If you watch recruiting closely for a few years, and you really observe what recruits say and what eventually ends up happening, you get to be pretty good at reading between the lines of recruiting articles. Recruits often tell recruiting analysts what those analysts want to hear, and the analysts themselves are pretty good at asking loaded questions and providing selective quotes.
As an example of what I'm talking about, suppose you have a kid who lives in Florida and has been a Florida State fan all his life. He says something to the effect of, "Florida State is my team because I've lived in Florida all my life, but that's not going to have a big impact on my life." What he means is, "I'm going to Florida State, but I'm going to take some visits and experience the fun of recruiting first." If he says, "LSU is way up there on my list," what he means is, "LSU is an afterthought." The only real chance LSU or any other out-of-state school has is if Florida State fails to offer the kid.
I'm not being critical of the kids. It's not like they're lying. They are listening to other teams' recruiting pitches. They do have LSU on their list, perhaps a distant 3rd or 4th with little or no chance of making up the ground. Heck, they might even be thinking that they have open recruiting, but in the end a kid like that almost always picks the childhood favorite team if it's a real option for him.
As briefly alluded to earlier in this post, there is an alternative meaning to the kid's words of encouragement to other teams' fanbases. His statement may mean he does not have a real scholarship offer from his favorite school. He wants it, but he may not be willing to come out and say that he does not have it, out of embarrassment and ego.
One thing to be mindful of is that not all "offers" are the same. The written offer the recruits receive in the mail definitely is not an "offer" in the legal contractual sense, and may not actually mean much of anything. A kid who receives an offer in the mail and who actually calls the coach to commit may come to find out that the coach has 4 players ahead of him on the board at his position and will not accept his commitment until he learns what those other 4 players are doing. If the coach gets one or two of those 4 to commit to his school, he will never accept the commitment of the other kid and the offer amounts to nothing.
It's a harsh business, and this is sometimes how it works. A kid may receive the offer he wanted all his life only to find out it wasn't an offer at all.
As you read articles on recruiting services, keep these things in mind. A recruit who tells you he has a lifelong favorite school but is open to anyone is probably not be completely honest, perhaps even to himself, about either his state of mind or the state of his scholarship offers.
This begs the question, however. How do you tell when an athlete is really sincere about being serious about LSU. There's not hard and fast rule, but sometimes a recruit will say something surprisingly candid, like Mississippi quarterback Chris Garrett said recently, as reported by rebelsports.com: "I'm actually looking at LSU pretty hard. Really hard, actually." He continued: "When I went to LSU, I fell in love with the place." But he's not done: "It's going to be really, really soon (that I make my final commitment). I've made up my mind. I just want to wait a little while." [All emphasis added by me].
That's a kid who is really serious about LSU. He's currently a soft commitment to Mississippi State, and he may not end up switching, or may end up switching back if he does, but he's serious. He's getting past cliches, talking about his feelings for LSU in some depth, and indicating he's already made up his mind. Some of these other guys aren't serious. Garrett is.
Showing posts with label basics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label basics. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Monday, July 23, 2007
Recruiting 101 - Silent Commits and Package Deals
My two least-favorite terms in the entire college football recruiting lexicon: "silent commits" and "package deals". First, the definitions:
silent commitment: n. A recruit who has given a verbal commitment to a particular team, but has not announced that commitment to the recruiting media, and publicly holds himself out as still uncommitted and open. Ex. "Chris Tolliver says he's open, but he's really a silent commit to LSU."
package deal: n. A set of two or more recruits, always friends and often from the same high school or area who are said to have made a pact to attend the same college, even though the college may not be known. Ex. "JB Shugarts and Sam McGuffie are best friends, and we could have had them as a package deal if we'd offered McGuffie."
I simply never believe any statement that certain players are a "package deal" or that there are "silent commits", at least not for any appreciable length of time. I understand that players may commit and then hold off from telling the media until they can set up an announcement in their own preferred way, such as in a press conference, but people don't usually mean it in this innocuous way when they say someone is a silent commit. They usually mean that the recruit is just playing with the fans and the media and/or is manipulating other recruits or allowing himself to be manipulated by a coach to help that coach get other commitments.
How does this allegedly work? Let's say you're a coach, and you want to get two.. oh.. cornerbacks, and you have your eyes on two guys, both of whom are allegedly great. You recruit CB1 and CB2 hard. CB1 gives you his commitment, and you think it's solid, but you are scared that CB2 will be scared off by CB1 if he hears about CB1's commitment, and that CB2 will want to go somewhere else where the competition won't be as stiff. You ask CB1 to keep his commitment quiet to help him land CB2 as well, and CB1 agrees.
I have two problems with this supposedly typical scenario. One, why would CB1 ever agree to this? It's not in his benefit to hold back on telling people he's committed. Two, why would a coach set this up? If CB2 really is scared of CB1's competition, he's going to have to find out about CB1 eventually, and then he'll just be scared off at that time. Or worse, he'll be offended at having been misled. Even if CB2 commits and signs in that scenario, the coach has created a serious team-chemistry problem by using one player to deceive another player, when those players may have to be on the field, in the dorms, and in the classroom together in the future.
Coaches' deception is a time-honored practice in recruiting. It is relatively common that a coach will tell a player, "Sure, we'll let you try out at wide receiver, but if you don't work there we're moving you to safety," all the while with his fingers crossed behind his back knowing that his try-out at wide receiver will last all of 2 practices. "Sorry kid, you just don't have the hands. Report to the defense." Using another player as an accomplice in your deception just seems foolhardy, and like it has a great potential to blow up in your face. I can't imagine any good coach would do it.
Plus, it is my observation that big-time recruits are almost never scared away by competition at their position. They almost universally believe they can beat out anyone.
So-called "silent commits", which due to the nature of the beast can never be confirmed by any official source, are often the subject of message board rumors and innuendo. They have a long and storied track record of failing to come to fruition. While I suppose it is possible that silent commits exist, the unsubstantiated and eventually-disproven rumors about silent commits greatly outnumber the rumors that eventually prove true, and even those may be only by coincidence.
Package deals are a different story. They come in one of two flavors:
At this time of year, and on into the off-season, you will hear innumerable rumors of "silent commits" and/or "package deals". Don't believe any of them. These players seem to invariably make their decisions independently and with their own best interests in mind. They play a lot of games with the process, but if there is any such thing as a "silent commitment" or a "package deal" in the recruiting world, it is certainly rumored a lot more often than it is true. I just don't pay attention to the rumors, and you shouldn't either.
silent commitment: n. A recruit who has given a verbal commitment to a particular team, but has not announced that commitment to the recruiting media, and publicly holds himself out as still uncommitted and open. Ex. "Chris Tolliver says he's open, but he's really a silent commit to LSU."
package deal: n. A set of two or more recruits, always friends and often from the same high school or area who are said to have made a pact to attend the same college, even though the college may not be known. Ex. "JB Shugarts and Sam McGuffie are best friends, and we could have had them as a package deal if we'd offered McGuffie."
I simply never believe any statement that certain players are a "package deal" or that there are "silent commits", at least not for any appreciable length of time. I understand that players may commit and then hold off from telling the media until they can set up an announcement in their own preferred way, such as in a press conference, but people don't usually mean it in this innocuous way when they say someone is a silent commit. They usually mean that the recruit is just playing with the fans and the media and/or is manipulating other recruits or allowing himself to be manipulated by a coach to help that coach get other commitments.
How does this allegedly work? Let's say you're a coach, and you want to get two.. oh.. cornerbacks, and you have your eyes on two guys, both of whom are allegedly great. You recruit CB1 and CB2 hard. CB1 gives you his commitment, and you think it's solid, but you are scared that CB2 will be scared off by CB1 if he hears about CB1's commitment, and that CB2 will want to go somewhere else where the competition won't be as stiff. You ask CB1 to keep his commitment quiet to help him land CB2 as well, and CB1 agrees.
