Recruiting in a new era of Tech football

Ran this twitter poll a few days ago:

Interested to get a reading on a broader section of the fanbase....

Without two of Tech's best at doing more with less, Bud and Wiles, where does Tech need to land in terms of bringing in talent?

I think you're seeing this program take steps to be more competitive with on the recruiting trail on a national level (i.e. #TX2VT) in response to losing two staff members who excelled in developing players.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

Top 3 if we want to contend in the ACC. if We are top 5-7 we may win the Coastal with regularity (for now) but wont be able to touch clemson

Agree in terms of having any hope to challenge Clemson. Will be tough to regularly beat UNC and Miami (and GT in a few years?) with mid-tier ACC talent.

We also need the threshold for top 3 to be hitting a level that is actually competitive with Clemson. We finished 3rd in the ACC in the 2019 class... with a class score that would have been 12th in the SEC.

The 2019 class finished at 224 points, 2nd place FSU finished with 244, and leader Clemson finished with 275.55, which is quite the gap on the recruiting trail. This year Clemson already is at a score of 304 and an avg recruit rating of 93.60.

Our average recruit score in 2019, with a 3rd ranked ACC class, was 87.39.

I really don't see any way out of this for us. Is there anything that can/will change in college football so that the bluebloods won't continue to further dominate the sport in the future?

-Stick it in

I doubt it. IMO the playoff made the gap between elite and very good wider, AND more importantly the gap between very good and middle class P5 MUCH wider.

Top recruits have always grouped together, but that trend is getting stronger and they are all going to the same 10ish schools.

We probably need some serious staff attrition or something similar for Clemson to stumble back a step the same year we have a veteran, experienced, and special group. I know that sounds bleak, but it's either that or hope we catch them on their bad week that season.

There's always a chance we could be the next great exception like Clemson, but the above paragraph is from what I would consider a higher probability path.

Which is why they should make the playoffs between the P5 conference champions and three wildcards, or some closely-related variant.

An eight team playoff.

How would that "help" narrow the gap?

Any move to make the playoffs more accessible to teams outside the usual suspects helps.

Right now it's all they can do to not give the SEC or Big 10 two spots in the playoffs each. Every participant in the playoffs gets $$$ for their conference and can sell more merchandise. I see anything that spreads the cash out more equitably as a good thing.

I just can't get on board with anything more than a 4 team playoff. The current setup allows every team to make every game count, no matter the opponent. Teams are also afforded a loss, but diluting the field to 8 would take so much away from the regular season.

The extreme example is basketball where absolutely nobody cares about the regular season. Why should we go this direction?

-Stick it in

disagree. It opens it up to none power 5 and can reward a team that is really hot at end of season. The 4 team setup is a good ole boys club.

Looking back at all the CFP teams since its inception, I don't envision a scenario where one of the teams left out of the top 4 would win multiple games against that top competition and be champions.

In terms of the good 'ole boys club I can tend to agree with you, but it's because those teams are just that much consistently better.

-Stick it in

This is particularly true if the point of expansion is to introduce teams that aren't as good.

If you have an 8-team playoff of the top 8 teams, five of them would be "blue bloods" from the SEC and B1G. If you introduce lesser teams for the sake of "access," wouldn't they just be sacrificial lambs?

"Our job as coaches is to influence young people's lives for the better in terms of fundamental skills, work ethic, and doing the right thing. Every now and again, a player actually has that effect on the coaching staff." Justin Fuente on Sam Rogers

If you want an 8 team playoff, it's because you're frustrated with the ambiguity/subjectivity of the current selection process. With the exception of 2007, in the last 20+ years, there hasn't been a year where more than 3 teams, much less 8, had a legitimate shot at winning the title.

Edit: typo

Twitter me

Most years you can make the argument that there is a de-facto playoff in the regular season within the P5 conferences. The best argument you have for an 8 team playoff is when someone like UCF or Boise goes undefeated, or the rare case where you have 5 undefeated P5 champs (or 4 non-SEC).

