Recruiting Negative Thoughts

[Ben Gooding]

1 hour ago, GrandGreen said:

It is my belief the number one factor in an athlete's decision is conference affiliation.  Of course wrapped up in that is media coverage, national attention, achievement level judged by the team signed with and resource level.   That factor however, is obviously not pertinent to a discussion on recruiting against other CUSA members.  

The number one factor among conference schools and I don't think it is even that debatable is the ability of the coaching staff to recruit.  Another strong factor is recent success level.  Other factors such as location, resources, academics are all secondary to staff's recruiting ability and recent success.

Any half-way knowledgable fans can name positives and negatives of any program.   The key is in the selling not the product.  

What may be an advantage to one recruit maybe just the opposite  to another.   Here are a few advantages NT has IMO over La Tech.

Size of school: NT 37,299 to La Tech 12,371.  Again some may prefer smaller colleges but bigger means in this case much more educational options.

Denton versus Ruston location.   Again it depends on the individual recruit.  Denton in my view is very hard to beat, a smaller town feel in one of the major metropolitan areas in the nation. Ruston is a  town of 22,000 that is 33 miles from Monroe, a town of 49.000 to the East, and Shreveport 69 miles to the East.  At NT, you are in one of the most attractive job markets in the nation.  

NT is a much more diverse campus than Ruston.  If I was a football recruit I would also note that NT is 53% female, while La Tech is 53% male.  Add in TWU, and it should be much easier to find a date in Denton than Ruston.

Facilities, I would give a substantial edge to NT.  It has been years since I was in Ruston, but I doubt they have closed the gap much. 

Resources, again no contest.   Based on 2014, NT's budget was third in the conference;  La Tech last. 

 

Agree with all, and I could add more. Yet, we are losing to them on the recruiting trail and field...badly. 

LaTech did just completely close in one of their end zones with a newly renovated athletic complex. But their stadium and town is absolutely awful. 

[Cr1028]

2 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

It is my belief the number one factor in an athlete's decision is conference affiliation.  Of course wrapped up in that is media coverage, national attention, achievement level judged by the team signed with and resource level.   That factor however, is obviously not pertinent to a discussion on recruiting against other CUSA members.  

The number one factor among conference schools and I don't think it is even that debatable is the ability of the coaching staff to recruit.  Another strong factor is recent success level.  Other factors such as location, resources, academics are all secondary to staff's recruiting ability and recent success.

So why would an athlete care about the conference they play in? Maybe to increase their chances of getting to the NFL. If you can't play in a premier conference, isn't it reasonable to assume you'd go to the school that has the most players drafted among your scholarship offers? An area we are sorely, SORELY, lacking.

2 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Any half-way knowledgable fan can name positives and negatives of any program.   The key is in the selling not the product.  

What may be an advantage to one recruit maybe just the opposite  to another.   Here are a few advantages NT has IMO over La Tech.

Size of school: NT 37,299 to La Tech 12,371.  Again some may prefer smaller colleges but bigger means in this case much more educational options.

NFL dreamers don't care about enrollment otherwise we'd be talking about UCF's dynasty instead of Alabama's.

2 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Denton versus Ruston location.   Again it depends on the individual recruit.  Denton in my view is very hard to beat, a smaller town feel in one of the major metropolitan areas in the nation.  Ruston is a  town of 22,000 that is 33 miles from Monroe; a town of 49.000 to the East, and Shreveport 69 miles to the East.  At NT, you are in one of the most attractive job markets in the nation.  

NFL dreamers are only thinking about one job and that is as an NFL player. Job markets are secondary to their dreams of getting to the next level.

2 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

NT is a much more diverse campus than Ruston.  If I was a football recruit I would also note that NT is 53% female, while La Tech is 53% male.  Add in TWU, and it should be much easier to find a date in Denton than Ruston.

Star football players don't believe they need to increase their chances of finding a date.

2 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Facilities, I would give a substantial edge to NT.  It has been years since I was in Ruston, but I doubt they have closed the gap much. 

Resources, again no contest.   Based on 2014, NT's budget was third in the conference;  La Tech last. 

Facilities matter sure, but they don't matter near as much as NFL prospects to the 3-star and above players. You keep trying to use the rationale of a life-experienced grown man to that of confident 17 year old dreamers that have always been one of the best players on their team and always told how great they are. Very few of them select a college program believing they have little to no chance of making a NFL roster.

[TIgreen01]

Interesting that nowhere in this thread is a mention of cheating, ethics, skirting/straddling the rules fence, etc.  Yes, I understand that just turns to gossip and yelling in a he said - she said no win manner and is hard to argue, but we're one of 3 or 4 schools never to have been investigated by the NCAA.  We aren't going to cheat here or really even play close to the rules or ethical line, and my guess is that eliminates a cut of players who are looking for hand-outs or special favors/benefits.  That's one of the things I love about UNT, but could it play a part here?  Maybe that's off-base, I don't know.

 

[GrandGreen]

5 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

So why would an athlete care about the conference they play in? Maybe to increase their chances of getting to the NFL. If you can't play in a premier conference, isn't it reasonable to assume you'd go to the school that has the most players drafted among your scholarship offers? An area we are sorely, SORELY, lacking.

NFL dreamers don't care about enrollment otherwise we'd be talking about UCF's dynasty instead of Alabama's.

NFL dreamers are only thinking about one job and that is as an NFL player. Job markets are secondary to their dreams of getting to the next level.

Star football players don't believe they need to increase their chances of finding a date.