I have two problems with this supposedly typical scenario. One, why would CB1 ever agree to this? It's not in his benefit to hold back on telling people he's committed. Two, why would a coach set this up? If CB2 really is scared of CB1's competition, he's going to have to find out about CB1 eventually, and then he'll just be scared off at that time. Or worse, he'll be offended at having been misled. Even if CB2 commits and signs in that scenario, the coach has created a serious team-chemistry problem by using one player to deceive another player, when those players may have to be on the field, in the dorms, and in the classroom together in the future.
Coaches' deception is a time-honored practice in recruiting. It is relatively common that a coach will tell a player, "Sure, we'll let you try out at wide receiver, but if you don't work there we're moving you to safety," all the while with his fingers crossed behind his back knowing that his try-out at wide receiver will last all of 2 practices. "Sorry kid, you just don't have the hands. Report to the defense." Using another player as an accomplice in your deception just seems foolhardy, and like it has a great potential to blow up in your face. I can't imagine any good coach would do it.
Plus, it is my observation that big-time recruits are almost never scared away by competition at their position. They almost universally believe they can beat out anyone.
So-called "silent commits", which due to the nature of the beast can never be confirmed by any official source, are often the subject of message board rumors and innuendo. They have a long and storied track record of failing to come to fruition. While I suppose it is possible that silent commits exist, the unsubstantiated and eventually-disproven rumors about silent commits greatly outnumber the rumors that eventually prove true, and even those may be only by coincidence.
Package deals are a different story. They come in one of two flavors:
- To get a great player, you also have to offer a scholarship to his unworthy best friend, or
- One slick recruiting job can net you two great players.
At this time of year, and on into the off-season, you will hear innumerable rumors of "silent commits" and/or "package deals". Don't believe any of them. These players seem to invariably make their decisions independently and with their own best interests in mind. They play a lot of games with the process, but if there is any such thing as a "silent commitment" or a "package deal" in the recruiting world, it is certainly rumored a lot more often than it is true. I just don't pay attention to the rumors, and you shouldn't either.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Recruiting 101 - More on star rankings
Rivals put out its list of 3-star players yesterday, and all of LSU's recruits who did not get a 4-star ranking got a 3-star ranking. Here is a list of current commitments and their rankings. This is a mild surprise, but not a big surprise if you consider two facts:
The thing to keep in mind about this is that the schools watch these players a LOT more than the services do. The services aren't there in the camps. The services don't see as many of their games as the coaches. The services scout EVERYONE, but because they don't have an endless list of scouts, they only each recruit a few times. The coaches only closely follow a couple hundred players, hoping to get commitments from 25 to 30 of them. Each of those few hundred gets a LOT of attention from the coaches.
The recruiting services tap into that attention the coaches give by relying at least in part on what those coaches think about the players, which is manifested in making an offer or taking a commitment. It's simply another way of gathering good information about a recruit in an economical way.
Of course, we've discussed that 2-star recruits and small school recruits sometimes do very very well, which of course means that recruiting services and coaches are often wrong, or that players are sometimes late bloomers. The system if far from perfect, and everyone is basically trying to be fortune tellers anyway. That same discussion also established that while all that information sometimes leads people to the wrong answer, it often leads to the right answer.
Anyway, the bottom line is that LSU has three 4-star recruits and six 3-star recruits right now. That will change as these players go through their senior years. The rest of the class will more heavily concentrate on out of state recruits (only 1 commitment is out of state now), and will probably have a higher average star-rating than the current group. We will see though.
- LSU is considered a top program
- One factor the recruiting services consider in making their ranking is the quality of program recruiting the players.
The thing to keep in mind about this is that the schools watch these players a LOT more than the services do. The services aren't there in the camps. The services don't see as many of their games as the coaches. The services scout EVERYONE, but because they don't have an endless list of scouts, they only each recruit a few times. The coaches only closely follow a couple hundred players, hoping to get commitments from 25 to 30 of them. Each of those few hundred gets a LOT of attention from the coaches.
The recruiting services tap into that attention the coaches give by relying at least in part on what those coaches think about the players, which is manifested in making an offer or taking a commitment. It's simply another way of gathering good information about a recruit in an economical way.
Of course, we've discussed that 2-star recruits and small school recruits sometimes do very very well, which of course means that recruiting services and coaches are often wrong, or that players are sometimes late bloomers. The system if far from perfect, and everyone is basically trying to be fortune tellers anyway. That same discussion also established that while all that information sometimes leads people to the wrong answer, it often leads to the right answer.
Anyway, the bottom line is that LSU has three 4-star recruits and six 3-star recruits right now. That will change as these players go through their senior years. The rest of the class will more heavily concentrate on out of state recruits (only 1 commitment is out of state now), and will probably have a higher average star-rating than the current group. We will see though.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Recruiting 101- star ratings
I've been wanting to talk about the importance of "star ratings" in recruiting for quite some time. Now that Rivals and Scout have put out some of their first rankings, and we have our first commitment from a rated player, now is the time.* It will also transition well into a series of profiles of 2007 recruits, which will be a good way to fill some time between now and the start of the season.
I want to evaluate the importance and significance of a recruit's rating on the recruiting services. The problem is that it is often difficult to distinguish a "successful" player from an "unsuccessful" player. The easiest way to quantify it, I think is to look at NFL draft picks. That requires a lot of research, and unfortunately, GeauxTuscaloosa's budget for hiring a research assistant has undergone recent cuts, from $0.00 to something less than that.
Fortunately, someone on TigerDroppings did some of the work for me. Here is a breakdown of the recruiting star ratings of players drafted in the first two rounds of the 2007 NFL draft.
5-star: 5 in the first round, 3 in the second round; Adrian Peterson selected highest at #7
4-star: 17 in the first round, 10 in the second round; Jamarcus Russell selected highest at #1
3-star: 7 in the first round, 14 in the second round; Gaines Adams selected highest at #4
2-star: 3 in the first round, 4 in the second round; Jamaal Anderson selected highest at #8
other: 0 in the first round, 2 in the second round; Ilaikai Alama-Francis selected highest at #58
I think the immediate lesson to learn here is that stars clearly don't mean everything. There were more 3-stars picked in the first round than there were 5-stars, and almost as many 2-stars picked in the first round too.
Does this mean that stars mean nothing? It does not mean that, and this becomes clear when you know that Rivals only gives about 30 people per year a 5-star rating. I don't know how many get 4-star ratings, but I know it is several hundred. There are probably thousands of 3-stars, and thousands more 2-stars.
So, if you are a 5-star, you have about a 1 in 4 chance of being picked in the first two rounds, if 2007 is representative. If you're a 4-star, you have about a 1 in about ten 10 chance of being selected so early. Not bad, but definitely much lower. If you're a 3-star, it drops to about 1 in 50 or more. Any lower, and you're a longshot to get that call.
Now of course, you can have a very successful college career without being drafted in the first two rounds, and if I were trying to do something more definitive, I would look at the entire draft, and perhaps even go beyond the draft. After all, Justin Vincent was a 5-star, and he had one really great year before his production dropped, and he was not drafted. Is he a "successful" college player? Borderline. It would be a tough call.
From all I've seen, the results gotten by analyzing the first 2 rounds of the 2007 NFL Draft hold up to closer scrutiny. 5-star players sometimes bust at the college level, but usually don't. 4-star players bust more frequently, and 3-star players bust more frequently still. However, it is also true that 2-star and 3-star players can become VERY VERY good.
The point is that it is really nice to get a lot of 4- and 5-star players, but don't go thinking that the two-stars on the list are "wasted scholarships" or some other ignorant pejorative. I doubt Clemson would say that Gaines Adams was a wasted scholarship, and I doubt Louisville regrets recruiting Amobi Okoye.
So, relax. Chill out. Enjoy the spectacle that is college football recruiting. Cheer at the 5- and 4-star guys we will sign, if indeed we sign any 5-stars. But don't make an ass out of yourself over the 3-star and 2-star guys we got commitments from early. Sometimes those guys turn out to be very good, and I promise you that Les Miles and the rest of the coaching staff knows more about them than Rivals.