This, however, is a ridiculous take:

there hasn't been a year where 3 teams... had a legitimate shot at winning the title

Since the CFP started, 2 of the 5 champions weren't 1 or 2. And are you really going to say Clemson doesn't have a legit chance this year?

That was a typo - should've said 'more than 3 teams.' The one exception was the first CFP, where all teams looked like they belonged. Every other year there has been at least one team that clearly wasn't on the same level as the other teams.

Twitter me

I don't think there will be agreement on this until we go undefeated one year, but lose by 3 to Clemson in the conference championship game. After that, all of us will agree we need 8 teams in the playoff. Especially if the champions of the Big 10 get in, the Big 12 and Pac 12 each have 2 losses, Clemson gets in, then the SEC gets its first and second teams in, even though the second team has 1 loss, because the SEC is a "better conference."

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, here and in the real world, but I don't care nearly as much about playoffs and championships as I do about Rivalry Week. I was perfectly content with the AP "deciding" who was national champion, and everyone who disagreed posting GIFs of the Dude saying, "That's just, like, your opinion, man."

"Our job as coaches is to influence young people's lives for the better in terms of fundamental skills, work ethic, and doing the right thing. Every now and again, a player actually has that effect on the coaching staff." Justin Fuente on Sam Rogers

In the minority, but not alone. I really don't care about having a playoff to "prove" who the "best" team is in a given couple of weeks.

I think you ideally want to strike a balance between the weirdness and subjectivity that makes the regular season meaningful, and some structure that will help create a tie-breaker when necessary.

Twitter me

Especially if the champions of the Big 10 get in, the Big 12 and Pac 12 each have 2 losses, Clemson gets in, then the SEC gets its first and second teams in, even though the second team has 1 loss, because the SEC is a "better conference."

FWIW, the committee has never excluded a 1-loss P5 conference champion (or better) for a 1-loss non-conference champion (or worse).

Twitter me

Yeah, I'm just talking about a scenario where a 1-loss conference non-champion is going to get in and they choose one based on being in a "better" conference.

Not sure we'll ever see that, but we may (also why I said the other 2 conference champions had 2 losses each, granted my post may have lacked some specificity).

With the exception of G5 teams, the conference championship games are basically the first round of the playoffs. I don't like the idea of letting in 8 teams and even allowing a 2 loss team to have a chance at a national championship if there are 4 teams with 1 loss or less. Football is too physically taxing to not reward the clear top tier teams. The top teams have the highest number of NFL caliber players. Every additional game you ask them to play puts at risk that players potential NFL payday.

there hasn't been a year where more than 3 teams, much less 8, had a legitimate shot at winning the title.

That seems like a weird criterion for selecting which teams make a post-season playoff. I don't think there is any other sport that sets the playoff team entry number based on teams that have a legitimate shot of winning.

A "legitimate shot at winning the title" is also super subjective.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

Totally agree - which goes back to my point - if you think the CFP needs to expand, it's because you dislike the subjective selection method. UNLIKE those who were proponents of BCS expansion, where it was clear that teams that had a legitimate shot at winning the title (2007 VT, 2004 Auburn, 2011 OKst, etc) were being left out.

Twitter me

I totally agree. A large contingent of fans want the playoff entry DECIDED ON THE FIELD. We don't care if the "best" teams get in or not. For me, if you can't win your conference, then you don't go to the playoff. So, an eight team playoff with the 5 major conference champions is a great compromise. Give the committee three at large bids to argue over and solve the rest on the field.

Agreed. I don't care who has the best team on the sideline. Prove it on the field.

I'd like to see something where the top 4 conference champions inside the top 8 get an at large bid. If there's less than 3 conference champions in the top 8 (or what ever number you choose) then you start giving teams at large bids. This way, teams are driven to win your conference, but you still have to do well in the regular season.

Twitter me

in 2017, an undefeated UCF was ranked 12. They had to go for a second undefeated season to crack the top 8 (ranked 8th pre-bowl in 2018), but then had 4 other conference champions (and Notre Dame) ahead of them.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Those 2015 Michigan State and 2016 Washington teams had no business playing Alabama.

Edit: for those people wanting teams to "prove it on the field," what is it about the 12 regular season games that do not suffice for proving it on the field?

Sorry for digging this thread up again people

-Stick it in

And the UMBC Retrievers had no business being on the court with UVA. Oh wait...

No other sport uses "winability" as prerequisite to make a playoff.

πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ πŸ¦ƒ

I don't understand your point. You're saying that teams have 12 regular season games, plus a conference championship to "prove it on the field," but you're also saying Michigan State and Washington shouldn't have been in the playoffs? They won their conferences, how did they not prove it on the field? Also, Washington played Bama better than Ohio State played Clemson.

In 2016, Clemson beat us 42-35. Clemson went to the playoffs and curb stomped Ohio State 31-0. They shut them out. Their conference champion. In the playoffs. I would argue we had more business being in the playoffs than Ohio State did.

I get not wanting more games for the sake of the kids playing and risking injury, but also feel like there are some years where there are more than 4 teams that have a serious chance. The more times I see conference champions get beat down in the playoffs, the more I feel like there should be an expanded playoff because there had to have been better teams left out than the teams getting obliterated.

A team with losses to GT, Syracuse, and Tennessee has more than disqualified themselves from any discussion of being in contention for top team in the nation

-Stick it in

As has the team that loses the SEC Championship game.

Each conference gets to send one team. Pick three other teams to fill out the eight team playoff slate. Sit back and let them prove their worth in the post season.

I agree with that, I'm just arguing the point that "proving yourself on the field" is subjective. Not all competition is created equal. If we played Clemson better than a conference champion who was shut out in the playoffs, it seems like their conference was probably weaker even if they won more games.

The trick is to trust the process, be patient, but don't become complacent. The fact is that the odds are better that any particular team stays roughly the same or worsens than breaking into the upper class. There is no easy button and there is no magic formula.

I agree with everything you said about the playoff. Increasing to eight teams may help; it would be easier for teams to make the playoff but would be harder to actually clear the gauntlet to win it all (see NCAA Mens basketball).

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

I think an emphasis in recruiting should correlate to an improvement. If the hires clearly show that this is the goal, top 3 in the ACC should be how we define success on the trail. We will likely be behind Clemson and FSU every year. Our goal should be to finish ahead of the rest of the Coastal. This won't be easy, but we've shown with the previous staff that wasn't known for recruiting that we could finish top 4/5. Now, I'm not going to hold my breath over this. I think there are a lot of institutional disadvantages built into Virginia Tech from a recruiting standpoint (i.e. money/resources, location). So I don't expect to see a significant impact. But, top 3 is a good stretch goal and to be truly competitive it is a necessary goal.

"That move was slicker than a peeled onion in a bowl of snot." -Mike Burnop

I think it will be a battle between us and UNC for best recruiting in the Coastal. Even at his age, no one should underestimate Mack Brown and his staff's ability to recruit.

Never underestimate the lure of South Beach from a recruiting standpoint.

Miami traditionally underperforms their recruiting rankings but that can change at the snap of a finger.

I mean... didn't we need Top 3 with Bud and Wiles?

Consistently behind FSU, Clemson and Miami

Yes, but I think he's saying that Bud and Wiles were capable of doing more with less, and overwhelming some great offenses.

Seemed to have dropped off a bit recently, though.

Not sure if I ever see Virginia Tech out-recruiting Clemson, Florida State or Miami. I can see us being 4th but getting to that 3rd spot will be hard. The good thing is Miami doesn't know how to use the talent they recruit and lately Florida State hasn't been able to use their talent either.

FIRST DOWN, HOKIES!

4th is the actual mark to shoot for

Recruit Prosim

Shoot for 3rd, settle for 4th.

Sure

Recruit Prosim

I mean if we are shooting for stuff why not shoot for first? Aim small, miss small

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

This was my exact thought, Miami is sitting within some of the best recruiting ground in the country. FSU is recruiting well even during the down years. The Clemson situation (that could quickly shift toward a word I'd rather not use) has some legs. If it is a good class nationally and we are 4th, I think that is good. If we manage to jump above Miami here and there, all the better.

