First, the USA Today had a story on recruiting budgets and how much each school in the country spends. The Hokies' has gone up 98.3 percent in the last four years, but it's still in the middle of the pack in the ACC.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Just goes to show how far behind we were in terms of recruiting budget that nearly doubling it still only brings us to middle. Kind of makes those past recruiting classes ranked in the 20s seem more impressive considering the monetary disadvantages.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
How much do some teams pay outside evaluating services versus what feels like a lot of in house elvalution at VT. If VT is middle of the pack in ACC that means they are middle or lower for FBS teams but still pulling in top 30 recruit classes that says ALOT about VT recruiting.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Find it interesting the cutoff from which our budget is judged at its low point coincides with the classes that tanked the program in 2010 and 2011... Wouldn't exactly say those are bastions of excellent evaluation.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Friggin Army spent more on recruiting than we did! I feel like this number will increase if this counts the salaries of staff highered for recruiting purposes.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Army has a tough task recruiting. All over the country and having to convince kids to commit to more than the team. I'd also like to point to the "per win" cost. Some of those schools are 6 figures VT's is 30,000 or so.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I am glad the recruiting cost per win is low. Our recruiting struggles have been discussed at length on here. I was more pointing out that we want to compete on the highest levels, but spend less than army to recruit the players we need to compete.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
How is Hawaii only spending 150,000 recruiting? Tickets to the mainland to recruit or bring players and their families to campus have to eat up a lot of that.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
That and Hawaii and other islands are main sources. But they still have kids from as far away as FL. Considering the AD recently talked about ending football because of cost to fly to mainland I'm just shocked it's that low.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The article does a great job of illustrating that recruiting isn't something you can just throw money at. The biggest budgets don't correlate strongly with the highest levels of success. Look at the numbers. If we assume "middle of the pack" translates roughly to the median expenditure in the conference, we're into recruiting to the tune of slightly over $400K, which makes us competitive not only with the ACC but with all P5 conferences.If we're spending that money well, that's probably enough to get the job done.
Recruiting expenditures is NOT one area I want VT to be king of the mountain.
EDIT: I was on mobile when I first posted, and the mobile version doesn't have the detailed list.
$353K seems a bit low, but then I looked at Florida State vs Georgia Tech and UNC. Granted, GT is on a tear right now but I think Florida State is proof that you don't have to mortgage the farm to be successful in recruiting.
My point is, we should only increase recruiting budget if it becomes a hindrance to doing what we need to do, not just to thump our chests and say look how much we're spending.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Brings up a great point. Some programs face more recruiting expenses by virtue of not being in a state that produces D1 talent. One of the big reasons Tennessee has always recruited nationally is because the state doesn't produce enough talent to build a program on. We're lucky Virginia produces a lot of good recruits. Not enough to be our sole territory, but a lot. That keeps costs down.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
That's its own argument. Just pointing out, Tennessee would necessarily have to spend more than VT to field a comparable recruiting class by virtue of geography.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Tennessee's athletic department thinks you can throw money at any problem and it will go away. Look at the debt they're under right now. And they just keep building facilities!
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
We've proven we're good at finding talent and getting them on board. We're in the mix for a bunch of top players annually, and you have to wonder, if our recruiting budget was higher, if the extra resources we would have at our disposal would put us over the top for some of these kids where others are. You can't just throw money at a wall and hope something sticks, but if you have a formula that is working, adding additional resources to expand it should not be a bad thing.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I bet if our recruiting budget was higher, our coaches would all make sure to say hi to a recruit's parents and we'd send Beamer on more in-home visits.
Really though, when I see higher recruiting budgets, I'm not seeing the money spent on wooing the recruits. I'm seeing flights, lodging and per diem paid for trips outside our usual footprint. So that's not going to help us get the kids that we already have a foot in the door with. There are things that money cannot buy. Prestige, history, and playing time are the big ones that will swing a kid one way or the other.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The higher budget would allow for 1-2 more visits to a kid, which might start swinging some of these kids in our favor.
It hurts to see situations where the entire Stanford football staff flies out to NC to meet a RB recruit a couple days before his decision date and that we don't have the resources or budget to get our staff to drive down and visit him as well. Routinely you see our peer schools able to fly in for last second late push in home visits at the last second and it burns us time and time again. With a little more flexibility in the budget, putting us on a level playing field with everyone else, should only help us long-term.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
To me, that's called prioritizing. Stanford had him as a high priority, we didn't. Look at our depth chart and tell me that a RB should be a high priority that we need to pull out all the stops and send the whole crew. Doesn't really matter who he is, if it's not a top priority, we shouldn't be devoting every effort, even if we have a good shot at them. Our goal is to put together a winning team, not a group of the best players available. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can talk all about what we should have done different. I highly doubt though that our coaches said "well, we know that this school is going to visit them, but let's just stay home and see how this goes."
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
That's the question, though. How would additional resources help? If we're talking about turning the corner and getting the Da'shawn Hands and Josh Sweats to commit, then I don't think upping the budget will do anything. More money won't fix the problem that we can't land the top talent in-state. That's an issue of improving recruiting culture, not recruiting budget.