* I prefer Rivals rating system to Scout's. I find it is considered more definitive, and this analysis is based on Rivals ratings, rather than Scout's. Scout is a little more generous in giving out 5-stars, and from what I understand they do not have as big of a scouting staff as Rivals.
I want to evaluate the importance and significance of a recruit's rating on the recruiting services. The problem is that it is often difficult to distinguish a "successful" player from an "unsuccessful" player. The easiest way to quantify it, I think is to look at NFL draft picks. That requires a lot of research, and unfortunately, GeauxTuscaloosa's budget for hiring a research assistant has undergone recent cuts, from $0.00 to something less than that.
Fortunately, someone on TigerDroppings did some of the work for me. Here is a breakdown of the recruiting star ratings of players drafted in the first two rounds of the 2007 NFL draft.
5-star: 5 in the first round, 3 in the second round; Adrian Peterson selected highest at #7
4-star: 17 in the first round, 10 in the second round; Jamarcus Russell selected highest at #1
3-star: 7 in the first round, 14 in the second round; Gaines Adams selected highest at #4
2-star: 3 in the first round, 4 in the second round; Jamaal Anderson selected highest at #8
other: 0 in the first round, 2 in the second round; Ilaikai Alama-Francis selected highest at #58
I think the immediate lesson to learn here is that stars clearly don't mean everything. There were more 3-stars picked in the first round than there were 5-stars, and almost as many 2-stars picked in the first round too.
Does this mean that stars mean nothing? It does not mean that, and this becomes clear when you know that Rivals only gives about 30 people per year a 5-star rating. I don't know how many get 4-star ratings, but I know it is several hundred. There are probably thousands of 3-stars, and thousands more 2-stars.
So, if you are a 5-star, you have about a 1 in 4 chance of being picked in the first two rounds, if 2007 is representative. If you're a 4-star, you have about a 1 in about ten 10 chance of being selected so early. Not bad, but definitely much lower. If you're a 3-star, it drops to about 1 in 50 or more. Any lower, and you're a longshot to get that call.
Now of course, you can have a very successful college career without being drafted in the first two rounds, and if I were trying to do something more definitive, I would look at the entire draft, and perhaps even go beyond the draft. After all, Justin Vincent was a 5-star, and he had one really great year before his production dropped, and he was not drafted. Is he a "successful" college player? Borderline. It would be a tough call.
From all I've seen, the results gotten by analyzing the first 2 rounds of the 2007 NFL Draft hold up to closer scrutiny. 5-star players sometimes bust at the college level, but usually don't. 4-star players bust more frequently, and 3-star players bust more frequently still. However, it is also true that 2-star and 3-star players can become VERY VERY good.
The point is that it is really nice to get a lot of 4- and 5-star players, but don't go thinking that the two-stars on the list are "wasted scholarships" or some other ignorant pejorative. I doubt Clemson would say that Gaines Adams was a wasted scholarship, and I doubt Louisville regrets recruiting Amobi Okoye.
So, relax. Chill out. Enjoy the spectacle that is college football recruiting. Cheer at the 5- and 4-star guys we will sign, if indeed we sign any 5-stars. But don't make an ass out of yourself over the 3-star and 2-star guys we got commitments from early. Sometimes those guys turn out to be very good, and I promise you that Les Miles and the rest of the coaching staff knows more about them than Rivals.
* I prefer Rivals rating system to Scout's. I find it is considered more definitive, and this analysis is based on Rivals ratings, rather than Scout's. Scout is a little more generous in giving out 5-stars, and from what I understand they do not have as big of a scouting staff as Rivals.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Recruiting 101, Part 5 - Forty Schmorty
I'll dispense with the question/answer format of the previous installations. When talking about recruits, especially skill position players, defensive backs, and linebackers, people get enamored with a kid's reported time in the 40 yard dash. People get excited about a wide receiver who can run the 40 in 4.4 seconds or shorter. People go "ho-hum" when a kid runs it in 4.5 seconds or longer.
I can see why this is so. It's an easy way for people who are amateurs at evaluating talent to measure the level of athletic ability of a player. I am certainly one of those amateurs, and I have been guilty of going all googly-eyed over a sub-4.4. Now, however, I think the measurement is utterly meaningless in evaluating a recruit. Let's look at some reasons why:
1. They're self-reported
Who tells Rivals or Scout what a recruit ran in the 40? Usually, either the recruit or his coach. Do these people have any incentive whatsoever to be truthful about a mediocre run? Absolutely not. At best, you can expect that if a recruit runs 10 times and gets 4.6, 4.6, 4.7, 4.6, 4.5, 4.45, 4.6, 4.5, 4.7, and 4. 5, you can expect that the player will report that he ran a 4.4. Message boards across the land will then cheer him.
2. 40-times are dependent upon running conditions
This is something that the NFL has figured out. A player's 40 time is highly dependent on weather and track conditions at the time it is run. A guy on a high-tech polymer track will run much faster than a guy on a dirt track. A guy will run much faster with the wind at his back than with it still or at his front. A guy will run a little faster in warm weather than in cold.
This means that 40 times are not absolute measures of speed, but are only good when compared relative to people who ran under the exact same conditions. So, did that running back in Tennessee run his 40 yard dash under the same conditions as that cornerback in Michigan? Doubt it.
3. They're greatly inflated (deflated) in recent years
Jerry Rice's reported 40 time in his draft year was 4.6 seconds. Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver in history. He holds almost every receiving record the NFL records. He was plenty fast. He couldn't be covered. If you believe his 40 time, he was slow.
I think what has happened is that high school coaches and players have started "teaching to the test". They know that people love to see a 4.4 40-time, so they will work to give it to them. You can engineer 40 time by working on technique and the strengths of particular muscles. Does changing your track technique help make you a better football player? I sincerely doubt it. Does working on particular muscles help make you a better football player? Maybe, but they aren't working on those muscles to help with football. They're working on those muscles to help with track. Any benefit to football is incidental.
4. They're measured without pads
This is a common complaint about it, often made by knuckleheads who just want to defend a particular recruit who reported a poor 40 time. Unfortunately, it's also a correct criticism. All 40 times are measured without football pads. Some people, for reasons I do not understand, lose more speed with pads on than others will lose.
5. Straight-line speed over 40 yards is not particularly important in football
Don't get me wrongly here. I'm not saying slow people are just as good as fast people in football. Clearly not. However, rarely will a guy be called upon to run 40 yards in a straight line in football. It'll happen occasionally, but not that often. Much more often, a player will be required to make quick cuts, power through a block/tackle, run in a straight line for a shorter distance, etc. Straight line speed over half the football just isn't all that important. Maybe we should be measuring times in the 10 yard dash instead. That will be important for a running back trying to outrun linebackers, a cornerback closing on a receiver, a quarterback escaping a rush, a defensive lineman trying to run down a scrambling QB, and many other things. 40 yards? Eh, not so much.
We're talking about explosion. The ability to go from 0-to-100 in an instant. Fortunately, there is another measurement of explosionthat is frequently reported, and we'll get into that in a bit.
6. Players bodies change a lot once they get to college.
Almost every recruit has to make significant changes to his body upon getting to college. Some have to lose a little fat. Almost all have to add strength. This means adding muscle. This means adding weight. This means changing the way you run. Think about it like this. Let's say you take a car that runs really fast. Then you put a more powerful engine in it, but also add weight. Will it be faster or slower? I don't know, and neither will you until you make the change and test it.
So, in short, the problems with the 40 times are thus. People lie about them. Even if people didn't lie about them, they would only be accurate measures if measured under identical conditions. They're engineered by coaches and players who are more interested in improving the score rather than improving in football. They measure straight-line speed under non-game conditions. Straight line speed over that distance is not especially important. And last but not least, every recruit's 40 time will change in unpredictable ways before they actually set foot on the field in a game.
What's the solution?