@hokie_rd

Ideally I'd say top 3, but realistically top 5 is very attainable and should be the minimum goal. In addition to Clemson, FSU, and Miami, you also have to consider UNC in that mix. Granted out of all those listed teams, only Clemson has consistently done a good job of both recruiting and developing players. After Clemson, if VT could be interchangeable in the rankings with the other schools I mentioned they should be able to contend for at least the Coastal. Challenging Clemson is such a daunting task because of the juggernaut they've built over the last 8 or 9 years.

Clemson this yr has the chance to equal Alabama's reign over the last decade; 3 national championships in 4 yrs. This is quite a feat for any school in any decade, so I'd suggest we stop trying to compare VT to Clemson. What Dabo is doing over there is one of the best coaching/program-building jobs EVER. Will VT catch Clemson in the future; sure. But probably not anytime soon, and probably not while Dabo is there.

So after disregarding Clemson, VT is arguably the best team in the ACC. They haven't won the Coastal in 2 yrs, but are still the most consistent team in either division outside Clemson. Doing less with more is part of that, regardless of getting all the croots. Even looking back at previous Foster and Wiles defenses, there were yrs where a ton of talent in the program didn't translate to the field (2003 comes to mind.)

Building a culture will always be part of success at VT (DBU, Lunchpail D) and I think that's well-established, regardless of who the DC and D-Line coaches are.

"When you're green, you're growing. When you're ripe, you rot." -Ray Kroc

On the other hand, LSU and Auburn were both Division rivals that were able to challenge Alabama during their reign. I doubt they accomplished that by shying away from competition and rolling over for them.

Recruit Prosim

I'd have a hard time agreeing that LSU and Auburn were able to challenge Alabama recently (excluding this yr of course!) Since 2007 Alabama has 5 national titles, with Auburn and LSU each 1. This is similar to what VT has done against Clemson in the same time frame, and I don't consider that very challenging.

I realize that LSU is currently #1 in the polls, but Clemson is still the 800 lb gorilla in the ACC, much as Alabama is in the SEC.

"When you're green, you're growing. When you're ripe, you rot." -Ray Kroc

Really? We haven't even beaten Clemson for a conference title

Recruit Prosim

We have 3 conference championships since 2007.

Well if that's not cherry picking dates, idk what is. We have 0 after 2010 since Clemson has been relevant.

Recruit Prosim

The poster to whom you responded established the timeline as "since 2007". I assumed the conversation in the following thread would also follow that timeline. It's not cherry picking it's a simple statement of fact following a previously established guideline.

I picked 2007 because you have to go back that far for LSUs national championship; The argument I was refuting was that LSU and Auburn have been "challenging" Alabama for conference supremacy.

"When you're green, you're growing. When you're ripe, you rot." -Ray Kroc

Thanks for being honest ✊🏻

Recruit Prosim

Difference in the SEC is that LSU, AU, UGA and FL, and sometimes A&M, can play competitively with Alabama. No one in the ACC can even compete with Clemson. Reality is #2 in the ACC would be bottom half in SEC. UVA vs Fl in the Orange will be an interesting reality check on the how the conferences compare, as. will the Belk with VT vs UK, a mid-pack SEC team..

Since 2015 the ACC taking out BAMA and Clemson the ACC is 20-23 against the SEC.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I get 15-23 vs the SEC with 5 of the 15 victories against teams with losing records. Using your statistic to make the case that the SEC isn't much better than the ACC outside of Clemson and Bama is still disingenuous. A lot of the victories were upper tier acc (Louisville with Lamar Jackson and FSU under Jimbo) vs bottom tier SEC teams. Lots of wins over UK, USCe, and Vanderbilt.

Do you really believe that excluding Bama and Clemson, the two conferences are fairly equal?

Edit: thanks for clarifying HF. Updated record to reflect that.

