Gaines mentioned when he committed that he'd be taking his official visits, and here we go.
Just landed in GA.. Next stops Nashville, Tennessee.. — Houshun Gaines (@HZGduoUno) January 16, 2015
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
He also retweeted a post about Hokies in the NFL showing Chancellor.
Good on him. If I was a young recruiticorn I would take ever official visit I was offered, even if I was 100% at some school. What 17/18 year old does not want to be wined and dined and have a bunch of coed's thrown at him?
And in the case of Vandy, You can check out the Grand Ole Opry.
No, in the case of Vandy...the campus is laden with bleach blonde country girls. Take the visit, my man!
Yes, please.
We need a tongue in cheek font, I guess.
Good for him. His recruitment has gotten attention for some bad reasons, I hope he takes his time and pursues all avenues.
Nashville is a hell of a city. And if I were a D1 prospect I would take every official I could get. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to be directly wined and dined by a program. Not even free agents in the NFL get that kind of red carpet treatment.
Slightly off topic but related, didn't Mook take his officials? Or just us and Clemson? Either way, the fact that he's taking them doesn't concern me. He's been publicly 100% pro-Hokies since his verbal.
Nothing wrong with some due diligence, me thinks.
Do your due diligence before making the decision.
I know it's different, and choices about the future and all, but the biggest problem I have with this is it's akin to saying yes to the person that proposed to you, then going out on a bunch of dates with other people so that they can "wine and dine" you for free, before you actually get married.
Would you want someone who did that to you? Granted, if you trusted someone enough, and knew they were just playing the game with the others to get swag, then...
vtphoenix,
I appreciate your metaphor, but I think a better comparison could be made. I would liken it more to having a bunch of free vacations to visit all over the country available and deciding not to go on them. Some of these kids have never had the opportunity to travel and are not sure if they will ever get the chance again. I would find it hard to leave that opportunity on the table as well. Taking the recruitment aspect out of it, if someone offered you a free plane ticket and a few nights in say Florida or California, would you not consider taking it? Not trying to discredit your feelings, just trying to empathize with high school students. Cheers!
I like this metaphor and think of it similar to the time-share presentations that people will invite you to in exchange for a 5 night stay somewhere. Come listen to what they have to say and even if you don't buy it, just for listening you get a free 5 night vacation to Disney. Sure, you don't have any interest in what they are selling and are just wanting to get the free trip, but what's the harm in going?
The problem with your comparisons is that in your metaphors, there is no commitment being made, in any way shape or form. You aren't saying you'll be a part of this time share and then seeing what other time shares are out there for free vacations.
If you've made a commitment somewhere, and continue to do this you are generally:
A) Not sure about your commitment and want to see what else other places have to offer, enjoying freebies along the way.
B) Sure about your commitment and leading the other places on, enjoying freebies along the way.
C) Sure about your commitment, but want to see if other places can offer better, enjoying freebies along the way.
If you have an idea of where you want to go, but want to see what other schools have to offer, why commit to a place, even verbally? I have no problems with recruits that want to play the field, without saying where they want to go, playing the field. I just don't think they should say they are committing someplace and continue to play the field.
No one is truly committed until they sign that piece of paper in the spring.
Or if they enroll early.
Truly committed until the paper is signed, no. But if you're supposed to be as good as your word, then your verbal commitment should mean something.
How often have people complained, even on here, that someone committed to us, and ended up going elsewhere? It was a verbal commitment. If you weren't ready to commit someplace, say, you wanted to see what options were available everywhere, then you shouldn't commit someplace.
I'm not saying they shouldn't check out every place they can. I'm just saying that if I commit to something, even just verbally, I'm not going out and checking other things out just for the free stuff.
It's just a frustration with the system that says someone can commit verbally, still check other places out, and then sign a commitment. I don't think there should be a VERBAL commitment and then an LOI. I think they could let the coaches know that they're wanting to come, but still want to check other places out, without having a whole process of "I commit to such and such."
