I have always been only mildly interested in following college recruiting. To me, the game, understanding the technical aspects of the game, and seeing its execution is the more enjoyable part of the entire experience. This probably has to do with the same parts of my personality that sent me into engineering in the first place.
Over the last few weeks, I have noticed a great deal of general depression when it comes to Hokie Football recruiting. The inability of the coaching staff to "close the deal" on players has been mentioned, the top in-state players leaving to go to other schools, and the reasons for this have been discussed back and forth. But, I, being kind of new to the recruiting game, have a question:
Why do we expect recruiting parity with other teams?
College football is awesome, it really is. It has some of the best moments in sport that I have ever felt. Danny Coale is STILL open. But there is, and probably always will be a clear hierarchy in college football. Not that the same teams will always be great, but there will always be teams that are great for long periods of time. There isn't parity in college football. The NFL has structured its entire pay scale around the concept of parity (I know there is some debate about that, but it definitely helps) and it does help. Some teams are usually better, but not necessarily much better.
So if we don't have on-the-field parity with other teams, why would neutral (non-fan) recruits want to go to the team that isn't as good? And why is that the fault of the team that isn't as good? Using the Clark recruitment as an example, USC-e is a great football school with a consistently great team and a great college football head coach. Consistently in the running for the division title in the SEC East for the last few years, with passionate fans, great weather and potentially some other, less scrupulous, benefits. Why do we blame our coaching staff for failing to land the kid when they don't have access to the same resources as the Old Ball Coach? Or am I missing something about recruiting in general? Anyway, I would love a sort of primer into the inside of recruiting and some thoughts on the process. Also, if I am wrong, that's ok. I like learning new things.
Comments
This all comes down to "what have you done for me lately?" I'd dispute your assertion that USC-e has been "a consistently great team." It's simply not true. They were average at best until 2011. But for 2011-2013, they've been a hell of a team, which coincides perfectly with our descent into mediocrity. Just look up USC-e's record in the last 20 years before that. While we were stringing along 10+ wins and BCS trips, USC-e was either abysmal or average. It evens out over time, but you can understand recruits wanting to go to the hot school to try to continue the success or be in the spotlight while it's right there in front of them. It's a harder sell if your team is a bit down (still have no idea how TimeCop does it). And we're hardly down, just simply not at the same level as we're accustomed.
We have a great coach, passionate fans, and the years we haven't won the ACC or our division, we've been hot on the trail for it. Except for the last two years. If we get back up to 10 wins and ACC contention, things will swing right back our way. We've always coached up our unheralded guys, and we had a good year recruiting, especially on offense. If the offense rises to the level of Bud's defense (hell, if they come halfway), we'll do fine.
You have to remember that these kids are young, and haven't spent decades watching college football. If they started following college football when they were 14, they're making choosing a college after seeing only 3 years of that team play. Relationships matter more than tradition. Although, a recruiter from a 'traditional powerhouse' should have access to more 'pipeline' recruits.
Why do we expect recruiting parity with other teams? Because we aspire to be the best! To be the best you need to recruit the top players,especially if they are in state.
While I think you're right for the most part, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree on the whole "in-state" thing. Yes, it'd be awesome if we could land a few big-time prospects from VA, but in reality, they aren't a whole lot more or less valuable than out-of-state recruits. Shoot, even USCw is something like 0-for-7 for the top players in CA. This past recruiting cycle, we had a ton of success going out-of-state, and I think that'll continue for some time. With the rise of the internet, insane TV coverage, Skype/Facetime, national recruiting services, etc., landing prospects close to home is neither as easy nor as vital as it was even 10 years ago.
I remember when we used to land all the instate guys and people were always like wtf beamer get the out of state guys! And now the tables have turned and people are freaking out. Well be iight folks I promise. Just need to win 10 games
Disagree, top recruits have been leaving the state for years. I can never remember a year that we signed all of the top 5 recruits in the state.Landing in state players is not the same as signing the elite in state players. We have gotten some great players in state, but to say "we used to land all instate players" is a stretch.
If we were to sign all of the top 5 recruits in the state, we would have a hell of a class. To say that is your expectation is to set yourself up for disappointment. There was certainly a time, as recent as 4 years ago, where fans were clamoring about how our area of interest in recruits didn't extend far enough outside the VA borders. People wanted us to go out of state and create pipelines in other areas. Now, once the talent has risen in the state, everyone is saying we need to come back to the state. The reality is that it isn't about landing in-state or out of state players. It's about landing the BEST players for our needs. I don't care if the kid is from Christiansburg High School or Honolulu, talent trumps location. Do we have a slight advantage with in-state kids? Maybe, but that's not always the case. Top recruits aren't leaving the state because we aren't putting in the work to recruit them. They leave because someone else has something better to offer them. Once we have something better, we will have a better chance, but by that time, everyone will be upset about some other aspect of recruiting.
To become an elite program we must recruit (and have some success) both in & out of state . I fail to understand why this is an either one "OR" the other situation. I think the reason some people were "Clamoring" for out of state recruiting was they recognized we needed to do both.
we need elite recruits, no matter where they come from... losing some top VA guys doesn't matter if some top OOS guys are landed. I think everyone is still looking at recruiting from how it was done a generation ago... college football teams have national exposure, and teams that recruit well nationally will be the best teams..
the only argument against this is that kids 'should' want to play close to home so their families can come to the games, but how many in state guys actually have VT as the closest school? A kid out in Va Beach is 2 hours closer to UNC/Duke/NCSU/ECU/UVA than they are to VT, so I don't even see how that logic applies to much of the state
My point was in line with eshiben in that many were shouting for us to look outside the state for recruiting just a few years back. Now people are upset because we aren't winning in-state. I'm not making a one or the other situation, I'm just voicing what I've seen from a vocal portion of the fanbase recently. Unfortunately, we will always have something to complain about. Someone will always be disappointed because we didn't land one kid no matter who it is who steps up in his place.
http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool&State=PA
I know people say it isn't realistic to dominate in-state recruiting these days but I don't necessarily buy that...
To be fair, I'd say Pennsylvania and, to a greater extent, Ohio, would be the exceptions to the rule. For both states, there's really one school that everyone grows up idolizing and for which every kid dreams of playing college football, so those schools typically can take their pick of the top talent. That being said, Penn State got all of zero of PA's top 10 players (VT got #9 McKenzie) last year, probably because of the crapstorm that still envelops the program. That'll likely turn around pretty soon. Look over to Ohio State and you'll see my point a little more clearly. Last year, all of the top 5 in OH went to anOSU (6 of top 7).
While your point is valid there are other things at play and a much more relevant data point would be looking at what Penn State did before this year. They have a new head coach that has a ton of energy and excitement around the program right now. While he's dominating the state now, I'd be interested to see if that trend continues.
The fact of the matter is that no matter what Beamer says there has been a MUCH bigger effort to recruit out of state the last few years and is a trend that will continue. Now whether that is happening because we were losing a foothold on the state and adjusted or if we made a conscious effort to look more out of state I don't know.
Yeah people up here are raving about Franklin. They'll be tough to contend with once they get a few years out of sanctions, and they've made significant inroads to VA.