Facilities matter sure, but they don't matter near as much as NFL prospects to the 3-star and above players. You keep trying to use the rationale of a life-experienced grown man to that of confident 17 year old dreamers that have always been one of the best players on their team and always told how great they are. Very few of them select a college program believing they have little to no chance of making a NFL roster.

I assume from your posts that you assume all players' focus is what team will get them into the NFL.   I doubt if many recruits are that dumb.  If  a player is good enough they can play for any college team and be found.   Rod Rust would have been the greatest coach at NT by far, if recruiting was really based on how many players a team had that turned pro.  NT had as many as anybody in those days.  

Dating at the college level is no less important for football players than anybody else.  You seem to be basing your comment on some stereotype from an old movie.  

Which university will get a player to the pros, is far down the list on why any recruit chooses a college.  The same arrogance you refer to about players believing they will get into the NFL supports the theory that most think that they will be good enough to be noticed in any program.    Recruits flock to Alabama because it is the best program in the country, not to elevate their chances of getting into the NFL.   The other thing you overlook is that NT is not close to getting the level of recruits that realistically are focused on the pros.  Most of the players NT recruits are worried about making a college team, not how much money they will make in the pros.  

[BTG_Fan1]

3 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

It matters, but your posts seem to indicate that NFL players drafted and history are the end all, be all factors for recruits. Then why did Tee Goree choose us over Colorado, La Tech, and UTSA among others? Or why did Chris Miles choose us over La Tech and Houston? Why did Nate Brooks choose us over La Tech? I could string off a lot of names recruits we beat La Tech and UTSA out for during the Mccarney years.

This isn't some impossible matchup. Nor is UTSA just because they don't have a history of losing. Good recruiters can win these matchups. They have them. Evidence implies we don't. Good recruiters can sell kids on their program even if they have things going against them.

NFL production is an important thing for these recruits. These kids are 18 years old and everyone/most of them have dreams of playing in the NFL. These recruits want the tools to get to the pros, and the tools to get them to the pros are start of the art facilities, coaches and schemes that will get them to progress as well. 

We can look over the likes of why Goree picked UNT over other places, and I was not on the board at the time but I would assume it was aided by location and us adding his teammate as well. But Goree isn't here any more and he had the tools to be a talented player and asset to this offense but it didn't work out. Miles again I have no idea but looking at those schools maybe it was about playing time, or a degree that he wanted. Brooks again, no idea. You can string off names of recruits that we beat for LAT and UTSA, but he isn't the coach here any more. We all know why.

Yes good recruiters can sale kids on coming to different places, but with UNT lacking in some notable areas while LAT/UTSA have had success it doesn't help. We can keep saying oh a recruiter would do great here, but we have no idea. We thought a lot of different things this past season, and not many/ not anyone had posted that we would be playing in the HOD Bowl, let alone against a team that had knocked of a ranked team this year. We can say that we have to hold this staff accountable and that we need to question them, but these are young coaches that aren't coaching for UNT to be there last stop like Mac was. This is the start to some of these guys careers, and some of them are in positions that they may not fully been ready for either (GH and EK, last year). This staff is talented and will get this turned around. 

4 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Most NT fans including me are very beware and in fact envious of the success of La Tech in athletics.   However, La Tech is not a team that should be dominating NT in recruiting.  There is a lot of difference between the resource level of Houston and any CUSA team.  With their recent success and the resources, UH has got the upper hand on just about any G5 program.  

Despite the apparent belief of some fans, La Tech should not have any great advantage over NT in recruiting.   Yes, they have won a lot more and send more players to the pros, a statement almost any university can make when comparing themselves to NT.  

Frankly, if NT can't challenge a program like La Tech which NT has some significant advantages over, than it may be time to just abandon sports at NT.  A ridiculous statement maybe, but no more so than believing that just about any school in the nation has inherent recruiting advantages over NT.  

Yes they should not be dominating UNT, but they are dominating UNT because of the past decade or two here at UNT. The lack of putting out NFL Talent has lacked and Orr was likely going to be someone that could be a very bright star that UNT could point to as a success. Orr alone playing in Baltimore in a very well known place for defense and wearing 54 after Ray Lewis would have been huge, let alone him getting the 2nd All-Pro Selection in his 1st year starting. Also, just going to put it out there, I think that Orr would have give a signable donation to UNT as well once he had signed a sizable/long term deal. LAT has had notable kids drafted yearly, and often.

The lack of winning here in Denton has hurt us while LAT has won games, bowls as well. It also doesn't that LAT went to the Air-Raid before we did have been putting up some of the top offensive numbers in the nation. Yes, UNT can start to turn the tide against us, it can be done by just showing another season of improvement on offense and defense. This team was still in the 100+ range in terms of offense, get that up to 70 or 80 and its a huge improvement, but still no where near the Top 10/20 offense of LAT but it is a start, and it can be done. 

UNT can challenge LAT, and will hopefully in just a few short years, it will be challenging people like UH. UNT under RV made terrible choices in terms of coaches, how the budget was spent, and relationships with donors. WB has reviewed the budgets and seems to have the backing of NS and the UNT system. They showed us that with the buyout to GM, the new contract to SL, the soccer/track stadium, and the pending announcement of the IPF. Upgrading the facilities will be a major improvement for UNT because of the lack of them here. That investment will allow us to showcase it to recruits and show them and current HS Coaches/ and families about the seriousness of UNT. That will lead to more interest and us having more leeway with recruits and help us counterbalance the negative thoughts of UNT. While WB is doing that, SL just has to keep finding kids that fit the scheme, and that will have success. Success on the field for a few years will also help us.

UNT is on the right path, they just have to make long term investments (facilities) that will help the short term investment (coaches). 

[Ben Gooding]

1 hour ago, Cr1028 said:

So why would an athlete care about the conference they play in? Maybe to increase their chances of getting to the NFL. If you can't play in a premier conference, isn't it reasonable to assume you'd go to the school that has the most players drafted among your scholarship offers? An area we are sorely, SORELY, lacking.

NFL dreamers don't care about enrollment otherwise we'd be talking about UCF's dynasty instead of Alabama's.

NFL dreamers are only thinking about one job and that is as an NFL player. Job markets are secondary to their dreams of getting to the next level.

Star football players don't believe they need to increase their chances of finding a date.

Facilities matter sure, but they don't matter near as much as NFL prospects to the 3-star and above players. You keep trying to use the rationale of a life-experienced grown man to that of confident 17 year old dreamers that have always been one of the best players on their team and always told how great they are. Very few of them select a college program believing they have little to no chance of making a NFL roster.

Every rebuttle you had was NFL related. Some college guys know they aren't NFL worthy before they even head to college. A lot of players factor in much more than NFL draft picks. Not all of them are egomaniacs that think they're going to be the next Joe Montonya. 

And no one cares about being able to fill the recruiting board with 25 three star players. How about 10. Let's get to 10. The apathetic of woe is UNT is pathetic. It's time to move on from that bs as a fan base and quit manifesting excuses. It's tiring. 

Edited June 20, 2017 by Ben Gooding

[Wag Tag]

This will be Seth's biggest class which will have a big effect on our ranking. I believe it is 20 spots.

Ranking in June with 5-7 verbals doesn't mean a lot except for creating momentum!

[TreeFiddy]

For grins, I thought I would go look at the recruiting profile of the recent CUSA all conference team.  I only made it through the 1st team offense before getting bored.  I have to say, I was not prepared for the number of low/no offer guys on the list.  Maybe the defense team tells a different story.

Name, position, school, 247 rating, number of other FBS offers

Ryan Higgins, QB, Latech, .8086, 1 offer
I'Tavius Mathers, RB, MTSU, .8933, Xfer from Ole Miss so dosn't really apply since we are talking HS recruits
Aaron Jones, RB, UTEP, .8093, no other offers
Darrell Brown, OL, Latech, NR, no other offers
Cameron Tom, OL, USM, .7891, 5 offers including UNT
Will Hernandez, OL, UTEP, NR, no other offers
Max Halpin, OL, WKU, NR, no other offers
Forrest Lamp, OL, WKU, .7788, 5 other offers
Hayden Plinke, TE, UTEP .7818, xfer from Boise who was his only offer out of HS
Carlos Henderson, WR, Latech, .8213, 6 offers (originally signed with Utah and backed out, Latech offered day before NSD)
Trent Taylor, WR, Latech, .8006, no other offers
Richie James, WR, MTSU, no composite but 82 247 rating, 2 offers
Taywan Taylor, WR, WKU, .7667, no other offers

 

All things being equal, it sure feels a lot better to get a higher rated player, but it appears there is plenty of opportunity from lesser rated/recruited players in this conference.

[BTG_Fan1]

46 minutes ago, TreeFiddy said:

For grins, I thought I would go look at the recruiting profile of the recent CUSA all conference team.  I only made it through the 1st team offense before getting bored.  I have to say, I was not prepared for the number of low/no offer guys on the list.  Maybe the defense team tells a different story.

Name, position, school, 247 rating, number of other FBS offers

Ryan Higgins, QB, Latech, .8086, 1 offer
I'Tavius Mathers, RB, MTSU, .8933, Xfer from Ole Miss so dosn't really apply since we are talking HS recruits
Aaron Jones, RB, UTEP, .8093, no other offers
Darrell Brown, OL, Latech, NR, no other offers
Cameron Tom, OL, USM, .7891, 5 offers including UNT
Will Hernandez, OL, UTEP, NR, no other offers
Max Halpin, OL, WKU, NR, no other offers
Forrest Lamp, OL, WKU, .7788, 5 other offers
Hayden Plinke, TE, UTEP .7818, xfer from Boise who was his only offer out of HS
Carlos Henderson, WR, Latech, .8213, 6 offers (originally signed with Utah and backed out, Latech offered day before NSD)
Trent Taylor, WR, Latech, .8006, no other offers
Richie James, WR, MTSU, no composite but 82 247 rating, 2 offers
Taywan Taylor, WR, WKU, .7667, no other offers

 

All things being equal, it sure feels a lot better to get a higher rated player, but it appears there is plenty of opportunity from lesser rated/recruited players in this conference.

This information will be seen as not relevant, let alone just lighting in the barrel for the people who only believe in offer lists. But good information to know.

C-USA is where we develop the kids. Also, its crazy that those are the schools that win and have put multiple players into the NFL.

Edited June 20, 2017 by BTG_Fan1

[Cr1028]

@TheReal_jayD seems to be close to the program. Perhaps he could give us all insight on what the number one reason recruits give us for choosing another G5 or CUSA program over ours.

[BillySee58]

2 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

For grins, I thought I would go look at the recruiting profile of the recent CUSA all conference team.  I only made it through the 1st team offense before getting bored.  I have to say, I was not prepared for the number of low/no offer guys on the list.  Maybe the defense team tells a different story.