Another analogy for me, and to keep it in terms not about personal, but maybe personnel:
If I'm a hiring representative, and someone tells me they will start the job I've offered them, I'm not going to be too happy about them going other places looking for jobs, even if they have offers from those other jobs. If you tell me that I'm at the top of your list, and you think you might really want to go here, but you want to check out other places, then I can't fault you for that. I can fault you for telling me you'll work here and then going other places to see how they might fit. You haven't signed a piece of paper yet, but you've told me that you are going to work with my company.
Yes it happens. But if I'm the hiring manager, I'm not going to be happy about it.
Again, it's not against them going out and seeing what's out there. It's about a process that makes a person say "I'm going to commit to this." and then having them potentially break their word because they continue to go to other places.
By official NCAA guidelines, there is no such thing as a verbal commitment. They don't recognize it and have no rules regarding it. As far as the NCAA is concerned, a commitment happens when a signature gets placed on a LOI (or a recruit enrolls early). Everything that transpired prior to that happening is irrelevant in the NCAA's eyes.
Verbals are a creation of the recruiting process itself, as programs need to be able to project who will actually commit on signing day. But they are nonbinding, and every program in college football has to accept that. The only other option is to lobby the NCAA to alter the rules to allow binding commitments to be made earlier in the process, and it doesn't look like the NCAA has any flexibility on this issue.
There's also built-in motivation for recruits to verbal early in the process: fear of losing an offer if another player at the same position with a comparable rating commits before you do. Recruits don't want to be left out in the cold. While this will never affect the Josh Sweats of the world, the majority of recruits don't have so easy a time of distinguishing themselves from the crowd.
I agree, people should keep their word. And I'm sure if we ran the statistics, a large majority of recruits probably sign LOIs to the school they originally verbal to. But there's no enforcement provision for verbal commitments, so there's going to be some attrition just from working the system. Programs ask recruits to grayshirt, so it's not like it's not a two way street to some degree.
As for taking officials avert verbaling, I expressed my thoughts on that above. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. If you can, do. Vandy knows Hoshun is verbally committed to us. Are they going to try to flip him? Sure. But if they're willing to expend the resources to host him, I can't begrudge him for going. If he flips, he was never a Hokie to begin with.
Very well said.
This! You have to understand that Rocky Mount, NC is a far ways away from everything! This kid (as would any teen, athlete or not) wants to get out and see places that they've never been before.
It's part of the whole process of reaffirming your decisions. He wants to make sure that he made the right choice in VT, but he would also like to see Nashville (which is an amazing town). Good on him!
As I tried to convey...I'm not against the "free vacations". If someone wants to check out the schools, by all means, do so. I just don't think they should be forced to commit "verbally" to a location for their vacation, if they haven't completed their "free vacations" elsewhere.
When I was applying for colleges I had already received my acceptance letter from Tech so I was 100% going to Blacksburg but VCU had an interest meeting on campus and we got to go to a basketball game and had a big buffet meal provided by the school. I got to see Eric Maynor play in one of his last college games and it was great. I totally understand why these kids still take their officials.
I'd cash in on free food/etc too if schools were still allowing me to take official visits... nothing wrong with that
He's been extremely pro-VT since he's committed, FWIW. As much or more so than any other commit.
TE/DE commit Chris Cunningham is also taking an official to Mississippi State correct?
Correct.
Thanks!
Do I wish he was doing this? of course not, but he's a highly recruited kid who is just enjoying his time in the spot light and just trying to milk it. No one should be mad about this. Any one of us would probably do the same thing.... as I always say, nothing beats $Free.99
I usually don't care if commits take extra visits, but this quote still makes me nervous:
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/sports/high-schools/nash-centrals-gain...
What if he still doesn't see himself at Virginia Tech and he's shopping for "better" place?
Totally see your point. I think if he finds a better place, best of luck to him. If he doesn't and we do right by him, I'm happy. Hopefully if he gets to Blacksburg he'll put forth all the same effort he would have at Florida and he'll be a fan favorite.
Agree, eHokiet. That quote is not good on any level, and it just cannot be ignored. Even if he eventually comes to VT, it doesn't sound as though he would be happy. And unhappy campers are not good for any program.
Maybe he sticks with VT, goes about his business with a professional attitude, and ends up at least liking things in Blacksburg much more than he anticipated as he goes along.
That is our best case scenario.