But if we're talking about expanding recruiting footprint, that requires travel, which means travel expenditures. If we are going to reassert in Florida and build in the Midwest and Jersey, then I don't think where we're at right now is going to cut it.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Unfourantely for Shane, this cycle was one with a lot of missed potential. There was a treasure trove of excellent defensive prospects from the Richmond area (Ricky DeBerry, Clelin Ferrell, Garrett Taylor and Darvin Taylor) that we lost to other big-time programs (Oklahoma, Clemson, Penn State and Tennessee).
At the same time, Shane pulled in one of our most important prospects (Josh Nijman) both from a talent and depth chart standpoint.
It's a bit perplexing, but at the same time you can't always blame the position coach if kids simply are interested in attending other schools...I'll put it this way: We're recruiting significantly better than we did when we were racking up back to back (to back to back...) 10 win seasons, imagine how much better Shane and co. will be when we get back to the mountain top.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
wonder where AMO would have placed this past year.
EDIT: Having now actually looked at the coaches commit list I really don't understand how this formula works. Everyone in the top 7 or so had a 5 star commit. ok great. But then there are a some coaches that are before Gray and Stiney that have just 1 4* and a few 3* commits. Where as Gray has 1 4* and 6 3*'s and Stiney 1 4* and 9 3*'s. Compare that to say Jeff Farris at Duke, placed ten, and Clayton White at NCST, placed 11th it doesn't really add up.
Anyone know how they do their formula?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It has to do with the numerical value of the recruits, and I'm sure there's some sort of formula that balances quality and quantity of recruits (so a guy won't look super awesome for signing one 5 star - and therefore having a really high average ranking - or for signing 15 2-stars).
For example, if you have a couple 3-stars who are rated 81 and 89 on 247's composite, they'll both show up as 3-star recruits, but the recruiters that landed them will get very different rankings.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I am very happy that both Gray and Stiney are getting recognition for being great recruiters. My biggest worry is that Gray is getting a great reputation as a coach, putting his players into the NFL, and recruiting that somebody is going to offer him a head DC job before Foster moves up.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
Just goes to show how far behind we were in terms of recruiting budget that nearly doubling it still only brings us to middle. Kind of makes those past recruiting classes ranked in the 20s seem more impressive considering the monetary disadvantages.
How much do some teams pay outside evaluating services versus what feels like a lot of in house elvalution at VT. If VT is middle of the pack in ACC that means they are middle or lower for FBS teams but still pulling in top 30 recruit classes that says ALOT about VT recruiting.
Was it that good?
Find it interesting the cutoff from which our budget is judged at its low point coincides with the classes that tanked the program in 2010 and 2011... Wouldn't exactly say those are bastions of excellent evaluation.
Friggin Army spent more on recruiting than we did! I feel like this number will increase if this counts the salaries of staff highered for recruiting purposes.
Army has a tough task recruiting. All over the country and having to convince kids to commit to more than the team. I'd also like to point to the "per win" cost. Some of those schools are 6 figures VT's is 30,000 or so.
I am glad the recruiting cost per win is low. Our recruiting struggles have been discussed at length on here. I was more pointing out that we want to compete on the highest levels, but spend less than army to recruit the players we need to compete.
How is Hawaii only spending 150,000 recruiting? Tickets to the mainland to recruit or bring players and their families to campus have to eat up a lot of that.
Hawaii mainly gets kids from west coast. Part of their recruiting staff lives permanently in California, and the drive everywhere. #sources
That and Hawaii and other islands are main sources. But they still have kids from as far away as FL. Considering the AD recently talked about ending football because of cost to fly to mainland I'm just shocked it's that low.
yeah, not sure how they are pulling east coast kids.
Dear Recruit,
Oh, you're under a mountain of snow? We're in Hawaii! Aloha!
----
Dear Hawaii,
I don't know if this is still true but, as of a few years ago, they wouldn't fly a kid in for an official visit unless he was already committed.
Middle of the pack in the ACC is just unacceptable. If we want to be a top dog we need to start acting like it.
The article does a great job of illustrating that recruiting isn't something you can just throw money at. The biggest budgets don't correlate strongly with the highest levels of success. Look at the numbers.
If we assume "middle of the pack" translates roughly to the median expenditure in the conference, we're into recruiting to the tune of slightly over $400K, which makes us competitive not only with the ACC but with all P5 conferences.If we're spending that money well, that's probably enough to get the job done.Recruiting expenditures is NOT one area I want VT to be king of the mountain.
EDIT: I was on mobile when I first posted, and the mobile version doesn't have the detailed list.
$353K seems a bit low, but then I looked at Florida State vs Georgia Tech and UNC. Granted, GT is on a tear right now but I think Florida State is proof that you don't have to mortgage the farm to be successful in recruiting.
My point is, we should only increase recruiting budget if it becomes a hindrance to doing what we need to do, not just to thump our chests and say look how much we're spending.
Throwing money at the issue does not seem to be helping: Tenn (1.2 MILLION!!), Illinios (790,000) or Wash( 700,000).
