//

Recruiting Philosophy, Pt. 2

A couple weeks ago, I posted about the apparent desire by Michigan’s coaches to offer every prospect under the sun. Of course, like any strategy, there are certain advantages and downsides to this technique. What is most striking, perhaps, is the difference between what Michigan is doing, and the methods employed by arch-rival Ohio State on the recruiting trail. The post (as it was intended to do) drew a ton of responses, and I went even one step further by asking a few questions of Jim Stefani, who was more than happy to answer them.

What is going on

According to Jim Stefani, Michigan has as many as 130 offers to high school prospects outstanding thus far. Many of these, however, might be from kids that they don’t really want to commit. According to Jim Stefani, “In a sense, many Michigan ‘offers’ are not really firm offers but more or less strong indications of interest by Michigan.  Take that for what you will, but it is how many schools are now approaching recruiting.  Look at the DB who wanted to verbal to U-M last week [Travis Williams] but was told to wait.” Florida, a school that uses a similar technique in throwing around a lot of offers, had a similar situation, and they had to tell a defensive back outright that the offer he had been given was not “committable.” It appears as though the main point of contention here, then, is what an offer really means.

Shouldn’t an offer, by definition, be “committable?” Isn’t that, after all, what an offer is? Wolv54 offered a hypothesis in the comments from the previous post:

The only potential problem the shotgun approach creates is that you have a finite number of schollies and you have to slow play some guys waiting for the higher ranked guys make their decisions. I would compare it to trying to get a prom date; whereas you ask the hottest girl you know and hope she says but if not, you can always take that girl that plays in the band, right?

Michigan seems to be offering both the “hottest girl” and the “band girl,” and hoping they can get the less desirable option to wait for the hotter one before making a decision. However, with a Michigan offer now just meaning that the Wolverines have strong interest in a kid, the techniques might have to be adjusted. According to Stefani, “they need to be careful that they get the right kids to commit of those 130. Believe me, even though a kid has been offered does not mean that Michigan wants him to commit right away (or, perhaps, ever).”

So why do they offer guys without actually wanting them to commit? This hasn’t always worked out, as people (like Travis Williams) try to commit, without the staff wanting it. That can lead to one of the problems that Michigan fans fear, according to Michigan4204,

I mean damn dude, were beating out schools like TCU, Tulsa, SMU, and Baylor for some of these recruits. Players used to come to Michigan because they produced pro-level talent. You have to have that talent first of all when you arrive on campus, and half of RR recruits simply don’t have that talent.

There are certainly ways out of this (and schools like florida use them as well), but it’s not always the cleanest break, as Stefani points out, “It backfires when a kid wants to commit and the verbal is not accepted or commits and then a few months later Michigan stops contact.  That is because it will upset the prospect and, more importantly, his high school coach.  If the prospects is from a program loaded with D-I talent every year it could definitely hurt.” Michigan seems to be willing to risk this.

The Contrast with Ohio State

Ohio State, as mentioned above, is using a recruiting method that seems to be diametrically opposed to that of Rich Rodriguez and staff. Jim Tressel has given out very few offers, and has many fewer commits than Michigan, though most of their commits are more highly-rated than some of Michigan’s guys. Like Michigan has its reasons for the current recruiting strategy, Ohio State also has reasons for theirs. They already have a deep talent base, and this year, they have very few scholarships to hand out. Stefani’s take:

The longer a school waits to offer, the more time it has to evaluate prospects and decide who they want to offer.  With schools in the midst of May evaluation, combines going on every weekend and summer camps coming up in June, the Ohio State coaches will have a LOT more info at hand when it comes to making their offer decisions than the school that have offered many prospects early based on sophomore year camp/combine performances and junior film.

The Buckeyes also give themselves another advantage: “many of the elite players like to wait things out, which only helps the schools who have not picked up too many early verbals.” Of course, Michigan will wait on top-top guys who have interest, but does accepting a lot of early verbals limit their ability to do so? Probably.

As shown above, Michigan fans aren’t exactly unanimously enthusiastic about the new approach. Michigan4204 was the most harsh in the comments of the previous post, using the now-old adage “Just because it worked in the Big East doesn’t mean it’ll work in the Big Ten. Trust me I hope it does, but I’m pessimistic.” When it was pointed out that there is no reason to expect any different result simply on a different conference, he was quick to point out the talent difference between the Big Ten and Big East, which, unfortunately for his argument, seems to ring a little hollow.

Players in 2009 NFL Draft
Cincinnati 6 Illinois 3
Connecticut 4 Indiana 0
Louisville 2 Iowa 4
Pitt 4 Michigan 2
Rutgers 5 Michigan State 1
South Florida 1 Minnesota 0
Syracuse 2 Northwestern 0
West Virginia 3 Ohio State 7
Penn State 5
Purdue 2
Wisconsin 4
TOTAL 27 TOTAL 28
Total/School 3.38 Total/School 2.55

So, yeah. That argument certainly doesn’t hold water. Complaining about Rodriguez’s tactics on the basis of a talent difference between conferences is bogus. Of course, that doesn’t stop ontblue from agreeing with him:

Tend to agree with Michigan4204. You can take RR’s 3/4 star guys and I’ll take the USC/Florida/Suckeyes 4/5 star guys and we’ll see how things stack up in 5 years. By the way, since when did adding a marginal guy ever add to depth? It just adds another cheerleader.

