being able to coach up or not.

The only players the books can be closed on at this point are the ones which are negative which left the program. We don't call players collegiate successes 1/2 through their freshman season. All we can do is start to track if they are producing early or not.
 

caliGopher said:
Me too. When does that start? The 2019 class looks more like historical classes than the promised upgrade. Looking forward to Fleck out recruting the Big Ten. To those who said all we have to do is out recruit the west, waiting for that too.
Click to expand...

Flecks' classes have been in the 30-40 range.
Better than the 55-80 range.


https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/?Conference=Big-Ten

2nd in west in 2018

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/?Conference=Big-Ten

Currently 4th in west in 2019


But you are right, not top in the west for either, so is your point that he should be fired for not getting top classes? Are you sad that he said top class in west and he only got second best?

Do you feel he owe you an apology for that?

Or should we go around the never ending game of criticizing the average scores and quantity of players in recruiting classes to paint them to be better or worse than they are and in the end settle nothing except that Fleck or Coyle hurt your feelings?
 

Face The Facts said:
Flecks' classes have been in the 30-40 range.
Better than the 55-80 range.


https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/?Conference=Big-Ten

2nd in west in 2018

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/?Conference=Big-Ten

Currently 4th in west in 2019


But you are right, not top in the west for either, so is your point that he should be fired for not getting top classes? Are you sad that he said top class in west and he only got second best?

Do you feel he owe you an apology for that?

Or should we go around the never ending game of criticizing the average scores and quantity of players in recruiting classes to paint them to be better or worse than they are and in the end settle nothing except that Fleck or Coyle hurt your feelings?
Click to expand...

Totally logical conclusion. I have not, ever, once suggested Fleck should be fired. Period.

I have looked at the results with a critical eye. Last year's class was strong. It was not top 25. It was not top 30. It was not tops in the Big Ten.
Fleck's recipe at Western Michigan was to out recruit the competition. He is lauded as a master recruiter. in his mind, he's delivered one class. Except he delivered two. This year's class as it stands, will be significantly worse than the 2018 class. While no doubt our completely clueless AD will reference it as a top 15 class because it was in July, the reality is, like the defense, the trend is in the wrong direction.

If our AD is to believed, he was hired to do 4 things:
  • Change the culture - No arguing he's done that.
  • Improve the performance on the field - jury is still out, but if he needs 4 years to get there, he's at his mid-term tests at then end of the next 3 weeks and he's got a whole to dig out of based on his performance as a coach to date.
  • Improve recruiting - again, his blueprint is to out recruit the competition, and when he does that, he wins more than he loses. Except he's not doing that. I'd feel better about his changing his fortunes on the field if the recruiting looked better than it does. Recruiting will help us win. Better recruiting is good, but just because it is better in one of three years (this year is not done yet...), does not mean it is good enough.
  • Improve ticket sales/attendance - this is a fail so far. There has been no Fleck bump, but it may have been expecting too much given the massive mistakes made by the Admin on pricing and donations*

So out of the four things he was hired to do, he's accomplished one outright. Had a good start that is heading in the wrong direction in one, and failed in two so far.. I'm measuring his results on what needs to happen to take the next step. You're stuck in a mildly sycophantic need to change any greater expectation in the change we made to a personal attack, or that I should be happy that we're "better" than we were before. We hired Fleck to go further than being better, to raise us into a serious and regular competitor. That's what I expect. Not expecting it today, but there should be some evidence we're heading that way. On offense, that's true. It's not true in any other aspect. He'll be coach, and should be in 2020. I hope we don't have to fire him. I hope we're successful, but hope is not a strategy and that's all we have to go on. The results are not currently in line with this hope. That needs to change.
 
Last edited:



caliGopher said:
Totally logical conclusion. I have not, ever, once suggested Fleck should be fired. Period.

I have looked at the results with a critical eye. Last year's class was strong. It was not top 25. It was not top 30. It was not tops in the Big Ten.
Fleck's recipe at Western Michigan was to out recruit the competition. He is lauded as a master recruiter. in his mind, he's delivered one class. Except he delivered two. This year's class as it stands, will be significantly worse than the 2018 class. While no doubt our completely clueless AD will reference it as a top 15 class because it was in July, the reality is, like the defense, the trend is in the wrong direction.