IMO, in light of that seemingly totally honest admission, he is still a long way from solid to us though. And I don't blame him at all - Blacksburg is not for everyone. But it is difficult for me to think that various astute "salesmen" on these trips are not aware of his sentiments, and may have some success exploiting that issue to our detriment.
Literally everything Gaines has publicly put out since giving his verbal to us has been enthusiastically pro-VT and he's tweeted several times about how excited he is to play with the other recruits in this cycle. Yes, that one quote is bad and yes he'd rather be at Florida than VT. But VT is just some kids' second choice school, both athletes and non-athletes alike. It doesn't mean they won't love their years there.
Here is how I feel about all recruits who decommit or explore options: Go for it. If you're not truly sold, 100% Hokie, ready to lay it all out to succeed at VT, then you're a better fit somewhere else. Full commitment is what it takes at VT to be successful, and if you have to talk and cajole and beg some 4 or 5 star guy to attend who wants to go somewhere else, that person is not going to succeed. Look at Corey Moore, John Engleberger, Kam Chancellor, Duane Brown, Torrian Gray, Kyle a Fuller, many others. These guys WANTED to be Hokies, put 100% effort out and succeeded. Give me a 2 or 3 star guy with full commitment who is committed to success and you can build a team. Look inside the man, football is as much about effort and desire as it is about measurables.
I also agree with that, Hokierick. Building team chemistry is so key, and having guys like you mentioned leading and pushing everyone around them to new heights has always been a big part of VT's success. You have guys at a nearby school that are on the "coast for 3 and go plan".
I'm only chiming in on how I perceive the likelihood of the Gaines verbal sticking. In no way am I trying to deride his skills, attitude, or future success as a Hokie. We need him badly, and I hope he comes to VT and thrives.
An attractive but myopic view, IMO. It's also the view that drove our recruiting for years, and eventually contributed to running it into the ground. Of course we want every recruit to be 100% gung-ho Hokie from the crib to the practice field. But that's unrealistic. There are over 125 FBS programs and some of the players who wind up committing to VT are going to have grown up as fans of one of the other ones.
Our recruiters' job is to sell our program to kids who aren't sold on us. We'll always get the kids who grew up idolizing VT, like we always have. But our national footprint is not big enough or deep enough to be able to rely on program prestige to draw recruits from Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, etc. Your mindset is a recipe for VT to remain a moderate regional power in perpetuity. To become a national power, we have to recruit like one and that means recruiting against national powers. When that happens, you get into a level of recruits who approach their commitment as a business decision. They're looking for a program that will prepare them for the NFL. Emotion and childhood nostalgia don't factor into their decision as much as a kid whose ultimate football ambition is to play football at VT. We need those recruits if we want to become what we have the potential to become.
Great post, Ill Hokie
yes. I hope our coaches are out there still chatting with all kinds of kids who aren't hokies to the bone....yet.
CFB has always said VT could become a national power with homegrown VA talent alone. For the most part, he is correct, outside of a couple positions on the field where you need to dip out of state occasionally. Case in point, the 95-00 teams. You can say that you need to recruit all these 5 star guys or recruit all these different states, but at the end of the day, most of the guys are going to come from your home state no matter what school. I think you have to look at each individual you are recruiting and see what motivates them, and if you aren't motivated to come to VT and work your ass off, then throw the stars out the window.
Frank tried that route and it failed. The 757 simply isn't producing the skill position talent to compete at a national level, and we've also lost our stranglehold on the top-10 talent coming out of the VHSL every year. We used to own the top ten recruits in-state, but the 757 isn't the best-kept secret in football recruiting anymore. Now we have to compete with all the major programs in our own backyard. To stay competitive, now we have to go out and compete with them in theirs.
It's also just simply not true that the majority of every school's roster is produced with their own in-state talent. This is probably true in the recruiting hotbeds of California, Texas, Florida and Virginia. But look at Tennessee's roster. It's pretty much nationwide.
Recruiting has changed, and one of the reasons the program is rebuilding right now is because Frank refused to change with it for too long. He held fast to the mindset you're espousing. It's a seductive argument, but it sinks programs these days. Aaron Moorehead, Torrian Gray, Cornell Brown and Shane Beamer are the picture of what modern recruiting is all about: coaches repping their program to young talent that might not otherwise consider us.
We'll go after the recruits motivated to work their asses off. It's our job to motivate them to come to VT.
I would add that Frank's position on controlling the State has not changed, but simply looking at how the Hokie's recruiting has changed recently is evidence enough that controlling the State is not enough.
Case in point: OL or in VT's case the lack thereof for far too many years.
I agree our strategy hasn't changed, we want VA guys first and foremost. And it did and can work. Like I said, from time to time the state may not have a certain position that you have to get elsewhere. IF the state didn't have the talent then you wouldn't be battling FSU, AL and OSU for these guys. We need to keep the instate kids while also broadening the out of state scope.
I wouldn't say it failed. 8 (?) straight 10 win seasons and a national title game appearance 23 straight bowls and most winning active head coach aren't a failure. Did VT start a dynasty and win 3 national titles? No. Down cycle recently? Yes. But that's life. I wouldn't call it a failure by any stretch.
um.. no. While the sky hadn't fallen into abject failure to say that VT simply had a "down cycle" on recruiting over the past 5 years is also not correct.
In fact VT failed both in landing recruits and its approach on what recruits to land. As I stated OL is a great case study here. We failed in our approach with the wrong type of lineman, so much so that we felt confident that TE's could replace them, and in actually landing the recruits that did fit our model. But also look at WR's. Frankly we got lucky that Boykin and Coale developed the way they did, and when they left... huge dropoff. Why? Because we recruited athletes not WR's. Compare that to Ford and Phillips this year coming in and performing so well as true freshman. Let's not leave defense out either, while I agree 3 and 4 stars have built our team, those were in the days when recruiting was not a nationally followed topic. The internet has changed everything to do with recruiting and some of those overlooked 3 and 4 star players we got in the past that turned into demons would have been 4 and 5 stars. A level of recruit that we are currently missing out on a lot despite having one of the nastiest defenses around.
It isn't just "life" when your strategy is wrong and your ability to land recruits doesn't happen, it's a mistake. We were running the strategy that you state in your first post when it should have changed years ago. We were relying on coaching up players into positions we move them into when we need recruits that have been playing the position all their life. Again not abject failure, we still went bowling and we are still winning more games than losing on the recruits we did get. But certainly not simply a down cycle.
It's "life" that you can't always get the guys you want, and you are going to go through down cycle. Last time I checked we still have winning seasons, bowl games, etc. There's lots of guys coaching for millions of dollars that can't make the same claim.
It's "life" to make mistakes, which is what the Hokies did in regards to recruiting. A down cycle would be where we have a winning strategy but not landing the recruits we want. Or we are landing top recruits but not seeing the results with coaching because our strategy is flawed. We had trouble with both.
Nicely stated.
I should clarify. It EVENTUALLY failed. Recruiting failures put us in the down cycle we find ourselves in. Granted, we will always have a heavy focus on in-state talent, but we're also situated with access to a recruiting hotbed. We can afford that luxury.
But it doesn't change the fact that we've lost our ability to sign five of the top ten players in Virginia. We're reestablishing inroads to the 757, but we have really been hurting lately by missing out on critical recruits who grew up watching us.
It was successful for a while, but the narrow focus on Virginia + a little Florida has failed. That's why we're seeing more offers to recruits who have never been anywhere near Blacksburg. We're finally expanding our recruiting footprint, like we should have circa 2009. And it is working. We recruit differently now than we ever have, and we're bringing in legit talent again. Including some honest to God O linemen again.
My point wasn't that they shouldn't have done it then, it's that they can't do it now. The world's best buggy whip manufacturer had to change their business model when Henry Ford debuted the Model T.
The expansion of territory is coming by necessity not necessarily by choice. We are missing on some of the VA guys. If we weren't then we wouldn't go out of state. Ultimately it's normally an easier sales job in your own backyard, Tech is going to have a problem excelling by relying on kids traveling thousands of miles from home and family and succeeding at a high rate. Have you ever seen what happens to that 5 star guy from VA who goes to FSU only to never be heard from again?
Look, I know I am disagreeing with you a lot here but I want to say that it's not in a negative way at all. I think this is just a great topic of discussion.
There is something inherently flawed with this.
Say we could go 5 years straight of only landing VA kids. That we filled all the gaps we needed to without instance with 3 to 5 star talent in that time, but then the bottom fell out. Either the level of talent dropped or kids just started going out of state. Then where would we be? Screwed. Royally.
In recruiting you MUST, absolutely MUST establish doorways into hotbeds not just to cover your ass if you miss in state guys but because kids that have never played each other before from other parts of the country make the team better. In the current state of collegiate football if you don't you will not be coaching very long.
I'm not suggesting you don't recruit out of state. But it's not the priority unless you have to, whether the state is too small or doesn't have the talent or you fail to bring it in. The original point of the discussion was that first priority is to find guys who WANT to play at VT. If it's begging, pleading, flipping back and forth between schools, then IMO that is probably not the guy who is going to succeed at VT.
to your original point I of course want people that WANT to play at VT but you are never going to get a team full of lifelong Hokie fans to play for you. Hell, Sam Rogers was a UVA fan growing up. And where would we be this year without Ford, who flipped, at WR?
The ideal you state is not going to happen and any strategy to achieve that ideal is never going to be successful. To beat the big boys we must swim in the same pool as them, and that means winning your state and landing big time recruits from out of state.
That mindset is obsolete in 21st century college football. State borders no longer apply. You carve out your own recruiting borders and treat all recruits in your talent pool as potential targets. Then you sell the program to the recruits who aren't already sold on it.
We're lucky that our state is talent-rich enough for us to survive with a majority of in-state recruits. It keeps our recruiting budget down. But if you think we'll ever be successful having a team that's 90% Virginians who knew from day one they wanted to be a Hokie, you're wrong.
To a certain extent I agree with you, but I disagree that if we lock down the 757 again we'll abandon our expanded footprint. We aren't just expanding chaotically. We're expanding intO the territory that Aaron Moorehead has ties to, and that's building upon the foundation that Darren Evans' recruitment built. Once we build this bigger footprint then we cherrypick the nest recruits out of the entire footprint. We won't give preference to Virginia recruits just because they're Virginia recruits if there's an Indiana or New Jersey recruit that's better suited to our needs.
All were doing is broadening the talent pool we have to select from. Had we done that ten years ago, losing our hold on the 757 wouldn't have hurt us like it did.
Actually, Corey Moore was a "4-star" recruit who did NOT originally want to be a Hokie. He signed with Ole Miss, left because of a coaching change, JUCO'd and was then (luckily) picked up by VT.
As for Kam Chancellor, VT was his ONLY D1 offer. So we have no idea if we might have wanted to go somewhere else.
As I recall, there were nuances in Engleberger's, Torrian's and Duane's recruiting as well.
CFB is also very different now then it was when any of those guys were being recruited.
Point being, it doesn't serve the program to take a "Tru Hokie" approach to recruiting. Yeah, you want to have those guys in every class. But they're not enough.
I understand all your points. I understand that you aren't necessarily signing recruits who were lifelong fans, that's not what I mean when I say whether a guy "wants" to be at VT. What I'm talking about is a fine line between recruiting, and begging. When a guy says publicly "I really can't see myself at your school " then you naturally wonder how committed that person will be when they arrive, or if it was just like they came because nothing better was available. Now that guy may turn out to be a 4 year starter NFL player, who can say. What I'm talking about is that I think the player who is happy, grateful and honored to be given the chance and is giving full effort from day 1 vs someone who felt trapped or out of options, or pressured and persuaded into a decision that they regret.
Corey Moore wasn't a four star recruit, not sure where that is coming from. That was the olden days before most current rating systems predecessors even existed, but he was a lowly regarded tweener.
That's why it's in quotes. Unless my memory is completely failing me, he was pretty heavily recruited and would be 'equivalent' to what a four star is today.
He was 6'0 225 playing defensive end in college as a senior. I'm sure he was probably 190 or 200 in high school. I doubt he was a heavily recruited 4 star defensive end.
That's how I remember it. Not sure if he was recruited as a DE to Ole Miss though. Played LB at the JUCO. Also ran a 4.4.