My favorite measurable is actually the vertical jump rather than the 40 time. Again, rarely will a player actually be required to jump very high from a standing position in a football game, but I think it measures explosive leg strength which is a much more valuable quality than straight-line speed. Every player on the field needs explosive strength. Every one of them. The running back needs to power through a hole. Every defensive player needs to explode on a ball carrier to make a tackle. Offensive linemen need to explode off a snap and push defensive linemen around. Defensive linemen need to stop the offensive linemen from doing that. Wide receivers need to explode past defensive backs.
Also, because the vertical jump is not as sexy of a statistic as the 40 time, players and coaches are less likely to falsely report measurements or engineer better results.
So, take that for what it's worth. Don't get excited over a sub-4.4 because it's probably not totally honest and may not actually measure anything worthwhile anyway. By the same token, don't worry about it when a receiver or a running back has a 4.6 40-time. No biggee. Give me a 36 inch vertical any day.
This is why I like Sam McGuffie and Julio Jones as prospects. Look for McGuffie's highlight films on YouTube. Impressive stuff. Jones just might be the #1 prospect in the country for 2008. We have an uphill battle to get him.
I can see why this is so. It's an easy way for people who are amateurs at evaluating talent to measure the level of athletic ability of a player. I am certainly one of those amateurs, and I have been guilty of going all googly-eyed over a sub-4.4. Now, however, I think the measurement is utterly meaningless in evaluating a recruit. Let's look at some reasons why:
1. They're self-reported
Who tells Rivals or Scout what a recruit ran in the 40? Usually, either the recruit or his coach. Do these people have any incentive whatsoever to be truthful about a mediocre run? Absolutely not. At best, you can expect that if a recruit runs 10 times and gets 4.6, 4.6, 4.7, 4.6, 4.5, 4.45, 4.6, 4.5, 4.7, and 4. 5, you can expect that the player will report that he ran a 4.4. Message boards across the land will then cheer him.
2. 40-times are dependent upon running conditions
This is something that the NFL has figured out. A player's 40 time is highly dependent on weather and track conditions at the time it is run. A guy on a high-tech polymer track will run much faster than a guy on a dirt track. A guy will run much faster with the wind at his back than with it still or at his front. A guy will run a little faster in warm weather than in cold.
This means that 40 times are not absolute measures of speed, but are only good when compared relative to people who ran under the exact same conditions. So, did that running back in Tennessee run his 40 yard dash under the same conditions as that cornerback in Michigan? Doubt it.
3. They're greatly inflated (deflated) in recent years
Jerry Rice's reported 40 time in his draft year was 4.6 seconds. Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver in history. He holds almost every receiving record the NFL records. He was plenty fast. He couldn't be covered. If you believe his 40 time, he was slow.
I think what has happened is that high school coaches and players have started "teaching to the test". They know that people love to see a 4.4 40-time, so they will work to give it to them. You can engineer 40 time by working on technique and the strengths of particular muscles. Does changing your track technique help make you a better football player? I sincerely doubt it. Does working on particular muscles help make you a better football player? Maybe, but they aren't working on those muscles to help with football. They're working on those muscles to help with track. Any benefit to football is incidental.
4. They're measured without pads
This is a common complaint about it, often made by knuckleheads who just want to defend a particular recruit who reported a poor 40 time. Unfortunately, it's also a correct criticism. All 40 times are measured without football pads. Some people, for reasons I do not understand, lose more speed with pads on than others will lose.
5. Straight-line speed over 40 yards is not particularly important in football
Don't get me wrongly here. I'm not saying slow people are just as good as fast people in football. Clearly not. However, rarely will a guy be called upon to run 40 yards in a straight line in football. It'll happen occasionally, but not that often. Much more often, a player will be required to make quick cuts, power through a block/tackle, run in a straight line for a shorter distance, etc. Straight line speed over half the football just isn't all that important. Maybe we should be measuring times in the 10 yard dash instead. That will be important for a running back trying to outrun linebackers, a cornerback closing on a receiver, a quarterback escaping a rush, a defensive lineman trying to run down a scrambling QB, and many other things. 40 yards? Eh, not so much.
We're talking about explosion. The ability to go from 0-to-100 in an instant. Fortunately, there is another measurement of explosionthat is frequently reported, and we'll get into that in a bit.
6. Players bodies change a lot once they get to college.
Almost every recruit has to make significant changes to his body upon getting to college. Some have to lose a little fat. Almost all have to add strength. This means adding muscle. This means adding weight. This means changing the way you run. Think about it like this. Let's say you take a car that runs really fast. Then you put a more powerful engine in it, but also add weight. Will it be faster or slower? I don't know, and neither will you until you make the change and test it.
So, in short, the problems with the 40 times are thus. People lie about them. Even if people didn't lie about them, they would only be accurate measures if measured under identical conditions. They're engineered by coaches and players who are more interested in improving the score rather than improving in football. They measure straight-line speed under non-game conditions. Straight line speed over that distance is not especially important. And last but not least, every recruit's 40 time will change in unpredictable ways before they actually set foot on the field in a game.
What's the solution?
My favorite measurable is actually the vertical jump rather than the 40 time. Again, rarely will a player actually be required to jump very high from a standing position in a football game, but I think it measures explosive leg strength which is a much more valuable quality than straight-line speed. Every player on the field needs explosive strength. Every one of them. The running back needs to power through a hole. Every defensive player needs to explode on a ball carrier to make a tackle. Offensive linemen need to explode off a snap and push defensive linemen around. Defensive linemen need to stop the offensive linemen from doing that. Wide receivers need to explode past defensive backs.
Also, because the vertical jump is not as sexy of a statistic as the 40 time, players and coaches are less likely to falsely report measurements or engineer better results.
So, take that for what it's worth. Don't get excited over a sub-4.4 because it's probably not totally honest and may not actually measure anything worthwhile anyway. By the same token, don't worry about it when a receiver or a running back has a 4.6 40-time. No biggee. Give me a 36 inch vertical any day.
This is why I like Sam McGuffie and Julio Jones as prospects. Look for McGuffie's highlight films on YouTube. Impressive stuff. Jones just might be the #1 prospect in the country for 2008. We have an uphill battle to get him.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Recruiting 101 Part 4 - Transferring Out?
Sometimes, the best way for a player to help a team is to leave it. When a player does not develop as hoped, and finds himself in a situation where he will never be a solid contributor at LSU, he can help both himself and the team by going to another program, one where he will play and be a key contributor.
I'm thinking in particular here about football, where people sometimes bemoan the fact that players leave the team when they don't get the playing time they expect. For example, in the past year, both Tim Washington and Antonio Robinson announced that they would be leaving the team. Washington is a defensive end who found himself behind the likes of Tyson Jackson, Rahim Alem, Tremaine Johnson, and Ricky Jean-Francois on the depth charts. He also saw the incoming freshman class and realized that he was never going to break through the depth chart and into the lineup. He is currently shopping around for a new school. Robinson is a running back who saw himself fall to seventh on the depth chart in Fall camp last year after redshirting the previous year, behind 3 other freshmen. He decided to pull up stakes and go to Northwestern State.
Both of these players are doing LSU a favor. How is it helpful to lose athletes, even ones who are far down the depth chart? I touched on it once before. It's called the "85/25" rule. As I explained,
Let's do some Math. Let's say that you want to sign 25 people every year. Year 1, you have 25 people on scholarship. Year 2, you have 50. Year 3, you have 75. Year 4, you have 100. Uh oh. In year 4, you can't sign 25 people because it will put you over the 85 person limit. After all, those 25 people you recruited in year 1 will be entering their senior years. Every four years, you have to recruit a smaller class. Much smaller. With recruiting being uncertain at best, you're probably going to have to pass up a lot of good players you'd otherwise want to take.
And don't even get into the problems that could be caused by redshirting, which adds a 5th year of eligibility, and a fifth year of occupying a scholarship. Let's just say that if you sign the most you can sign, and if you redshirt half the people you sign, and if everyone stays as long as they can, in your 5th year you will not be doing any recruiting at all. Over a two year period, you will add ten players to your team. You can't start recruiting again until those big classes you signed in years 1, 2, and 3 start graduating... or leaving for other reasons.
Aha! "Leaving for other reasons"? See what I mean now? There are a few ways someone can leave a program with eligibility remaining. He can a) be really really good and declare himself professional after 3 years, or b) he can simply give up his scholarship and leave.
You would prefer not to have a) happen if you avoid it, but b) sounds really promising doesn't it? The key is to get the right players to leave. Fortunately, most of the time it works out very logically. People who don't play want to leave to go somewhere they will play. Occasionally, I suppose, a solid contributor will leave a program because he doesn't like the coaches, or because of personal problems, or some other non-performance reason. Most of the time, however, a key contributor will be happy and will stick with the program while a guy riding the pine will be unhappy.
But, you ask, why recruit a guy who won't contribute, only for the sake of getting him to leave later? Well, they don't recruit guys knowing they won't contribute. Recruiting is way more uncertain than that. A team instead will recruit, say, 4 running backs over a two year period, all of whom have the potential to be good. Let's call them RB-A, RB-B, RB-C, and RB-D. They will expect, however, that one or two of them will fail to reach their potential (or that the coaches will have misjudged the players' potential) and will not really emerge as solid players. However, from the outset, the coaches will not have any idea which of the 4 will make it and which will not. Each one is a risk, and they recruit enough quantity that they expect they will get enough quality after the players develop.
Let's say that RB-A and RB-D emerge as really good running backs. RB-C ends up OK, but clearly behind A and D, and RB-B proves to be lazy, constantly out of shape, and/or an attitude problem. RB-A and RB-D put together a lot of highlights. RB-C plays in spot situations at the end of blowouts, and RB-B never sees the field.
Hopefully, RB-B transfers out of the program quickly. Also, hopefully, RB-C will see the handwriting on the wall and realize he will never pass up A or D and will leave after a couple years of trying to break through. This will open up two scholarship slots for two other running backs to come in (RB-E and RB-F), with a full four years of eligibility, who will be there when those other running backs graduate. If those other guys had stayed, you wouldn't have been able to recruit E and F.
RB-E and RB-F will then compete against each other and whoever else is recruited the following years to see who will be the best running backs on later teams.
And it is like this at EVERY POSITION. Every coach recruits more than he needs, expecting some not to meet their potential, but not knowing who will and who won't beforehand. Every year, some players see the handwriting on the wall and leave. As a result, LSU does not have to have years with only 5 or 10 recruits.
Even with this mechanism in place, however, every program will have the occasional year where they simply can't add 25 new players. Rumor has it that LSU is entering one of those years in 2008. If you listen to the talk about this, LSU will only be able to sign about 20 people this year. I don't buy it. I think more people are going to end up leaving, as they see the incoming freshmen pass them on the depth charts, and we will be recruiting the standard 25 again in 2008.
I'm thinking in particular here about football, where people sometimes bemoan the fact that players leave the team when they don't get the playing time they expect. For example, in the past year, both Tim Washington and Antonio Robinson announced that they would be leaving the team. Washington is a defensive end who found himself behind the likes of Tyson Jackson, Rahim Alem, Tremaine Johnson, and Ricky Jean-Francois on the depth charts. He also saw the incoming freshman class and realized that he was never going to break through the depth chart and into the lineup. He is currently shopping around for a new school. Robinson is a running back who saw himself fall to seventh on the depth chart in Fall camp last year after redshirting the previous year, behind 3 other freshmen. He decided to pull up stakes and go to Northwestern State.
Both of these players are doing LSU a favor. How is it helpful to lose athletes, even ones who are far down the depth chart? I touched on it once before. It's called the "85/25" rule. As I explained,
It's not just a rule of recruiting. It is probably the single most important rule in all of college football, save perhaps for the rule that you can't pay your players. Put simply, a football team may add no more than 25 new scholarship players in any one calendar year, and may have no more than 85 players on scholarship at any one time.Think about that. You can add as many as 25 new scholarships in any one year, but can have no more than 85 players on scholarship at one time.
Let's do some Math. Let's say that you want to sign 25 people every year. Year 1, you have 25 people on scholarship. Year 2, you have 50. Year 3, you have 75. Year 4, you have 100. Uh oh. In year 4, you can't sign 25 people because it will put you over the 85 person limit. After all, those 25 people you recruited in year 1 will be entering their senior years. Every four years, you have to recruit a smaller class. Much smaller. With recruiting being uncertain at best, you're probably going to have to pass up a lot of good players you'd otherwise want to take.
And don't even get into the problems that could be caused by redshirting, which adds a 5th year of eligibility, and a fifth year of occupying a scholarship. Let's just say that if you sign the most you can sign, and if you redshirt half the people you sign, and if everyone stays as long as they can, in your 5th year you will not be doing any recruiting at all. Over a two year period, you will add ten players to your team. You can't start recruiting again until those big classes you signed in years 1, 2, and 3 start graduating... or leaving for other reasons.
Aha! "Leaving for other reasons"? See what I mean now? There are a few ways someone can leave a program with eligibility remaining. He can a) be really really good and declare himself professional after 3 years, or b) he can simply give up his scholarship and leave.
You would prefer not to have a) happen if you avoid it, but b) sounds really promising doesn't it? The key is to get the right players to leave. Fortunately, most of the time it works out very logically. People who don't play want to leave to go somewhere they will play. Occasionally, I suppose, a solid contributor will leave a program because he doesn't like the coaches, or because of personal problems, or some other non-performance reason. Most of the time, however, a key contributor will be happy and will stick with the program while a guy riding the pine will be unhappy.
But, you ask, why recruit a guy who won't contribute, only for the sake of getting him to leave later? Well, they don't recruit guys knowing they won't contribute. Recruiting is way more uncertain than that. A team instead will recruit, say, 4 running backs over a two year period, all of whom have the potential to be good. Let's call them RB-A, RB-B, RB-C, and RB-D. They will expect, however, that one or two of them will fail to reach their potential (or that the coaches will have misjudged the players' potential) and will not really emerge as solid players. However, from the outset, the coaches will not have any idea which of the 4 will make it and which will not. Each one is a risk, and they recruit enough quantity that they expect they will get enough quality after the players develop.
Let's say that RB-A and RB-D emerge as really good running backs. RB-C ends up OK, but clearly behind A and D, and RB-B proves to be lazy, constantly out of shape, and/or an attitude problem. RB-A and RB-D put together a lot of highlights. RB-C plays in spot situations at the end of blowouts, and RB-B never sees the field.
Hopefully, RB-B transfers out of the program quickly. Also, hopefully, RB-C will see the handwriting on the wall and realize he will never pass up A or D and will leave after a couple years of trying to break through. This will open up two scholarship slots for two other running backs to come in (RB-E and RB-F), with a full four years of eligibility, who will be there when those other running backs graduate. If those other guys had stayed, you wouldn't have been able to recruit E and F.
RB-E and RB-F will then compete against each other and whoever else is recruited the following years to see who will be the best running backs on later teams.
And it is like this at EVERY POSITION. Every coach recruits more than he needs, expecting some not to meet their potential, but not knowing who will and who won't beforehand. Every year, some players see the handwriting on the wall and leave. As a result, LSU does not have to have years with only 5 or 10 recruits.
Even with this mechanism in place, however, every program will have the occasional year where they simply can't add 25 new players. Rumor has it that LSU is entering one of those years in 2008. If you listen to the talk about this, LSU will only be able to sign about 20 people this year. I don't buy it. I think more people are going to end up leaving, as they see the incoming freshmen pass them on the depth charts, and we will be recruiting the standard 25 again in 2008.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Recruiting 101 - Part 3
Part 3 in the continuing series, continued today because I don't have much to say about the NCAA tournament action yesterday. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.
You've been saying that recruits sometimes commit early so that they can lock in a position, but that they can change their minds. Can a coach change his mind about a verbal commitment?
Yes. Verbal commitments are non-binding both to the player and to the school. A coach may tell a guy who is verbally committed that he is no longer welcome, for any reason. Rarely, however, will a coach revoke a scholarship offer to a committed player simply because he thinks he can get a better player. I won't say it never happens, but most respectable programs won't do this because it will negatively impact the trust factor between the coaches and the recruits.
A coach who goes around taking commitments early only to cut them loose late will soon find himself unable to get early commitments. To show an example of how far some coaches will go to honor a verbal commitment, consider the case of Delvin Breaux at LSU. Delvin Breaux is a defensive back who committed to LSU fairly early in the process, committing to join LSU's 2007 recruiting class. Then, in a game in his senior year of high school, he sustained a serious spinal injury that will keep him off of the football team for at least the next two years, and possibly longer.
LSU honored his commitment, even though no major college team would have continued recruiting him at that point. Les Miles decided, however, that because Delvin had given his promise to LSU, LSU would keep its promise to Delvin Breaux. Now, bear in mind that had Delvin stayed healthy, he could conceivably have changed his mind about going to LSU at any time before signing his Letter of Intent, and LSU had the power to back off of his commitment at any time as well, but did not, despite the fact that Delvin cannot even participate in contact practice drills until AT LEAST the 2009 season.
Do coaches ever tell a commitment to "buzz off"?
Yes. It happens. Reportedly, LSU told defensive end prospect Luther Davis to buzz off after he violated one of Les Miles' rules and reportedly lied about it to cover up his actions. Without going into excessive details, Miles has a rule that says he will not consider a player locked in and committed unless he stops visiting other schools. Until a recruit stops taking visits, Miles considers his scholarship offer to be revocable. Once the recruit stops the visits, he is locked onto the recruiting board and his scholarship will not be revoked.
Well, Luther Davis committed to LSU, then a short time later visited the University of Alabama, and constructed a fairly elaborate story to cover up that he had done this. Depending on what sources you believe, Miles either
A school may also back off of a recruit if his recruitment becomes an embarrassment for the program. One example from several years back is Willie Williams out of the state of Florida. I don't remember all the specifics, but I think he committed to Florida State. His recruitment was wild, and he kept an online journal to detail all the excesses of his recruiting, kind of exposing some of the ugly secrets of the recruiting business (though it was all, technically, within the rules). Then it came out that he had been in a LOT of legal trouble, and I think he got into even further trouble after his recruitment. Florida State cut him loose. I think he ended up at a junior college and then at the University of Miami, but I am writing strictly off of memory here and may have things wrong. Feel free to correct me in comments if you know better.
What about those two guys who recently committed to LSU? Spencer and Lonergan? What's the deal with them?
To be honest, I was unfamiliar with Clay Spencer before his commitment. He goes to Parkview Baptist (Darry Beckwith's alma mater) and will be a senior next year. He is a huge at 6'6" and 285 pounds and projects at offensive guard. He had flown under the radar early in this recruiting year, but Les Miles saw enough in him to want to get his commitment early in the process. Miles probably thinks Spencer is a dark horse that will start getting more attention next year, and wanted to lock him up before other SEC schools started thinking more highly of him. I think Spencer, who probably didn't expect an offer, was happy to take it.
P.J. Lonergan out of Rummel in New Orleans, had gotten a good bit of attention early in the process. Some consider him the best 2008 offensive lineman recruit in the State of Louisiana. It was expected that he would be fairly heavily recruited and could probably have gotten many offers from SEC schools or other BCS schools.
Why did he commit early? My guess is that he saw that LSU had signed nine offensive linemen in the last two recruiting classes, and saw the commitment of Clay Spencer and concluded that LSU may not be taking a lot more commitments from offensive linemen this year. With Dallas Thomas out of Baton Rouge and Daniel Campbell and J.B. Shugarts out of Texas all expressing great interest in LSU, Lonergan probably decided that if he wanted to commit to LSU, he may have needed to do it quickly.
You've been saying that recruits sometimes commit early so that they can lock in a position, but that they can change their minds. Can a coach change his mind about a verbal commitment?
Yes. Verbal commitments are non-binding both to the player and to the school. A coach may tell a guy who is verbally committed that he is no longer welcome, for any reason. Rarely, however, will a coach revoke a scholarship offer to a committed player simply because he thinks he can get a better player. I won't say it never happens, but most respectable programs won't do this because it will negatively impact the trust factor between the coaches and the recruits.
A coach who goes around taking commitments early only to cut them loose late will soon find himself unable to get early commitments. To show an example of how far some coaches will go to honor a verbal commitment, consider the case of Delvin Breaux at LSU. Delvin Breaux is a defensive back who committed to LSU fairly early in the process, committing to join LSU's 2007 recruiting class. Then, in a game in his senior year of high school, he sustained a serious spinal injury that will keep him off of the football team for at least the next two years, and possibly longer.
LSU honored his commitment, even though no major college team would have continued recruiting him at that point. Les Miles decided, however, that because Delvin had given his promise to LSU, LSU would keep its promise to Delvin Breaux. Now, bear in mind that had Delvin stayed healthy, he could conceivably have changed his mind about going to LSU at any time before signing his Letter of Intent, and LSU had the power to back off of his commitment at any time as well, but did not, despite the fact that Delvin cannot even participate in contact practice drills until AT LEAST the 2009 season.
Do coaches ever tell a commitment to "buzz off"?
Yes. It happens. Reportedly, LSU told defensive end prospect Luther Davis to buzz off after he violated one of Les Miles' rules and reportedly lied about it to cover up his actions. Without going into excessive details, Miles has a rule that says he will not consider a player locked in and committed unless he stops visiting other schools. Until a recruit stops taking visits, Miles considers his scholarship offer to be revocable. Once the recruit stops the visits, he is locked onto the recruiting board and his scholarship will not be revoked.
Well, Luther Davis committed to LSU, then a short time later visited the University of Alabama, and constructed a fairly elaborate story to cover up that he had done this. Depending on what sources you believe, Miles either
- told Luther Davis he wasn't welcome at LSU any longer, or
- begged Luther Davis to re-commit to LSU.
A school may also back off of a recruit if his recruitment becomes an embarrassment for the program. One example from several years back is Willie Williams out of the state of Florida. I don't remember all the specifics, but I think he committed to Florida State. His recruitment was wild, and he kept an online journal to detail all the excesses of his recruiting, kind of exposing some of the ugly secrets of the recruiting business (though it was all, technically, within the rules). Then it came out that he had been in a LOT of legal trouble, and I think he got into even further trouble after his recruitment. Florida State cut him loose. I think he ended up at a junior college and then at the University of Miami, but I am writing strictly off of memory here and may have things wrong. Feel free to correct me in comments if you know better.
What about those two guys who recently committed to LSU? Spencer and Lonergan? What's the deal with them?
To be honest, I was unfamiliar with Clay Spencer before his commitment. He goes to Parkview Baptist (Darry Beckwith's alma mater) and will be a senior next year. He is a huge at 6'6" and 285 pounds and projects at offensive guard. He had flown under the radar early in this recruiting year, but Les Miles saw enough in him to want to get his commitment early in the process. Miles probably thinks Spencer is a dark horse that will start getting more attention next year, and wanted to lock him up before other SEC schools started thinking more highly of him. I think Spencer, who probably didn't expect an offer, was happy to take it.
P.J. Lonergan out of Rummel in New Orleans, had gotten a good bit of attention early in the process. Some consider him the best 2008 offensive lineman recruit in the State of Louisiana. It was expected that he would be fairly heavily recruited and could probably have gotten many offers from SEC schools or other BCS schools.
Why did he commit early? My guess is that he saw that LSU had signed nine offensive linemen in the last two recruiting classes, and saw the commitment of Clay Spencer and concluded that LSU may not be taking a lot more commitments from offensive linemen this year. With Dallas Thomas out of Baton Rouge and Daniel Campbell and J.B. Shugarts out of Texas all expressing great interest in LSU, Lonergan probably decided that if he wanted to commit to LSU, he may have needed to do it quickly.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Recruiting 101 - Part 2
Considering I have been spending all day in the hospital, once again I'm reaching into my archive of completed-yet-unposted content. This is the second part in my continuing series that explains the vagaries of college football recruiting to the uninitiated. See the first part here. The reason I'm doing this is because I have never seen, in one place, the rules and conventions of recruiting posted in one place. To learn about it, you normally just have to follow it for a long time and glean how it works. Since major newspapers only cover recruiting sparingly (I'll explain why that is in a later post), this can be kind of difficult and many of your sources for information can be very unreliable. Anyway, questions and answers commence.
You said last time that most kids keep a verbal commitment but why do people sometimes change their minds?
Lots of reasons. I would say the most common reasons are:
While I list three potential reasons, I think if the question was multiple choice, the most common reason to de-commit would be "None of the Above". You have to remember, these are teenage boys we're talking about. Who knows why they do what they do?
Why would someone verbally commit now, almost a year before he can actually sign?
This is a good question, and honestly I don't have a very good answer. The answers probably vary greatly, depending on the recruit. One possibility is that a player may believe that if he does not take the offer to commit now, he may not have an offer later.
This requires a short explanation of another rule of recruiting. The 85/25 rule. It's not just a rule of recruiting. It is probably the single most important rule in all of college football, save perhaps for the rule that you can't pay your players. Put simply, a football team may add no more than 25 new scholarship players in any one calendar year, and may have no more than 85 players on scholarship at any one time.
This rule impacts many things about college football. Some say it is responsible for increased parity in college football, because in the past big programs could sign whoever they wanted, as long as they had enough money to fund their scholarships. You could sign 40 guys every year, and keep them all on scholarship for 5 years if you wanted. Supposedly, small schools suffered from this because the big schools were signing more people than they could ever play. Big schools had guys sitting on their benches for 5 years who would have been starters somewhere else.
But for now, let's just look at how the 85/25 Rule may impact a recruit such as to make him want to commit early, thereby foregoing the free trips and attention that comes with recruiting. With only 25 scholarships to give out every year (less in some years because of the "85" portion of the rule), coaches have to be careful who they sign. A coach would have a lot of explaining to do if he took early commitments from a lot of mid-level prospects, then ended up having to turn away a stud later in the recruiting season because he doesn't have a scholarship to give.
Also, a coach has to be careful of not overloading at one position, because if you have 20 wide receivers on scholarship, you can only have 65 on scholarship at all the other positions, and a wide receiver can't be converted to an offensive lineman or defensive tackle. Every coach should have a good idea of how he's going to spend his allotted scholarships for the year. He needs to look at his roster and say, "Ok, I need x number of running backs, y wide receivers, z offensive linemen, q defensive linemen," et cetera. It won't be rigid, because the coach will build in some flexibility so that he can sign a really good prospect who makes himself available, even if it is not at a position where he needs an additional recruit.
Alright, why does this make a commit early? Well, let's say the recruit plays linebacker. Let's say also that the coach wants to sign between 2 and 4 linebackers that year. Let's say further that he is looking at 10 linebackers, from which he expects to get 2 and hopes to get more later in the season. He will go and tell his favorites of the 10, "I want you to commit to me right now, but if you don't, I'm going to be offering other linebackers a scholarship. If they commit now, I may not have a scholarship for you." So, a recruit may hear this and think, "If I want to commit to my beloved LSU Fightin' Tigers, I have to do it now."
Then he commits, and the coach does not go and offer some of those other guys.
I use the example of the linebacker, and that certainly applies, but if you pay attention, you will notice that the most common early commitment is at the quarterback position. A team needs a certain number of quarterbacks, but can't afford to over-sign because it's hard to convert a QB to another position. Teams can't afford to wait for their QBs to commit, because they may end up without a QB if they do. For this reason, even a really good QB will likely be committed to his team by about October, and it's very rare to see good QBs who aren't verbally committed somewhere by New Year's Day.
But then why do some recruits wait until the last day?
This one is easier. A really really good recruit can afford to wait as long as he wants, because he knows that every school looking at him will hold a scholarship available for him for as long as he wants to wait. He can play it out until National Signing Day. Recruiting can be a lot of fun for the top recruits, as they get to take trips all around the country, go to football or basketball games as guests of the school, get the attention of pretty girls, get write-ups in the newspaper or even national magazines, commit on national television, etc.
But aren't some of the early commitments really good players who could wait as long as they want?
Yes. Some early commits don't really need to commit early, as they would have scholarships later. Why do they do this? Well, my best answer to this is that some guys probably don't like all the attention that recruiting brings, and would rather get it done early. Of course, other coaches can still call him if they want, and it's not like he can't change his mind.
He might also have a deep and abiding love of his particular school and want to do everything he can to help them.
Recruiting is a little different for everyone, and I can't say I am inside any of these guys' heads to know what they're thinking. It's also important to realize that they are 16, 17, 18 years old. They don't necessarily know why they do the things they do.
Adios for now.
You said last time that most kids keep a verbal commitment but why do people sometimes change their minds?
Lots of reasons. I would say the most common reasons are:
- A coaching change at the school where he had committed, or at the the new school.
- A broken promise not to recruit other players in the position the player plays.
- Social pressure to commit to the local school, rather than a far-away school.
While I list three potential reasons, I think if the question was multiple choice, the most common reason to de-commit would be "None of the Above". You have to remember, these are teenage boys we're talking about. Who knows why they do what they do?
Why would someone verbally commit now, almost a year before he can actually sign?
This is a good question, and honestly I don't have a very good answer. The answers probably vary greatly, depending on the recruit. One possibility is that a player may believe that if he does not take the offer to commit now, he may not have an offer later.
This requires a short explanation of another rule of recruiting. The 85/25 rule. It's not just a rule of recruiting. It is probably the single most important rule in all of college football, save perhaps for the rule that you can't pay your players. Put simply, a football team may add no more than 25 new scholarship players in any one calendar year, and may have no more than 85 players on scholarship at any one time.
This rule impacts many things about college football. Some say it is responsible for increased parity in college football, because in the past big programs could sign whoever they wanted, as long as they had enough money to fund their scholarships. You could sign 40 guys every year, and keep them all on scholarship for 5 years if you wanted. Supposedly, small schools suffered from this because the big schools were signing more people than they could ever play. Big schools had guys sitting on their benches for 5 years who would have been starters somewhere else.
But for now, let's just look at how the 85/25 Rule may impact a recruit such as to make him want to commit early, thereby foregoing the free trips and attention that comes with recruiting. With only 25 scholarships to give out every year (less in some years because of the "85" portion of the rule), coaches have to be careful who they sign. A coach would have a lot of explaining to do if he took early commitments from a lot of mid-level prospects, then ended up having to turn away a stud later in the recruiting season because he doesn't have a scholarship to give.
Also, a coach has to be careful of not overloading at one position, because if you have 20 wide receivers on scholarship, you can only have 65 on scholarship at all the other positions, and a wide receiver can't be converted to an offensive lineman or defensive tackle. Every coach should have a good idea of how he's going to spend his allotted scholarships for the year. He needs to look at his roster and say, "Ok, I need x number of running backs, y wide receivers, z offensive linemen, q defensive linemen," et cetera. It won't be rigid, because the coach will build in some flexibility so that he can sign a really good prospect who makes himself available, even if it is not at a position where he needs an additional recruit.
Alright, why does this make a commit early? Well, let's say the recruit plays linebacker. Let's say also that the coach wants to sign between 2 and 4 linebackers that year. Let's say further that he is looking at 10 linebackers, from which he expects to get 2 and hopes to get more later in the season. He will go and tell his favorites of the 10, "I want you to commit to me right now, but if you don't, I'm going to be offering other linebackers a scholarship. If they commit now, I may not have a scholarship for you." So, a recruit may hear this and think, "If I want to commit to my beloved LSU Fightin' Tigers, I have to do it now."