I took Clemson and Bama out completely didn't count their games win or lose against a team from the other conference. We are comparing the "meat" of the conference to each other not the top team in each conference.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Hate to say it but after Clemson, I'm not sure there is much meat in the ACC. After Bama, the SEC has LSU, UGA, UA and FL. Bottom half of both conferences may be in the same neighborhood, but the second tier of the SEC is clearly much better than second tier of ACC.

The sec has won 9 out of last 13 national championships. The sec is by far the best conference, and va. Tech would be in the bottom tier if we were a member. The sec teams have guys on the bench that would start on all acc teams except Clemson. The combination of size and speed is unmatched.

But it's not really the SEC winning those championship as much as the coaches. Sure UF won 2 but Meyer also won one of the 4 they didnt win.

Jimbo, Miles, Brown, Dabo and Saban are the only active coaches to win a championship. And Les Miles won in probably the most bizarre years of college football. Auburn won with an Urban Meyers recruit. If the SEC is so fantastic then how come only two coaches in the SEC have beaten Saban (both did it this year too)

Basically you cant win a NC without talent, but having talent really means very little with out good coaching. And the coaches that can do that in the current setup are few and far between.

All of the talent goes to the sec, best coaches, best competition, and best fan bases. The sec wins because their fans donate and demand a great team. Players go to play to showcase they can play with the top talent.

Comparing ACC and SEC based on final ranking, 2010 -2019
Points = (26 - final ranking) e.g. ranking 1 = 25 pts, ranking 12 = 14 pts

Total points: ACC = 400, SEC = 924
Top half: SEC = 11, ACC = 3. Bottom half: ACC = 11, SEC = 3

Eight of the top 10 are SEC
Seven of the bottom 10 are ACC

Two teams not ranked in this decade = Boston College and Wake Forest

Here's how they line up head-to-head: (what I was really interested in)

Rank SEC Points ACC Points
1 ALA 219 CLEM 167
2 LSU 130 FSU 105
3 AUB 101 LOU 42
4 SCAR 99 VT 23
5 UGA 93 MIA 16
6 FLA 66 UNC 16
7 TAMU 43 GT 14
8 MSSTATE 41 SYR 6
9 MISSOU 41 DUKE 3
10 ARK 35 NCSTATE 3
11 OLEMIS 31 PITT 3
12 KEN 12 UVA 2
13 TENN 8 BC 0
14 VAND 5 WF 0

"Our job as coaches is to influence young people's lives for the better in terms of fundamental skills, work ethic, and doing the right thing. Every now and again, a player actually has that effect on the coaching staff." Justin Fuente on Sam Rogers

Rankings are tough to go off of because it's based off perception. How about Vandy being ranked in 2012 and not have a win against a team with a winning record until the bowl game. 9-4 means more in the SEC even if you play cupcakes the whole season. I cant imagine Duke, Miami, NCST, and GT had worse schedules when they went 9-4 and weren't ranked.

But let's say we use your rankings. Clemson is #2 and FSU is #4. Alabama had the number 1 class 6 time. Florida and Georgia had a #1 class once. In total in that time period the SEC had 52 top 11 classes. The ACC had 15 (Miami once the rest Clemson and FSU). What did Tennessee do with its multiple top 11 classes, what did Ole Miss do? Arkansas has 8 of their 10 classes being top 30 and they are terrible. Since 2012 Ole Miss has 9 top 32 classes, 7 top 25, 4 top 15 and 2 top 10 classes and they are doing worse than UofL that was not in a power 5 conference for some of that time. They're barely ahead of us. Heck that could have been 1 win over that 10 years. We dont have any top 15 classes. Also I could our points as 27 points not 23, but I used AP poll. Looking at all the great recruiting and seeing such low numbers for most of these schools just makes me think the coaching is overall terrible in the SEC. Most of these schools have out recruited Clemson. Clemson really has done well with good but not great classes. I think they have 1 top 5 class.

The entire SEC has been chasing Bama for more than a decade. With all the talent they everyone recruits you'd think they knock off Bama more than they have. But they don't. I stand by my statement it's not the SEC winning championships it's a few coaches and there are only 2 coaches in the SEC with titles and 1 won his title in the ACC. The ACC has the same thing with Dabo and Mack.