Name, position, school, 247 rating, number of other FBS offers

Ryan Higgins, QB, Latech, .8086, 1 offer
I'Tavius Mathers, RB, MTSU, .8933, Xfer from Ole Miss so dosn't really apply since we are talking HS recruits
Aaron Jones, RB, UTEP, .8093, no other offers
Darrell Brown, OL, Latech, NR, no other offers
Cameron Tom, OL, USM, .7891, 5 offers including UNT
Will Hernandez, OL, UTEP, NR, no other offers
Max Halpin, OL, WKU, NR, no other offers
Forrest Lamp, OL, WKU, .7788, 5 other offers
Hayden Plinke, TE, UTEP .7818, xfer from Boise who was his only offer out of HS
Carlos Henderson, WR, Latech, .8213, 6 offers (originally signed with Utah and backed out, Latech offered day before NSD)
Trent Taylor, WR, Latech, .8006, no other offers
Richie James, WR, MTSU, no composite but 82 247 rating, 2 offers
Taywan Taylor, WR, WKU, .7667, no other offers

 

All things being equal, it sure feels a lot better to get a higher rated player, but it appears there is plenty of opportunity from lesser rated/recruited players in this conference.

Back in 2014 I started looking at offer lists in our recruits, how their careers went, and which ones became all-CUSA. This is also when I came up with my letter-grade system.

C = recruits with no other FBS offers

C+ = recruits with one other FBS offer

B = recruits with two to four other FBS offers

B+ = recruits with two to four other FBS offers but having at least one noteworthy offer (i.e. Houston, Boise State, P5)

A = recruits with five to nine other FBS offers

A+ = recruits with 10 or more other FBS offers

Note that this is based on all offers received throughout the cycle. So for people who say I discredit expired offers when saying that 16 of our last 17 commits had no other schools actively recruiting them when they committed to us, here is where I do factor those expired offers in.

Through the 2014 season I noticed that 7/8 (87.5%) of our all-CUSA players at that's point were B or better as recruits. Lemon was an A, Bellazin was an A, Trice was an A+, Y'Barbo was a B+, James Jones was a B+, Orr was a B+, Akunne was a B, and Chancellor was a C. I also noticed that these players had at least one year of starting experience or playing time equivalent heading into their all-CUSA season. I have since evaluated our classes based on what percent had B or better offer lists.

I felt like at that point I had determined the criteria for players of ours most likely to be all-CUSA.

At this point I was encouraged at looking at offer lists for teams across the conference, and all-CUSA players across the conference. I realized immediately that the time it would take to look at offers reported for every CUSA signee across all four recruiting sites would take time that I was not interested in investing. 

For example, I'm guessing you were looking at 247 for the offers you pulled. You have Darrell Brown as unrated with no other offers, but ESPN shows he had an East carolina and Missouri offer. Because for G5 recruits the offer lists are almost never consistent across the four major recruiting sites.

I also noticed that most of the schools in our conference play in low population, low exposure areas. Which means Aaron Jones and Jordan Howard are not going to get the recruiting exposure playing in El Paso and Gardendale, Alabama that our recruits in DFW and Houston do. 

Because of that, I felt like comparing offer lists was more relevant comparing our classes signees to schools from areas of similar recruiting exposure, which is Rice, UTSA, FIU, and FAU. I found it less relevant with USM, WKU, and the like. 

Heading into 2015, I looked at the afore mentioned criteria and saw no one on that roster fit this criteria. Our experienced guys weren't recruited highly, and the guys who were did not have the experience. At this point I said "uh oh." The red flag had been raised and I thought we would see no all-CUSA players on our roster, which I felt would spell disaster. When ever I posted about it, I was written off, but I really was not shocked at our 1-11 season with no all-CUSA players. I thought three wins was likely given this criteria, and felt like less was absolutely realistic. I also felt like given the fact that our highly recruited players were slated to get experience in 2015, 2016 was always set up to be a year of marked improvement.

Finally, I care less about offer lists for QBs, because fitting a system matters so much, WRs because small guys get overlooked yet don't need to be big to make plays, and DBs for similar reasons. It still matters to me, but less those positions than others. And the exposure that a recruit's high school generates also should be factored in when comparing offer lists.

All of this personal research is what has led me to putting so much emphasis on offer lists. 

[BillySee58]

5 hours ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

NFL production is an important thing for these recruits. These kids are 18 years old and everyone/most of them have dreams of playing in the NFL. These recruits want the tools to get to the pros, and the tools to get them to the pros are start of the art facilities, coaches and schemes that will get them to progress as well. 

Did I say anything to the contrary? No I didn't. But the emphasis you put on this is as if a recruits eliminate us immediately once they find out we haven't had a draft pick since 2004. It doesn't help, but it's not some impossible disadvantage to overcome. Not when recruiting against G5 schools, it shouldn't be.

5 hours ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

We can look over the likes of why Goree picked UNT over other places, and I was not on the board at the time but I would assume it was aided by location and us adding his teammate as well.

Ah, location. So if that could've been helpful in us getting Goree, why wouldn't that be helpful in getting other current high school recruits? That is an advantage more than it is a disadvantage, then and now. But that wasn't even in our favor in the case of Goree.

Carthage to Denton: 199 miles

Carthage to Ruston: 113 miles

Getting Rutherford didn't hurt, but Goree sounded sold on us, from all his interviews.You can string off names of recruits that we beat for LAT and UTSA, but he isn't the coach here any more. We all know why.

5 hours ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

You can string off names of recruits that we beat for LAT and UTSA, but he isn't the coach here any more. We all know why.

We do all know why. Because he was horrific at recruiting. And despite being horrific at recruiting, he was still able to beat out La Tech and UTSA on a somewhat regular basis. 

He was a horrific recruiter whose first roster that had only recruits signed by him went 1-11. And if a recruiter that bad was still able to beat out UTSA and La Tech, what does that tell you about the recruiting ability of a coach who can't do that?

5 hours ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

Yes good recruiters can sale kids on coming to different places, but with UNT lacking in some notable areas while LAT/UTSA have had success it doesn't help. We can keep saying oh a recruiter would do great here, but we have no idea.

Todd Dodge signed the #1 class in the Sun belt and #86 in the country back in 2008. Unfortunately he was an awful coach who was coaching with a staff of high school coaches and was not fit to run a college program. There's no reason a good coach can't replicate those results with an actual college staff, an actual college stadium, and a better conference.

[Cr1028]

1 hour ago, BillySee58 said:

Back in 2014 I started looking at offer lists in our recruits, how their careers went, and which ones became all-CUSA. This is also when I came up with my letter-grade system.

C = recruits with no other FBS offers

C+ = recruits with one other FBS offer

B = recruits with two to four other FBS offers

B+ = recruits with two to four other FBS offers but having at least one noteworthy offer (i.e. Houston, Boise State, P5)

A = recruits with five to nine other FBS offers

A+ = recruits with 10 or more other FBS offers

Note that this is based on all offers received throughout the cycle. So for people who say I discredit expired offers when saying that 16 of our last 17 commits had no other schools actively recruiting them when they committed to us, here is where I do factor those expired offers in.

Through the 2014 season I noticed that 7/8 (87.5%) of our all-CUSA players at that's point were B or better as recruits. Lemon was an A, Bellazin was an A, Trice was an A+, Y'Barbo was a B+, James Jones was a B+, Orr was a B+, Akunne was a B, and Chancellor was a C. I also noticed that these players had at least one year of starting experience or playing time equivalent heading into their all-CUSA season. I have since evaluated our classes based on what percent had B or better offer lists.

I felt like at that point I had determined the criteria for players of ours most likely to be all-CUSA.

At this point I was encouraged at looking at offer lists for teams across the conference, and all-CUSA players across the conference. I realized immediately that the time it would take to look at offers reported for every CUSA signee across all four recruiting sites would take time that I was not interested in investing. 

For example, I'm guessing you were looking at 247 for the offers you pulled. You have Darrell Brown as unrated with no other offers, but ESPN shows he had an East carolina and Missouri offer. Because for G5 recruits the offer lists are almost never consistent across the four major recruiting sites.

I also noticed that most of the schools in our conference play in low population, low exposure areas. Which means Aaron Jones and Jordan Howard are not going to get the recruiting exposure playing in El Paso and Gardendale, Alabama that our recruits in DFW and Houston do. 

Because of that, I felt like comparing offer lists was more relevant comparing our classes signees to schools from areas of similar recruiting exposure, which is Rice, UTSA, FIU, and FAU. I found it less relevant with USM, WKU, and the like. 

Heading into 2015, I looked at the afore mentioned criteria and saw no one on that roster fit this criteria. Our experienced guys weren't recruited highly, and the guys who were did not have the experience. At this point I said "uh oh." The red flag had been raised and I thought we would see no all-CUSA players on our roster, which I felt would spell disaster. When ever I posted about it, I was written off, but I really was not shocked at our 1-11 season with no all-CUSA players. I thought three wins was likely given this criteria, and felt like less was absolutely realistic. I also felt like given the fact that our highly recruited players were slated to get experience in 2015, 2016 was always set up to be a year of marked improvement.

Finally, I care less about offer lists for QBs, because fitting a system matters so much, WRs because small guys get overlooked yet don't need to be big to make plays, and DBs for similar reasons. It still matters to me, but less those positions than others. And the exposure that a recruit's high school generates also should be factored in when comparing offer lists.

All of this personal research is what has led me to putting so much emphasis on offer lists. 

I have no argument for this. It was well laid out and thorough. My only nitpick is with Trice. He was A+ when he went to OU but if transfers had offer lists, his would've been substantially smaller when he came to us. Fair? Maybe he could be N/A?

[BillySee58]

4 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

I have no argument for this. It was well laid out and thorough. My only nitpick is with Trice. He was A+ when he went to OU but if transfers had offer lists, his would've been substantially smaller when he came to us. Fair? Maybe he could be N/A?

He was an A+ recruit out of high school. Who offered him when he decided to transfer doesn't change that. Again, this list was designed to determine all-CUSA potential in our players. If a player had an A+ offer list out of high school, and had a year of starting experience, then that player would have a good chance of being all conference the next year. This was the case with Trice, and what did end up happening. 

If we get another player with a similar offer list who then starts an entire season for us, I would give them a good probability to be all-CUSA in that second year as well. Just like Trice. 

[TreeFiddy]

1 hour ago, BillySee58 said:

Back in 2014 I started looking at offer lists in our recruits, how their careers went, and which ones became all-CUSA. This is also when I came up with my letter-grade system.