Then he commits, and the coach does not go and offer some of those other guys.
I use the example of the linebacker, and that certainly applies, but if you pay attention, you will notice that the most common early commitment is at the quarterback position. A team needs a certain number of quarterbacks, but can't afford to over-sign because it's hard to convert a QB to another position. Teams can't afford to wait for their QBs to commit, because they may end up without a QB if they do. For this reason, even a really good QB will likely be committed to his team by about October, and it's very rare to see good QBs who aren't verbally committed somewhere by New Year's Day.
But then why do some recruits wait until the last day?
This one is easier. A really really good recruit can afford to wait as long as he wants, because he knows that every school looking at him will hold a scholarship available for him for as long as he wants to wait. He can play it out until National Signing Day. Recruiting can be a lot of fun for the top recruits, as they get to take trips all around the country, go to football or basketball games as guests of the school, get the attention of pretty girls, get write-ups in the newspaper or even national magazines, commit on national television, etc.
But aren't some of the early commitments really good players who could wait as long as they want?
Yes. Some early commits don't really need to commit early, as they would have scholarships later. Why do they do this? Well, my best answer to this is that some guys probably don't like all the attention that recruiting brings, and would rather get it done early. Of course, other coaches can still call him if they want, and it's not like he can't change his mind.
He might also have a deep and abiding love of his particular school and want to do everything he can to help them.
Recruiting is a little different for everyone, and I can't say I am inside any of these guys' heads to know what they're thinking. It's also important to realize that they are 16, 17, 18 years old. They don't necessarily know why they do the things they do.
Adios for now.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Recruiting 101 - Part 1
I guess my first substantive post is going to be about recruiting, considering that LSU has apparently received its second verbal commitment for the 2008 class. PJ Lonergan, an offensive lineman out of Rummel has given his verbal commitment. He is about to finish his junior year of high school.
Recruiting is, they say, the life blood of a football team. For those of you unfamiliar with football recruiting, I'm going to start with the very basics, in multiple parts. We'll be getting a lot more complex as time goes on.
LESSON #1 - Commitments
What is the difference between a verbal commitment and a written commitment?
Good question. The simplest way to explain this basic part of recruiting is to say that a player's recruitment (usually) ends when he has signed his "Letter of Intent" and faxed it to the school of his choice. I won't get into the scenarios in which this would not actually end the player's recruitment.
A Letter of Intent is a binding written statement by a player that he is accepting a scholarship offer from a school. Once he signs and faxes this statement, he is bound to his agreement and cannot get out of it without paying a heavy price (sitting out a year of football).
A verbal commitment is a statement by a player that he will one day sign a letter of intent. It is totally nonbinding and a player may change his mind at any time before going through the process of signing and faxing. It is a promise to the coaching staff (and the fans) that he will be going to a particular school, but is otherwise not particularly meaningful.
Well, why don't players just skip the whole "verbal commitment" thing and go straight to signing a Letter of Intent?
Well, there is a very important rule about this. While a player may verbally commit at any time, a player may not sign and fax his Letter of Intent before a day called "National Signing Day", which is usually (always?) in February of the player's senior year. If a player wishes to commit before this date, he can only give a "verbal commitment", and that's it. Right now, recruits for the 2008 class are almost one full year away from National Signing Day. Recruiting for 2008 is in full swing, however, and coaches are looking for their commitments.
Are there any rules at all about verbal commitments?
No. A player may verbally commit at any time. A six year old can give his verbal commitment. Further, other schools may continue to recruit a player who is verbally committed to another school as if the commitment never happened. A player may remain verbally committed for a year, and then change his mind without warning on National Signing Day, announcing his choice by faxing his Letter of Intent.
Well, why are verbal commitments so important if they are totally non-binding?
While verbal commitments are non-binding, and a player may retract a verbal commitment at any time, most players honor their verbal commitments. Every year will see several high-profile recruits change their minds as recruiting continues, but 9 out of 10 recruits will end up signing with the school to which they initially committed.
There are certain pressures on a player to honor a commitment. First, no kid wants to be known as a liar or a flake. Every kid who changes his mind about this, in an age where there is a substantial portion of the media that covers recruiting, will become known as a person who went back on his word.
Second, I think there is a more internal pressure to keep a verbal commitment. A recruit who gives his verbal commitment to a school instantly becomes part of that football program. Many will try to encourage other recruits to commit to his team. Many will develop friendships with players currently at the school. Many, particularly kids who live near their chosen college, will become local heroes for picking the local school. Psychologically, there is a resistance to changing all of that around. It's a little like the phenomenon that occurs in every new car lot in which the salesman knows that if he can get you to test drive the car, you will probably buy it because you'll develop an emotional attachment to it from having driven it. The recruiter is like the salesman and the verbal commitment is like the test drive. If he can get you to give your verbal commitment, he knows you will probably sign the Letter of Intent in February.
This is why the verbal commitments are so important, and why coaches push for them so early.
Continued tomorrow
Recruiting is, they say, the life blood of a football team. For those of you unfamiliar with football recruiting, I'm going to start with the very basics, in multiple parts. We'll be getting a lot more complex as time goes on.
LESSON #1 - Commitments
What is the difference between a verbal commitment and a written commitment?
Good question. The simplest way to explain this basic part of recruiting is to say that a player's recruitment (usually) ends when he has signed his "Letter of Intent" and faxed it to the school of his choice. I won't get into the scenarios in which this would not actually end the player's recruitment.
A Letter of Intent is a binding written statement by a player that he is accepting a scholarship offer from a school. Once he signs and faxes this statement, he is bound to his agreement and cannot get out of it without paying a heavy price (sitting out a year of football).
A verbal commitment is a statement by a player that he will one day sign a letter of intent. It is totally nonbinding and a player may change his mind at any time before going through the process of signing and faxing. It is a promise to the coaching staff (and the fans) that he will be going to a particular school, but is otherwise not particularly meaningful.
Well, why don't players just skip the whole "verbal commitment" thing and go straight to signing a Letter of Intent?
Well, there is a very important rule about this. While a player may verbally commit at any time, a player may not sign and fax his Letter of Intent before a day called "National Signing Day", which is usually (always?) in February of the player's senior year. If a player wishes to commit before this date, he can only give a "verbal commitment", and that's it. Right now, recruits for the 2008 class are almost one full year away from National Signing Day. Recruiting for 2008 is in full swing, however, and coaches are looking for their commitments.
Are there any rules at all about verbal commitments?
No. A player may verbally commit at any time. A six year old can give his verbal commitment. Further, other schools may continue to recruit a player who is verbally committed to another school as if the commitment never happened. A player may remain verbally committed for a year, and then change his mind without warning on National Signing Day, announcing his choice by faxing his Letter of Intent.
Well, why are verbal commitments so important if they are totally non-binding?
While verbal commitments are non-binding, and a player may retract a verbal commitment at any time, most players honor their verbal commitments. Every year will see several high-profile recruits change their minds as recruiting continues, but 9 out of 10 recruits will end up signing with the school to which they initially committed.
There are certain pressures on a player to honor a commitment. First, no kid wants to be known as a liar or a flake. Every kid who changes his mind about this, in an age where there is a substantial portion of the media that covers recruiting, will become known as a person who went back on his word.
Second, I think there is a more internal pressure to keep a verbal commitment. A recruit who gives his verbal commitment to a school instantly becomes part of that football program. Many will try to encourage other recruits to commit to his team. Many will develop friendships with players currently at the school. Many, particularly kids who live near their chosen college, will become local heroes for picking the local school. Psychologically, there is a resistance to changing all of that around. It's a little like the phenomenon that occurs in every new car lot in which the salesman knows that if he can get you to test drive the car, you will probably buy it because you'll develop an emotional attachment to it from having driven it. The recruiter is like the salesman and the verbal commitment is like the test drive. If he can get you to give your verbal commitment, he knows you will probably sign the Letter of Intent in February.
This is why the verbal commitments are so important, and why coaches push for them so early.
Continued tomorrow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