If our AD is to believed, he was hired to do 4 things:
  • Change the culture - No arguing he's done that.
  • Improve the performance on the field - jury is still out, but if he needs 4 years to get there, he's at his mid-term tests at then end of the next 3 weeks and he's got a whole to dig out of based on his performance as a coach to date.
  • Improve recruiting - again, his blueprint is to out recruit the competition, and when he does that, he wins more than he loses. Except he's not doing that. I'd feel better about his changing his fortunes on the field if the recruiting looked better than it does. Recruiting will help us win. Better recruiting is good, but just because it is better in one of three years (this year is not done yet...), does not mean it is good enough.
  • Improve ticket sales/attendance - this is a fail so far. There has been no Fleck bump, but it may have been expecting too much given the massive mistakes made by the Admin on pricing and donations*

So out of the four things he was hired to do, he's accomplished one outright. Had a good start that is heading in the wrong direction in one, and failed in two so far.. I'm measuring his results on what needs to happen to take the next step. You're stuck in a mildly sycophantic need to change any greater expectation in the change we made to a personal attack, or that I should be happy that we're "better" than we were before. We hired Fleck to go further than being better, to raise us into a serious and regular competitor. That's what I expect. Not expecting it today, but there should be some evidence we're heading that way. On offense, that's true. It's not true in any other aspect. He'll be coach, and should be in 2020. I hope we don't have to fire him. I hope we're successful, but hope is not a strategy and that's all we have to go on. The results are not currently in line with this hope. That needs to change.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying here.
But the three things (ticket sales, recruiting, and on-field) are all closely dependent upon each other and it usually starts with recruiting. Some are able to out-coach like Brohm has done, but I'm not going to be critical of Fleck's on field results with last years roster, or much for this years. Although the defense was unexpectedly bad and we've all been critical of that.
 

This bugs me every time I see it. Clint Brewster was NOT one of Gophers highest ranked recruits - despite what the 247 Composite Rankings will have you believe.

1) 247 didn't even exist in 2007. So their own grade doesn't even go into the score.

2) There were 3 recruiting services then. Scout, Rivals and ESPN. He was a 3 star on Scout. A high 3 star on Rivals. And a low 4 star on ESPN.

So despite that, 247 Composite formula somehow comes up with a .9315 score - which is a mid 4 star grade. Math is hard, apparently.

/rant
 

Face The Facts said:
I don't disagree with most of what you're saying here.
But the three things (ticket sales, recruiting, and on-field) are all closely dependent upon each other and it usually starts with recruiting. Some are able to out-coach like Brohm has done, but I'm not going to be critical of Fleck's on field results with last years roster, or much for this years. Although the defense was unexpectedly bad and we've all been critical of that.
Click to expand...

Brohm is no doubt a good coach, but it's comparing apples to oranges.

Brohm starts 15 guys that are in their 3rd year or more of college football, Fleck starts 13. Now taking a closer look at that, 8 of the 13 never used a red-shirt year. Only 6 of the 15 Purdue players did not red-shirt.

Total years playing college football for starting players of some teams of interest:

Purdue Offense: 44/11 = 4 years per player
Iowa : 36/11 = 3.3
Iowa St: 35/11 = 3.2
Illinois: 35/11 = 3
MN: 28/11 = 2.5

Iowa State Defense: 40/11 = 4 years per player
Iowa: 37/11 =3.4
Purdue: 36/11 = 3.3
MN: 32/11 = 2.9
Illinois: 28/11 = 2.5
 
Last edited:

MaxyJR1 said:
Brohm is no doubt a good coach, but it's comparing apples to oranges.

Brohm starts 15 guys that are in their 3rd year or more of college football, Fleck starts 13. Now taking a closer look at that, 8 of the 13 never used a red-shirt year. Only 6 of the 15 Purdue players did not red-shirt.

Total years playing college football for starting players of some teams of interest:

Purdue Offense: 44/11 = 4 years per player
Iowa : 36/11 = 3.3
Iowa St: 35/11 = 3.2
Illinois: 35/11 = 3
MN: 28/11 = 2.5

Iowa State Defense: 40/11 = 4 years per player
Iowa: 37/11 =3.4
Purdue: 36/11 = 3.3
MN: 32/11 = 2.9
Illinois: 28/11 = 2.5
Click to expand...

Illinois total= 5.5
Gohper total= 5.4

Should the score have been 55-54 then? Illinois' 5.5 was worth 55 points; thus, our 5.4 should've been worth 54 points.

I guess Purdue will put up 66 this week, then. I'm taking the over based on this stat!!!!!!!!
 

OddStack said:
Illinois total= 5.5
Gohper total= 5.4

Should the score have been 55-54 then? Illinois' 5.5 was worth 55 points; thus, our 5.4 should've been worth 54 points.

I guess Purdue will put up 66 this week, then. I'm taking the over based on this stat!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I don't see the correlation...
 

WinLoseOrTy said:
This bugs me every time I see it. Clint Brewster was NOT one of Gophers highest ranked recruits - despite what the 247 Composite Rankings will have you believe.

1) 247 didn't even exist in 2007. So their own grade doesn't even go into the score.

2) There were 3 recruiting services then. Scout, Rivals and ESPN. He was a 3 star on Scout. A high 3 star on Rivals. And a low 4 star on ESPN.

So despite that, 247 Composite formula somehow comes up with a .9315 score - which is a mid 4 star grade. Math is hard, apparently.

/rant
Click to expand...

I was kind of wondering about that as well because I also don't remember Clint being a super highly regarded prospect. Seemed like a pretty solid 3 star guy but not a 4 star one of the best recruits ever at the school kind of guy.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom