Who gets the most bang for their recruiting buck?

GOMG2013 · July 9, 2013

That's simply not true. The top C-USA teams get plenty of 3-star recruits. And coaching staffs really don't pay much attention to how high Rivals or Scout rates a player.

You obviously do not pay attention to recruiting or keep up with it. Get that top CUSA team stuff outta here, cause we are mainly talking about the state of Texas when it comes to UNT recruiting. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Texas has been the dream school over the past few years. Now with the recent success of A&m, they may have taken over. Usually one of those two schools are the top choice. Oklahoma is also a top choice. Now that TCU is in the big 12, and Baylor's recent success, they, along with Tech is the next tier. It's pretty obvious if you keep up. There is a pecking order in recruiting.

You are right about the coaches not paying attention to the stars, but you are incorrect about how a recruit with the talent of a 3 star thinks. The recruits pay attention to it and they gauge themselves based on the scouting. Of course there are a few exceptions, but most of these recruits and sites make a big deal about a big 12, big 10, PAC 12, or SEC offer. I agree that other schools get 3 star recruits. Because the top schools are fighting for the elite talent first. They all are trying to get the 4 and 5 star talents. Once that has narrowed down, they are coming after the next ones down the list. There's obviously plenty of 3 star talent to go around, so to take that statement as if ALL 3 star recruits go to big 12 is just silly.

Edited July 9, 2013 by GOMG2013

Mean Green 93-98 · July 9, 2013

You obviously do not pay attention to recruiting or keep up with it.

You're getting stupid now. Really? I don't claim to be an expert, but I have been following recruiting fairly closely for about the time you've probably been alive.

Get that top CUSA team stuff outta here, cause we are mainly talking about the state of Texas when it comes to UNT recruiting. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Texas has been the dream school over the past few years. Now with the recent success of A&m, they may have taken over. Usually one of those two schools are the top choice. Oklahoma is also a top choice. Now that TCU is in the big 12, and Baylor's recent success, they, along with Tech is the next tier. It's pretty obvious if you keep up. There is a pecking order in recruiting.

What does any of that have to do with what we're talking about? There are currently 101 3-star recruits in the state of Texas alone. How many 3-stars have a legitimate shot at being signed by UT, when UT is typically signing 9 or 10 4-stars and 1 or 2 5-stars every class? As you mention, A&M is now right there with them--that means they'll be signing 4-stars. Only cream of the crop 3-stars have a shot at OU, UT, or A&M. Even the lower-tier Big XII schools typically get better picks than anybody who hits 3 stars.

You are right about the coaches not paying attention to the stars, but you are incorrect about how a recruit with the talent of a 3 star thinks. The recruits pay attention to it and they gauge themselves based on the scouting. Of course there are a few exceptions, but most of these recruits and sites make a big deal about a big 12, big 10, PAC 12, or SEC offer.

What does that have to do with where they sign? All recruits want offers from the Big XII, SEC, etc. That doesn't magically happen when they hit 3 stars.

The recruits pay attention to it and they gauge themselves based on the scouting. Of course there are a few exceptions, but most of these recruits and sites make a big deal about a big 12, big 10, PAC 12, or SEC offer. I agree that other schools get 3 star recruits. Because the top schools are fighting for the elite talent first. They all are trying to get the 4 and 5 star talents. Once that has narrowed down, they are coming after the next ones down the list. There's obviously plenty of 3 star talent to go around, so to take that statement as if ALL 3 star recruits go to big 12 is just silly.

Again, and as you agree, coaching staffs don't put a whole lot of weight on recruiting site rankings. So their reasoning is not, "Well, we couldn't sign so-and-so 4-star--what 3-star players can we get instead?"

And yes, there is plenty of 3-star talent to go around. And not all of it has any chance at all to end up on a Big XII roster.

GOMG2013 · July 9, 2013

That's simply not true. The top C-USA teams get plenty of 3-star recruits. And coaching staffs really don't pay much attention to how high Rivals or Scout rates a player.

And who said anything about coaching staffs paying attention to stars anyway?...my statement, the one you quoted, was about how a recruit is looking for a big 12 offer once they blow up to 3 star status. I guess I can change that to even the two stars are looking for those offers too, but the chances of them getting the offers are a lot slimmer.

I'm not going to even debate the obvious that the big 12/ AM has first dibs on 3star talent. You can argue with yourself on that.

Mean Green 93-98 · July 9, 2013

I'm not going to even debate the obvious that the big 12/ AM has first dibs on 3star talent. You can argue with yourself on that.

My point was that teams like UT and A&M have very little interest in most 3-star talent. Therefore your argument falls flat on its face.

GOMG2013 · July 9, 2013

My point was that teams like UT and A&M have very little interest in most 3-star talent. Therefore your argument falls flat on its face.

I stated Big 12...Baylor, tech, TCU, even Oklahoma State...they are also in the big 12. What is your point? Just to disagree with someone? My original point that you disagreed with didn't even say anything about Texas and A&m.

You went on some rant about CUSA getting 3stars, and even if that is the case, my original point still holds true without a doubt just by reading articles, looking at the actual results, and talking directly to recruits and coaches. We can even go to UNTs last class and see how tech and tcu took 2 recruits at the last minute. Once again, what's your point?

My quote, word for word before you pulled that one statement out of context....

"]UNT does not have money to waste, so they have to be careful about putting a lot of resources into a recruit. Once a recruit blows up into the 3 star range, they probably are looking big 12. UNT has to wait till some of the smoke clears before putting a lot into a recruit. Its actually good that a lot of the big 12 schools are getting commits earlier.

The original post was about recruiting and budgets. You brought up coaches looking at stars, and CUSA. Now if your stance is UNT should still go after 3 star recruits, and go toe to toe with these big 12 schools, that is another debate. Still does not make my statement false. And if you want to use other CUSA schools and their success as an example, then that is cool. It still is not an apple to apple comparison because we are in Texas, where there are more teams, where there are surrounding states that steal talent, and where there is a large big 12 following. There is a pecking order and UNT is not ready to go head to head. It has to be a strategy.

meangreener · July 9, 2013

Is it bad that, honestly, unless we get this thing going in the right direction, I have no guarantee I'll be interested in 4-5 years? I'll still be proud alum, but actively following the football team...not too sure.

MeanGreenHoops · July 9, 2013

Is it bad that, honestly, unless we get this thing going in the right direction, I have no guarantee I'll be interested in 4-5 years? I'll still be proud alum, but actively following the football team...not too sure.

No, we all think like that, but yet we still keep going. Once you're in, you're in.

GrandGreen · July 9, 2013

A few statements:

Coaches and schools do pay attention to star ratings but almost universally say they don't. I doubt any take a player because of only star ratings but most are quick to point out the recruiting ratings if they do well.

Budget data including recruiting is not uniform and you may be comparing substantially different cost components between schools.

Because of location and status, many recruits visit NT unofficially saving their allotted trips for longer distance or more glamorous schools. Schools are very limited to what they can spend on unofficial visits.

NT has the budget to compete well with CUSA level schools, but certainly not the "bigs".

I highly doubt NT's ability to recruit against Belt and CUSA level foes has much to do with finances.