Brings up a great point. Some programs face more recruiting expenses by virtue of not being in a state that produces D1 talent. One of the big reasons Tennessee has always recruited nationally is because the state doesn't produce enough talent to build a program on. We're lucky Virginia produces a lot of good recruits. Not enough to be our sole territory, but a lot. That keeps costs down.
I don't think any P5 program should be spending a million plus on recruiting.
That's its own argument. Just pointing out, Tennessee would necessarily have to spend more than VT to field a comparable recruiting class by virtue of geography.
Tennessee's athletic department thinks you can throw money at any problem and it will go away. Look at the debt they're under right now. And they just keep building facilities!
Yes and no
We've proven we're good at finding talent and getting them on board. We're in the mix for a bunch of top players annually, and you have to wonder, if our recruiting budget was higher, if the extra resources we would have at our disposal would put us over the top for some of these kids where others are. You can't just throw money at a wall and hope something sticks, but if you have a formula that is working, adding additional resources to expand it should not be a bad thing.
I bet if our recruiting budget was higher, our coaches would all make sure to say hi to a recruit's parents and we'd send Beamer on more in-home visits.
Really though, when I see higher recruiting budgets, I'm not seeing the money spent on wooing the recruits. I'm seeing flights, lodging and per diem paid for trips outside our usual footprint. So that's not going to help us get the kids that we already have a foot in the door with. There are things that money cannot buy. Prestige, history, and playing time are the big ones that will swing a kid one way or the other.
The higher budget would allow for 1-2 more visits to a kid, which might start swinging some of these kids in our favor.
It hurts to see situations where the entire Stanford football staff flies out to NC to meet a RB recruit a couple days before his decision date and that we don't have the resources or budget to get our staff to drive down and visit him as well. Routinely you see our peer schools able to fly in for last second late push in home visits at the last second and it burns us time and time again. With a little more flexibility in the budget, putting us on a level playing field with everyone else, should only help us long-term.
To me, that's called prioritizing. Stanford had him as a high priority, we didn't. Look at our depth chart and tell me that a RB should be a high priority that we need to pull out all the stops and send the whole crew. Doesn't really matter who he is, if it's not a top priority, we shouldn't be devoting every effort, even if we have a good shot at them. Our goal is to put together a winning team, not a group of the best players available. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can talk all about what we should have done different. I highly doubt though that our coaches said "well, we know that this school is going to visit them, but let's just stay home and see how this goes."
That's the question, though. How would additional resources help? If we're talking about turning the corner and getting the Da'shawn Hands and Josh Sweats to commit, then I don't think upping the budget will do anything. More money won't fix the problem that we can't land the top talent in-state. That's an issue of improving recruiting culture, not recruiting budget.
But if we're talking about expanding recruiting footprint, that requires travel, which means travel expenditures. If we are going to reassert in Florida and build in the Midwest and Jersey, then I don't think where we're at right now is going to cut it.
Didn't we just sign multiple kids from each of those states?
Yeah that's why I mentioned them. Those are the areas we are moving into.
Just imagine how many Gray could've signed if he introduced himself to their mamas??!!
/s
What happened to Shane this year? Just got unlucky?
Unfourantely for Shane, this cycle was one with a lot of missed potential. There was a treasure trove of excellent defensive prospects from the Richmond area (Ricky DeBerry, Clelin Ferrell, Garrett Taylor and Darvin Taylor) that we lost to other big-time programs (Oklahoma, Clemson, Penn State and Tennessee).
At the same time, Shane pulled in one of our most important prospects (Josh Nijman) both from a talent and depth chart standpoint.
It's a bit perplexing, but at the same time you can't always blame the position coach if kids simply are interested in attending other schools...I'll put it this way: We're recruiting significantly better than we did when we were racking up back to back (to back to back...) 10 win seasons, imagine how much better Shane and co. will be when we get back to the mountain top.
wonder where AMO would have placed this past year.
EDIT: Having now actually looked at the coaches commit list I really don't understand how this formula works. Everyone in the top 7 or so had a 5 star commit. ok great. But then there are a some coaches that are before Gray and Stiney that have just 1 4* and a few 3* commits. Where as Gray has 1 4* and 6 3*'s and Stiney 1 4* and 9 3*'s. Compare that to say Jeff Farris at Duke, placed ten, and Clayton White at NCST, placed 11th it doesn't really add up.
Anyone know how they do their formula?
Maybe percentage of targeted recruits that committed? No idea, but that would make sense.
I'm assuming it's done by average recruit grade. Which is why 9 3* would bring him down
It has to do with the numerical value of the recruits, and I'm sure there's some sort of formula that balances quality and quantity of recruits (so a guy won't look super awesome for signing one 5 star - and therefore having a really high average ranking - or for signing 15 2-stars).
For example, if you have a couple 3-stars who are rated 81 and 89 on 247's composite, they'll both show up as 3-star recruits, but the recruiters that landed them will get very different rankings.
Jeff Faris (Duke coach) looks like a recruit himself
I am very happy that both Gray and Stiney are getting recognition for being great recruiters. My biggest worry is that Gray is getting a great reputation as a coach, putting his players into the NFL, and recruiting that somebody is going to offer him a head DC job before Foster moves up.