C = recruits with no other FBS offers

C+ = recruits with one other FBS offer

B = recruits with two to four other FBS offers

B+ = recruits with two to four other FBS offers but having at least one noteworthy offer (i.e. Houston, Boise State, P5)

A = recruits with five to nine other FBS offers

A+ = recruits with 10 or more other FBS offers

Note that this is based on all offers received throughout the cycle. So for people who say I discredit expired offers when saying that 16 of our last 17 commits had no other schools actively recruiting them when they committed to us, here is where I do factor those expired offers in.

Through the 2014 season I noticed that 7/8 (87.5%) of our all-CUSA players at that's point were B or better as recruits. Lemon was an A, Bellazin was an A, Trice was an A+, Y'Barbo was a B+, James Jones was a B+, Orr was a B+, Akunne was a B, and Chancellor was a C. I also noticed that these players had at least one year of starting experience or playing time equivalent heading into their all-CUSA season. I have since evaluated our classes based on what percent had B or better offer lists.

I felt like at that point I had determined the criteria for players of ours most likely to be all-CUSA.

At this point I was encouraged at looking at offer lists for teams across the conference, and all-CUSA players across the conference. I realized immediately that the time it would take to look at offers reported for every CUSA signee across all four recruiting sites would take time that I was not interested in investing. 

For example, I'm guessing you were looking at 247 for the offers you pulled. You have Darrell Brown as unrated with no other offers, but ESPN shows he had an East carolina and Missouri offer. Because for G5 recruits the offer lists are almost never consistent across the four major recruiting sites.

I also noticed that most of the schools in our conference play in low population, low exposure areas. Which means Aaron Jones and Jordan Howard are not going to get the recruiting exposure playing in El Paso and Gardendale, Alabama that our recruits in DFW and Houston do. 

Because of that, I felt like comparing offer lists was more relevant comparing our classes signees to schools from areas of similar recruiting exposure, which is Rice, UTSA, FIU, and FAU. I found it less relevant with USM, WKU, and the like. 

Heading into 2015, I looked at the afore mentioned criteria and saw no one on that roster fit this criteria. Our experienced guys weren't recruited highly, and the guys who were did not have the experience. At this point I said "uh oh." The red flag had been raised and I thought we would see no all-CUSA players on our roster, which I felt would spell disaster. When ever I posted about it, I was written off, but I really was not shocked at our 1-11 season with no all-CUSA players. I thought three wins was likely given this criteria, and felt like less was absolutely realistic. I also felt like given the fact that our highly recruited players were slated to get experience in 2015, 2016 was always set up to be a year of marked improvement.

Finally, I care less about offer lists for QBs, because fitting a system matters so much, WRs because small guys get overlooked yet don't need to be big to make plays, and DBs for similar reasons. It still matters to me, but less those positions than others. And the exposure that a recruit's high school generates also should be factored in when comparing offer lists.

All of this personal research is what has led me to putting so much emphasis on offer lists. 

Yes, I used 247 since that seems to be the go to source as the most complete and accurate.  You have specifically spoken out against the other sites in previous posts when I have referenced how one of those other sites had different information and you have praised 247 for being the best overall site for this type of info.  Keep in mind that for every example you point out an error in one direction, there is just as like an error in the other direction so they typically are going to be a wash.  I like 247 as well since they have done a lot of the work of combing through the other sites for me and they seem to be the most technologically advanced recruiting site.

I really don't have a dog in this off season argument.  I generally agree that coaches that do this for a living are likely the best barometer and when more than one of them like a kid then it is as good of an indication that the kid has talent to play football at the next level as any other indicator that we have.

However, I also like data and a simple search of a recent all conference offensive team shows there is also hope for recruits in our conference who are not highly rated (granted, the sample size is pretty small).

45 minutes ago, BillySee58 said:

Did I say anything to the contrary? No I didn't. But the emphasis you put on this is as if a recruits eliminate us immediately once they find out we haven't had a draft pick since 2004. It doesn't help, but it's not some impossible disadvantage to overcome. Not when recruiting against G5 schools, it shouldn't be.

Ah, location. So if that could've been helpful in us getting Goree, why wouldn't that be helpful in getting other current high school recruits? That is an advantage more than it is a disadvantage, then and now. But that wasn't even in our favor in the case of Goree.

Carthage to Denton: 199 miles

Carthage to Ruston: 113 miles

Getting Rutherford didn't hurt, but Goree sounded sold on us, from all his interviews.You can string off names of recruits that we beat for LAT and UTSA, but he isn't the coach here any more. We all know why.

We do all know why. Because he was horrific at recruiting. And despite being horrific at recruiting, he was still able to beat out La Tech and UTSA on a somewhat regular basis. 

He was a horrific recruiter whose first roster that had only recruits signed by him went 1-11. And if a recruiter that bad was still able to beat out UTSA and La Tech, what does that tell you about the recruiting ability of a coach who can't do that?

Todd Dodge signed the #1 class in the Sun belt and #86 in the country back in 2008. Unfortunately he was an awful coach who was coaching with a staff of high school coaches and was not fit to run a college program. There's no reason a good coach can't replicate those results with an actual college staff, an actual college stadium, and a better conference.

I would say McCarney was a lazy recruiter, but was a good to above average closer when you could actually get him in the room with a recruit.

It seems like Littrell may not be as good of a closer, but he/his staff seem to be willing to go on the road much more than McCarney's staff.  Let's hope we can keep the assistant salary pool high enough where he can afford to hire good recruiting assistants.

[Cr1028]

15 minutes ago, BillySee58 said:

He was an A+ recruit out of high school. Who offered him when he decided to transfer doesn't change that. Again, this list was designed to determine all-CUSA potential in our players. If a player had an A+ offer list out of high school, and had a year of starting experience, then that player would have a good chance of being all conference the next year. This was the case with Trice, and what did end up happening. 

If we get another player with a similar offer list who then starts an entire season for us, I would give them a good probability to be all-CUSA in that second year as well. Just like Trice. 

Anthony Wallace would have me disagreeing with you.

[TreeFiddy]

Seems like the discussion has been primarily focused on HS recruits.  I think xfers and offer lists are a different animal than HS recruits.

[BillySee58]

48 minutes ago, TreeFiddy said:

Yes, I used 247 since that seems to be the go to source as the most complete and accurate.  

Generally, yes. For every recruit, no. My point was that to compile a list of offers for every CUSA signee, I'd have to look at all four sites to get an accurate list. Because 247, while the best at tracking G5 recruiting, is not going to have every single offer that the other three have for every single recruit. Just like the others will miss plenty that 247 shows.

Quote

You have specifically spoken out against the other sites in previous posts when I have referenced how one of those other sites had different information and you have praised 247 for being the best overall site for this type of info.  

I have believed 247 is the best for about four recruiting cycles now. Over those four I have found 247 to be the most accurate out of the four major recruiting sites. But far from accurate enough to believe that they catch every single offer that goes out and that other sites never have offers 247 doesn't.

You're making it sound like I have attempted to completely discredit the other three and believe 247 to be the end all, be all. As I said above, 247 is generally the best and most accurate, but it's not like I encourage people to not look at the other ones at all. For some recruits, the other sites are more accurate than others. I think all four should be looked at when evaluating a recruit. Both the offer lists they all have and the ratings they all have.

Please, show me what post(s) you are referencing.

Quote

However, I also like data and a simple search of a recent all conference offensive team shows there is also hope for recruits in our conference who are not highly rated (granted, the sample size is pretty small).

No arguments here. I believe the more highly recruited signees we get, the better chance we have at getting all-CUSA players. Our small sample size of being in CUSA for four years indicates this theory has some substance behind it. But as you saw in other players, there is also substance against it. Never will be an exact science.

31 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

Anthony Wallace would have me disagreeing with you.

Never did Anthony Wallace meet both of my all-CUSA criteria. 

Did he have a "B" or better offer list? Yes

Did he ever enter a season at UNT with a full-season worth of starting experience under his belt? No

He never started at Oregon, and he played 9 games and had 25 tackles as a junior here. So entering his senior season he did not have a season's worth of starting experience entering the year, thus wasn't deemed a potential all-CUSA guy by my parameters. So not sure why he would have you disagreeing with me. 

If he would've come in and started 12 games as soon a season he got eligible, then he would've been seen as a likely all-CUSA guy heading into his senior year based on my parameters. Gotta have both.

Edited June 21, 2017 by BillySee58

[BillySee58]

33 minutes ago, TreeFiddy said:

Seems like the discussion has been primarily focused on HS recruits.  I think xfers and offer lists are a different animal than HS recruits.

They are. But when identifying potential all-CUSA recruits, I think it's relevant.

A good offer list out of high school shows that the player has talent and has skills that numerous coaches believed would translate to the college level.

A full season's worth of starting experience shows that the player is not a bust on the college level, and will be able to pair identified talent with substantial experience heading into a season. That combination gives a player a solid chance at having an all-CUSA season. Regardless of who offered them as a transfer.

Both criteria have to be there. Good offer list out of high school means nothing to me until that player proves they can lock down a starting role here. 

So far only, of our AQ/P5 transfers, only Trice paired these two. He was all-CUSA.  Terrell, Feldt, Stradford, Wallace, etc did not and were not all-CUSA candidates.

Edited June 21, 2017 by BillySee58

[UNTLifer]

Well, all of those offers couldn't have still been good when they chose to commit to a CUSA school.  Plus, most of those examples are outliers.  SMH

Edited June 21, 2017 by UNTLifer

[BillySee58]

48 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Well, all of those offers couldn't have still been good when they chkse to commit to a CUSA school.  Plus, mlst of those examples are outliers.  SMH

Total offers used to evaluate players as recruits. Active offers used to evaluate coaches recruiting abilities. Not sure how many times this needs to be explained to you for you to understand. Up around 5 attempts at this point. Still trying because you are a loyal poster and I really want you to get.

[UNTLifer]

7 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

Total offers used to evaluate players as recruits. Active offers used to evaluate coaches recruiting abilities. 

What is the fricking difference?  A player's rating/ability doesn't change.  That's like saying. "Man, I love this kid we just signed, but our coaches suck because they signed him."  Just stupid to sit here a nitpick every commit when everthing is taken in to consideration.  It is just like your statement about 16 of our last 17 commitments not having any other FBS offers when Siggers, Darden, White, etc... had good offer lists.  Your also a loyal poster, but we are just going to disagree on this, because it looks like, to me, just an attempt to criticize our coaches when we are on the outside looking in.

Edited June 21, 2017 by UNTLifer

[BillySee58]

8 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

What is the fricking difference?  A player's rating/ability doesn't change.  

Oh boy. Try six. 

As @MeanGreenTexan pointed out recently, the whole snatching up recruits late who saw a bunch of their offers dry up has been happening since before Littrell. You and I could've signed Siggers and Darden over Grambling and Texas Southern. That's par for the course, something I've advocated us saving spots for at the end for years, but should not be relied on to save a class.

Quote

That's like saying. "Man, I love this kid we just signed, but our coaches suck because they signed him."  Just stupid to sit here a nitpick every commit when everthing is taken in to consideration.  

No, it's like saying "Man, I love this kid we just signed, but it doesn't make me feel anymore confident in our coaches abilities to win recruiting battles than signing a kid who never had another FBS offer would."

Quote

It is just like your statement about 16 lf our last 17 commitments not having any other FBS offers when Siggers, Darden, White, etc... had good offer lists.  

Good pickups, but don't prove our coaches can win recruiting battles. I feel like we can both agree on that.

Where the disconnect seems to be, as evidenced by your "what is the fricking difference," response is why that matters. 

It matters to me because if our coaches are relegated to only players no one else wants, then we aren't going to be as successful as we would be if we are able to get players higher on our board who other schools want as well. Maybe in some cases we prefer players with no other offers over a player who does have some. But it doesn't matter who we prefer if we are relegated to players no one wants because of recruiting ability.

Those three guys would've gone FCS had we not swooped in late, which means that even FCS schools get these type of players whose stock drops.

An FCS class is made up of players who never received FBS offers and a few who did but those schools stopped recruiting them. That's eerily similar to what we have going right now. I don't want our class to resemble an FCS class, but that's what it is going to look like if we continue to only be able to get guys with no other FBS offers and guys who see their stock drop to the point where we are the only FBS team actively recruiting them.

Thats why it matters to me. If it doesn't matter to you, great. I'm not trying to persuade you. Just trying to explain my point.

Quote

Your also a loyal poster, but we are just going to disagree on this, because it looks like, to me, just an attempt to criticize our coaches when we are on the outside looking in.

Again, we both agree that when it comes to evaluating the player as a recruit, it doesn't matter which schools who offered are still recruiting them. The offer list accumulated over the cycle can't be discredited when evaluating that recruit.

And I think we agree that the schools that are currently recruiting the recruit we get to commit show our coaches ability to win recruiting battles. And offers from schools that are no longer recruiting them don't indicate that we won a recruiting battle against that school.

If that doesn't matter to you, cool. I'm not trying to get it to matter to you. Just trying to get you to stop misinterpreting my posts. If you make passive-aggressive comments at me without tagging me in the post, while misinterpreting me, I'm going to clear up my message. 

[Ben Gooding]

8 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

What is the fricking difference?  A player's rating/ability doesn't change.  That's like saying. "Man, I love this kid we just signed, but our coaches suck because they signed him."  Just stupid to sit here a nitpick every commit when everthing is taken in to consideration.  It is just like your statement about 16 of our last 17 commitments not having any other FBS offers when Siggers, Darden, White, etc... had good offer lists.  Your also a loyal poster, but we are just going to disagree on this, because it looks like, to me, just an attempt to criticize our coaches when we are on the outside looking in.

Fair enough. 

Can you sit there on your computer, phone, or whatever electronic device you are using and type, with a straight face, that this staff is doing a good job recruiting? If you can do that, then there isn't much of a reason to even converse with you on this topic. 

Who were the people saying that recruiting doesn't matter during the McCarney era? The same people said that we are a "developmental program" during the McCarney era. We can't sit by the way side bathing in our apathy and silently watch history repeat itself over and over. 

[UNTLifer]

I can sit here and see what/who signs on the dotted line come NSD and see how they develop.  Many bring up the fact that Dodge was a good recruiter and refer to his class he signed in 2008.  This class is a perfect example of my POV on recruiting.  Nate Jenkins, Alonzo Horton (Didn't make grades), Justin Edwards, Kylee Hill, Jeremy Knott and Riley Dodge were our three star players via 247 sports.  Riley was the only one to really contribute and he got beat up to the point he finished elsewhere.  DaWaylon Cook was a highly rated safety with multiple offers that did nothing.  Troy Franklin out of Celina had numerous offers and was highly regarded and barely made a dent in the two deep.  Lance Dunbar was the bell cow of that class as a 2 star with a number of offers, James Hamilton was also a 2 star with good offers that was a career backup and Royce Hill, John Shorter and Coleman Feeley were probably the next most productive, all two stars.

Recruiting can always be better, always.  My issue is that some on here bitch and moan continuously after every young man commits when we have no idea how they will turn out.  Our coaches have always recruited from "behind the eight ball" in reference to the support they received from the university.  This is all changing after years and years of just having enough to get by.  You read on here from HS coaches that our facilities are just not there, being addressed at this time, and that we have been historically known as a school that didn't fully support the program.  All signs point to this changing with the hiring of SL and staff, Dr. Smatresk's support, the facility plans under the direction of our still new, here only 11 months, AD, etc...  Our current offer list is better than anything we have offered in the past and I expect that we will see the results come signing day.  I expect it to improve yearly, as well as the results on the field, where our first year staff took a 1-11 team and started a turn around, got them to a bowl and ended with a 5-8 record.  We should expect continued improvement, but to see people criticize our coaching staff over every new commit is tiring and doesn't help when we live in a time when every comment is available to every kid considering our school.  They look at fan sites and, if I were a recent commit, to see their names in the same sentence with people complaining about our staff's recruiting has to be deflating and gives them second thoughts.  

Nobody is sitting by "bathing in our apathy" about this class, but to not recognize the commitment of this staff and administration with the improved salaries, social media, IPF plans, other facility improvements and the general difference is attitude under Baker as opposed to RV is ridiculous.