Obviously, Rich and staff think the commits that they take will be guys who are able to contribute, or they likely wouldn’t waste their time. As bouje noted, “Who are the players that are really lighting it up in spring practices? Vincent Smith 3* out of Florida. He can obviously pick the 3* recruits.”

The reasons for this approach

So why does Michigan have to recruit the way they are? For one thing, they’ll probably have a lot of scholarships to fill, unlike the Buckeyes. “[L]ast year Ohio State signed a full class of 25, so they have limited schollies to hand out this year and are being very selective,” Stefani said. “On the other hand, after expected attrition Michigan is in a position to sign between 22 and 25 kids this coming year, so the Wolverines have a lot more flexibility when it comes to making early offers.” The early offers also help Michigan get their foot in the door with some guys:

Being aggressive with their early offers means that Michigan gets on a prospect’s radar earlier than those schools that have not offered.  the old adage ‘the early bird catches the worm’ applies here.  Moreover, actually picking up early verbals gets the whole process rolling as they can market their “great” (haha, excuse me) class to other prospects, as can the kids who have already committed.  They can now tell a lot of the Ohio kids, we love you but Ohio State doesn’t.  that carries some weight.

The early offers also mean that the class fills up quickly, as pointed out by Derrick, “Wouldn’t this approach force some kids to make a decision before all the offers were gone? If a kid really wants to play for michigan or any school he knows there are only so many offers available and he should be proactive in making a commitment.” Still, fans aren’t necessarily all on board with this approach, as sebaskrator said, “I’m willing to give RR the benefit of the doubt for now. Has has been able to get pretty far finding some gems before. That said, if he is able to juggle commitments around for someone he’d like more later, great.” It’s an endorsement, sure, but I’d say that’s far from ringing.

The Future

So, when Michigan’s talent base is built up to where it used to be, at least with the types of players that Rodriguez wants, will we see this strategy continue? It’s highly likely, though a school like Florida, which has had several top-tier classes in a row now, continues to use it, as AC1997 points out “I find it interesting how Urban Myer is offering everyone and their brother too, being from Utah he had the same problem that Rich Rod did (and probably worse).” The key thing that needs to happen before Michigan can audible the recruiting strategy is to show results on the field, according to Stefani, “First and foremost,once Michigan starts winning again it will become a magnet for national kids and be able to hold off on offering second-tier kids too early.” Ohio State obviously doesn’t have this problem right now, as he points out:

Ohio State is a top-tier national program that has gone to a couple consecutive BCS championship games.  They are an elite school that a LOT of kids want to play for, be they in-state kids or national kids… They can afford to wait on a lot of in-state kids because they know that they can get them later in the recruiting timeline if they finish second on some of their top national targets.  Michigan, on the other hand, is in a rare rebuilding mode and is not longer a “hot” school with national prospects.

In the future, once Michigan (hopefully) starts having on-field success again, this argument will all become moot.

There are still benefits to Michigan’s technique, as Stefani says “The risks [for an approach like OSU] are that by waiting too long to offer a prospects you have ‘bigger fish to fry’ you will lose out on him to another school (e.g. Devin Gardner to Michigan).  Once prospects are offered bythe Buckeyes, they will often have to do a ‘catch-up’ job in showing them the love.” However, It seems that Michigan will likely never go from the extreme that they’re currently occupying all the way to Ohio State’s, wherein they offer very few prospects early. In the end, a happy medium is probably most desired. AC1997 probably sums it up best: “Maybe he feels that 3-9 means he has to do that.” In another year 3-9, hopefully, will no longer be an issue.

Posted under Analysis, Coaching, Football, Recruiting
Tags: , ,

5 Comments so far

  1. frank says...

    This seemingly strong argument rests on the dubious foundation that the “star ratings” are infallible. Maybe the “band girl” is a unbelievably hot under that uniform and has a winning personality, more so than the “hottest girl,” but only a few bother to take the time to look.

    Recruiting is an art not a science. All rating systems are based on past performances which can’t always predict future performance.

    RR seems to know what he’s doing. “Those who can coach, do; those who can’t, rate high school recruits.”

  2. Dale says...

    Now you all are experts on how to offer????

  3. jaggs says...

    frank, i respectfully disagree. All rating systems are NOT based on past performances, they are almost exclusively based on future (college) expectations. This is why the small mighty mite back with 35 TDs and a 12.3 ypc gets 3* and backs with lesser stats, but better college prospects are 4 and 5* guys.

    And with regards to the band girl being surpisingly hot, wouldn’t you prefer to acquire 4 or 5 ‘hot girls’ rather than one potential band girls that may pan out? Unless your Freddie Prinze Jr., hot girls are the way to go!

  4. Brian says...

    I don’t agree with 4204 at all. However, Tim’s one year draft data is not convincing at all. Show me the same data over a 5 or 10 year period and I’ll agree. Until then, Big East is the least talented BCS conference–by far.

  5. Tim says...

    My data wasn’t meant to be a be-all, end-all of incontrovertible proof. However, it does show that, even if it’s a one-year sample size, the conferences are at the very least comparable.

Trackbacks

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comments

More Blog Post

Next Post: