Looked at 11 years of recruiting data in the ACC and the biggest takeaway is this: Nothing really changes. Your fate is sealed. Improvement is incremental & winning matters more than everything else.https://t.co/Zj66MKEzr5— Davezilla: King of the Tweeters (@ADavidHaleJoint) May 10, 2019
None of this should be overly stunning, but after I posted my piece on Virginia Tech a few weeks ago, there was a lot of hand wringing over Justin Fuente's current recruiting class (though, can two guys really constitute a "class"?) and I thought it might be worth digging in a little deeper.
So, I took the past 11 recruiting cycles (or what we'd call the Dabo era in the ACC) and looked at average class score (not total points, which is based in part on quantity, but average of all recruits, for a slightly more quality-based metric) along with number of 4/5-star recruits signed.
A great read even if it's not what most fans want to hear.
https://davidmhale.com/2019/05/10/your-recruiting-success-is-already-dec...
Comments
Disclosure: I do not support actual horse violence
So an analytical look at recruiting in the entire ACC is beating a dead horse?
I mean the article is actually interesting and supports what i think. Our recruiting has been consistent and somewhere between a 20-30th ranked class and people should accept that's where we're going to fall. I was moreso jumping the gun to the responses that I'm sure are inevitably going to come and those are the dead horse that's being assaulted.
If they're doing lazy, meet-the-deadline analysis look at overall recruiting rankings, things are looking up. If they want to analyze it on a need vs position group basis (like how teams are graded for the draft) that would be a ton more interesting.
And honestly, the only place I know of that has the analysis chops to do that is TKP, courtesy of French.
This, but unironically.
Fireman's non-stop, often times out of the blue defending of Fuente (which usually includes a dig or redirection of blame towards Bud Foster) is getting extremely tiresome. This is by far the most calm, and supportive of the VT message boards towards Fuente. I think Fireman would have carpal tunnel in both hands after a week if he was a 247 poster.
Nobody's mind is going to change yet. Most people here are still behind Fuente, but have a pragmatic, wait and see type approach to where we are heading. There's no need for all this constant Fuente defending. He hasn't proven he can get us to the next level yet (maybe we never can), but most of us are still along for the ride. Also, our recruiting so far this class has been total shit outside of Jalin Hyatt, so it's not unreasonable for people to be a little anxious about where we stand with this class heading into the summer.
I agree with what you said here and think you said it very well, but I'll also state that I understand firemans point of view and stance. A lot of fans on social media are ready to declare fuente a failure, and many seem to be okay with firing him if we don't win 9+ in 2019. I get wanting to see improvement but I fear what would happen if we tried to replace him after this year. Fireman defending him feels like it could help to combat some of the negativity around fuente. Maybe it wont work but I get why he does it
Calling our recruiting class "total shit" isn't really saying it very well.
But I agree with your comment in that mostly Fireman is offsetting the permanent naysayers.
If you're supporting Fuente, then you don't need to be constantly filling the space with negativity.
Judging our recruiting class in May also isn't very well. We are freaking out about a recruiting year way too early.
It would help if Fireman didnt treat people who disagree with his POV on Fuente with condescending disdain. I dont so much tire of the constant support he gives Fuente but the rhetorical snark he does it with. This is what happens to people who spend all day talking politics on Twitter.
How did this turn into a mob against Fireman?
So pointing out and disagreeing with the tone and method of delivery equates to a "mob mentality against fireman"???
Sorry, not buying that.
This was a more than relevant OP by Fireman. The passive aggression toward him has nothing to do with this article. It is also uncool to rant about a person as if he isn't also reading it. So, yeah, a mob.
Agree that the article & OP is relevant. But upon actually reading & dissecting the comments, it's clear (to me) that "pass-aggress" isn't directed towards HIM, but in regards to how his delivery comes across. Big difference. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he needs to kiss ass or anything like that. At the same time, the counteroffensive responses are also not the most effective way to communicate and connect with others.
it's almost as if some observations on behavior are made over time and not expressed right away
I think (for many) it's the tone by which the defense is mounted. It's almost counteroffensive. Almost meant (whether intended or not) as an attempt to silence critics within Hokie Nation, and dismiss what they feel and how they interpret success/failure. Basically try to "shut 'em up".
I understand the method & reasoning behind it. While that may work on some, it won't work with most folks. For any good that could come from that method, there's also a flip side to the coin. It carries the potential for critics to get the vibe that their feelings, thoughts & opinions regarding the direction of the program don't matter, which (in the end) will cause an even bigger & greater outlash.
It's all about finding that happy medium between kissing their ass and not alienating them.
I dont really have a leg in the game, but I dont think you can pull anything concrete from last year at all.
People want to be negative on Fuente based on last year but its really simple,the defense was the MOST inexperienced and youngest defense in Bud Foster's career.
I really dont think Bud Foster just forgot how to be one of the best defensive coordinators in the country or Justin Fuente forgot how to coach after taking a nothing program to top 25 and go 10/9 wins in his first two seasons.
But to refer to the article. I am with Brenden Hill on hiring a recruiting 'brand manager'. I think thats a good idea.
I dont pretend to know what drives a 16 year olds choices, but I think 'hype' is a big driver. I think winning probably helps hype, but there are some teams that havent been relevant that are still pulling in 5* recruits - USC, UCLA etc.
Please add to your list: Miami.
I mean, WTF?
'
A dozen seems like it's pretty conservative here. There are probably, at most, 6-8 teams that have a real chance at making the playoffs right now, and 2-4 that realistically could win out.
It's like we are on the same page or something.
Sitting here laughing at the thought of half the posters here reading the line about more money not having an effect on recruiting.
Looks at OP
laughs again
So what are we going to talk about all summer?
The reason Frank Beamer is a top-10 all-time Div. I coach is that he could take recruiting classes that were generally in the 20s and produce a top-10 football team with those players.
Fuente is one train stop from the hot seat because he has not proven that he can do that. Most coaches can't, which again is why Beamer is a legend.
Beamer is a legend because he won a lot of games.
And if you care to look back at his record, he wasn't a dynamite recruiter and consistent winner during his first 3 years. Some of those top 10 ranked teams didn't get top 10 ranked results when we played REAL top 10 teams.
If we give Fuente the same opportunity we gave Beamer, I'm happy. But what bugs me is the fan who constantly complains about recruiting classes and one season without a winning record, where we still went to a bowl game and beat UVa.
I'm one of those people who asks "Are you doing YOUR part?" Whining incessantly isn't doing your part. Using every stat, real or imagined, to "prove" that our team or program sucks isn't doing your part. Insulting the student athletes who chose Virginia Tech isn't doing your part.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask fans to give our new coaches a reasonable amount of time to build a team based on their philosophy. What IS unreasonable, in my opinion, is to call for a coaches head after one season of less-than-stellar results.
All of that said, I don't think it's unfair to have some pretty strong expectations for Fuente this year.
So to clear the air, I want to say that I don't think Beamer was an elite recruiter, and I think we definitely fell short on capitalizing on the recruiting trail to match our success on the field from 99-2011, which was our sweet spot, so to say.
However, you have to also view "lookbacks" on recruiting as an unequal science. First of all, the composite/247 is only the best recruiting benchmark since around 2010, before that Rivals was far and away the premier recruiting service. Mid 2000's composite grades are less reliable because there are fewer inputs and often times players are assigned "blanket" grades like .90, .78, .85, etc. which can skew the results. Second of all, overall recruiting accuracy has increased over time. There were a lot more 4* talents in the 2000's who weren't getting properly evaluated because there were substantially less professionals actively scouting within the industry of 3rd party recruiting sites, far fewer camp circuits, and substantially less media exposure via social media, HUDL, etc. We all remember watching Noel Devine's crazy ass high school highlights on YouTube, but now every single high school recruit has the ability to have their tape on HUDL with minimal effort. We can find tons of examples of 3*'s that we turned into NFL guys, but the fact of the matter is that in today's age, many of those guys might have been 4*'s because of increased exposure, opportunities to camp, etc. Which brings me to my third point, there are more 4*'s overall than there were back in the 2000's and the number seems to be increasing each year, though I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't hold true every year. It's hard to count total blue chip recruits as a reference point against classes from even 5-10 years ago. Also, there is truth to the fact that recruiting services have a history of pandering to teams ratings in order to drive up/maintain subscription levels. Some of them completely deny this, some of them have admitted it in the past. This can make a pretty inconsequential difference of giving a player a .87 (3*) composite, and bumping a few to .893 (or whatever the 4* cutoff is for that year) go a long way to appeasing an angry subscription base. Now some of this is also that recruiting sites value the opinions of certain staffs highly, and will often give the "Bama/Clemson/Ohio State/etc bump," even then it is often hard to differentiate what is really going on there. So that's my piece to keep in mind before you let yourself view a 2019 recruiting class in comparison to mid 2000's class with the assumption that an equal amount of time/evaluation went into each recruit in those said classes. The industry has simply advanced a lot over time.
Beamer was good at finding under-rated talent, and also did more with less. But let's not kid ourselves. He did have less. His genius was in the ability to find differentials he could exploit, like having a defense who could utilize undersized guys, and putting a big emphasis on special teams.
He also had a fan base who was grateful for the improvements he made, and also VERY patient as he built the program. He figured out where he could do things better than other teams were doing them. All of that took time and patience on the part of the fans.
Beamer's success ultimately let to the ability to attract real talent. Ultimately, Fuente is going to need to show some success in order to convince talented athletes to come to Virginia Tech. As fans we need to give him the time to do that.
You sir, understand the differences between recruiting in the 90s-Aughts (the VT heyday) and now. Some of those classes, were they evaluated in today's environment, would rank much higher than 20-30, likely even top-15. The notion that Beamer always did more with less is greatly exaggerated I believe. He wasn't Trooper Taylor, but he was no slouch. The game just became more corporate. And the state of VA produces less talent than it used to.
A lot of teams classes when looking back at them can be re-evaluated. Andy Bitter does this with Tech classes every so often. But their rankings out of high school aren't that far off. Chancellor was a QB out of high school not an all pro safety, how do you rank him if you didn't know his future as that?
1) The rankings are relative. So saying there is rankings creep would still leave them in the same place, relatively, even if there were some rankings misses.
2) If those class rankings were top 15, then are you saying Beamer did less with more?
Nah, I'm still sticking with "Beamer did more with less", and had a novel approach to defense and special teams. Recruiting matters, but a great coach CAN do more with less. Enough to move up one level, anyway.
That was another interesting read from Hale. While, there's certainly a defeatist overtone to it, the door is not slammed shut on progression between tiers. It's definitely not easy to move up, and there really isn't a blueprint given each program as a unique set of circumstances, resources, and constraints.
Clemson recruited at a Tier 2 level prior to Dabo (2005-08) and really only put a stranglehold on Tier 1 with and after the 2016 cycle (beginning 4 recruiting classes into his tenure with a 4-year trailing average).
2005 0.8513
2006 0.8750
2007 0.8656
2008 0.8954
Four year average: 0.871825
2009 0.8981
2010 0.8594
2011 0.8717
2012 0.8903
Four year average: 0.879875
2013 0.8846
2014 0.8869
2015 0.8912
2016 0.9030
Four year average: 0.891425
2017 0.9210
2018 0.9345
2019 0.8976
2020 0.9572
Four year average: 0.927575
Virginia Tech was gifted an extremely soft schedule, to not beat the pants off of it is squandering the program's greatest opportunity in some time. At some point, the ball has to start rolling.
The Clemson comparison is another one of the abused horses i was referencing. I just don't think we have the capability to make the jump Clemson did and i also think they're more of an exception to the rule than a blueprint. And i'm not saying this is what you were implying, but the guys who say "Well look at Clemson and us in 2011 and look at where they are now. We should be able to do that too" i just don't think are being realistic.
We do though, we just have to win. Only team that was in the top 25 last year on our schedule is Notre Dame. Beat everyone else (as we should) and we're in a good spot. Recruits would roll in. Win the ACC championship and even better.
I love your optimism.
Hope springs eternal. Gotta have something to hang on to to keep us all coming back every year.
I also concur that the program has to start rolling at some point, and I know our SOS this year is low by many metrics, but there aren't a lot of gimmes on the schedule anymore either. My primary take-away from that article is that the days where you can roll through the ACC are gone. The trend line for almost every low level program was upwards. The ACC may not be a deep conference from an elite standpoint, but it is now pretty much wall to wall full of teams that can dish out a loss on any give Saturday, to anybody. That Clemson has so few conference losses over the past few years is pretty impressive, and hey, who knows, maybe that's what helped them to walk through Alabama like a knife through hot butter!
To be clear, the only reason I pointed to Clemson was because they were the only team to advance from Tier 2 to Tier 1 in Hale's model.
I'm not making the "Virginia Tech is following the Clemson blueprint" argument.
1) I don't think it's true.
2) I don't think Tech has the resources or commitment to advance in that way.
At the end of the day, the overall point is it's a snowball effect and this is the year, because of the easy schedule, to gain momentum. Otherwise, it's a wasted opportunity.
I don't like using the team rankings as a comparison as I saw when I did the final for recruiting data a month ago. It has issues, The class with James Anderson, DeAngelo Hall, Kevin Jones, Will Montgomery, Bryan Randall, Justin Hamilton was the 16th class, had a rating of .7348.
Classes have been given better ratings every year. There is inflation.
However, it does seem a little ironic that many of the posters who now state "we will never be Clemson" are the same ones that unfailingly defend everything CJF has done, and claim "Dabo only starting winning after year X" or "Dabo's recruiting really picked up after year Y"
Don't know if this is referring to me or not? I absolutely hate comparing ourselves to Clemson period, so I don't really care when Dabo started winning. I defend Fuente when people who don't really know what they're talking about and have unrealistic expectations make criticisms that really shouldn't be made. I'm more than fine criticizing Fuente when he deserves it, but when guys are bitching nonstop it gets annoying. I think our ceiling is being dominant in the coastal and competing for the ACC. I've just accepted guys who think our ceiling is consistent top 15 recruiting classes and pushing to make the playoffs every year don't really understand it.
If this is reality, I reject it and substitute my own 100 times out of 100. I can't get excited about football season with that kind of mindset, and I know I'm not alone in that thinking. Knowing that even 10 wins and becoming ACC champs probably isn't enough to sniff the playoffs puts a hard ceiling on my excitement.
Now, I'm smart enough not to confuse someone thinking our ceiling is beneath the roof with someone being content with that ceiling's height. But if you read it a certain way that's how it comes across, which may explain the annoying responses you mentioned. Not that you should care one way or the other how people read your comments. I like you, StineyDraw. You're one of the good ones. But there are some in the ceiling-beneath-the-roof group on here that are worse than anyone on the other side, because they belittle and tell the other side how to think, feel, and act. Whether or not you support your argument, that's never gonna be okay by me.
This is a fair response and you're right. Do I have hope of making the playoffs and competing for a National Championship? Of course I do. And if we are winning an ACC championship, I think we're in the playoffs because that involves beating Clemson. I think every few years we should have a team with the experience and talent capable of making a run at it. What i'm moreso implying is that i'm not going to deem Fuente a success/failure on if he isn't making the playoffs. Thats not my grading scale for him. I'm not going to compare him to Dabo. I think an issue with some fans is we didn't enjoy the ride of what Beamer acheived during his time and focus more on what he didn't. I know it goes against the whole definition of "ceiling", but i meant it as that's where we should consistently be. Sometimes with the opporturnity to outperform it and sometimes also not quite reaching it, but understanding the sky isn't falling if we don't hit it.
While this holds true, give the coaches better clay to mold and the results will likely be better. I think a 10 win season (regardless of the softness of the sched) gives the coaches something to point at to prove their process is working. A couple more 7-8 win seasons and they will have to come up with a new pitch to save their jobs.
Hale also said this, sooooooooooooooo:
Just a friendly reminder that Bronco has named his kids Raeder, Breaker, and Cutter. He could start his own street gang.
I wonder if the basketball team recruits to the same Blacksburg as the football team?
they obviously aren't on the same scale and there are differences between the 2 but 5 years ago who would have ever thought our basketball program could recruit to the level they are now. especially so close to tobacco road and 2 basketball blue bloods and LOLUVA so close. So just sit back and enjoy each year 1 by 1. because in 5 years we could be in time we could either forget this article ever existed similar to ones that im sure were writen about our hoops recruiting previously or we could be readying another one showing projecting the same path as we are currently on just with different years listed in front of each stat.
Yea but the ACC is the SEC of College Basketball. Its the same reason schools like Arkansas and Missouri are able to still somehow have solid recruiting years in football. Even with that our top 2 classes for basketball were 23rd in 2015 and 18th in 2007. The other years we don't come close to the top 25.
I think expanding the playoffs could help a lot as well. Kids want to play where they have a shot at glory. Expand the field to 16 and probably 5 to 7 "middle class" teams make it in every year. That may slowly give them more buying power with recruits
Which is why his will never happen.
Me like Fuente. Him good coach.