I stand by my statement it's not the SEC winning championships it's a few coaches

One of the most interesting observations from that table is the drop-off between 7 and 9. Obviously Alabama (219), Clemson (167), and LSU (130) are way ahead of everyone else. No surprise there. Then you have four teams between 105 and 93. Florida is kind of a tweener at 63. Then you have six between 31 and 43. Then VT pops up at 23, and the remaining thirteen teams -- almost half of the total -- are 16 and below.

So yes, if you take out the top three programs, there are a lot of "points" to spread around. If you take out the top six or seven, there is a lot of parity among the rest.

But the more interesting point to me is that the #3 ACC team matches up with the #7, 8, and 9 SEC teams. the bottom of the SEC matches up with the middle of the ACC. and the Good Guys, a solid #4 in the ACC, would be #12 in the SEC.

Rankings are tough to go off of because it's based off perception.

Important caveat, since one of the arguments of this whole thread is that SEC rankings are elevated due to media bias. I will leave it to someone else to produce evidence one way or the other.

"Our job as coaches is to influence young people's lives for the better in terms of fundamental skills, work ethic, and doing the right thing. Every now and again, a player actually has that effect on the coaching staff." Justin Fuente on Sam Rogers

It's really interesting data, what really struck me was how is USC above UGA and UF?

Florida's points works out to be 3 years at #4 and 7 not ranked. Or averaging ranked 18.5 every year. They had a #1 recruiting class, multiple top 5 and I think were top ten for 7bof those years. That's a lot of wasted talent. FSU was higher ranked recruiting almost every year over Clemson. Yet Clemson is head and shoulders above them.

Just imagine if VT had a #1 class, people would be calling for Fuente's head every game he lost for the next 4 years. Having a top 5 class and being unranked is a way of life in the SEC. It's simply amazing the under achieving that goes on in the SEC.

Dabo got Nuke Hopkins and Sammy Watkins to sign basically out of nowhere. 2 5 star WRs that jumpstarted his whole deal. He raised the bar from there. Maybe Fu can sign 2 of the top 3 WRs one year... who knows?

We need to build momentum. This coming year can translate into a big 2021 class which can get the ball rolling. We still don't recruit that poorly. I think we've averaged 26th recruiting class the last 3-4 years (not counting 2020 dumpster fire) that should be good enough to win the coastal even with average coaching. UNC and Miami are our only recruiting threats and both have proven they can't really do that much with them.

I'd really like to leverage the #brand and get some recruiters that can really sell it.

So top 3 to compete for the ACC but probably just top 5 for the coastal.

Was it a broader section of the fan base or just the same people from TKP voting on twitter? Still interesting.

followers of my twitter

The most important thing, to me, is for Fuente and the staff to continue building/repairing relationships with high school coaches to send their kids to Blacksburg. The #NC2VT became #TX2VT. That's one example. I seem to remember when Billy Hite retired, a high school program was so upset they basically shut down the pipeline to Blacksburg.

Like someone said in another thread, while it is good to continue to mine Virginia for talented players, it's important not to become so single-minded the staff miss opportunities to snatch some kids out-of-state.

Finally, the football program need to continue to win games and the recruits will come. Rome wasn't build in one night. Clemson did not become an ACC powerhouse overnight but once Dabo was successful in pitching the All In mantra the fanbase were convinced to commit their money to the program. Fuente and the athletic department need to continue the Drive for 25 program, repair whatever frayed relationship between the athletic department and football alums to get them to donate their money to the program.

Clemson is certainly the closest thing to an aspirational peer for VT as there is.

But Clemson always recruited fairly well - even when Bowden, et al were coaching them into abject mediocrity.

And the Clemson fanbase and regional media/business support was always pretty broad and deep in their commitment to Clemson football.

The bar was not nearly as high for Clemson.

VT's relationships with HS coaches are 100% Fuente's now. he owns that deal. If there is a HS coach in Virginia that doesn't like Frank Beamer 5 years later, I would be shocked. So the "relationships" are on him now.

I don't understand where everyone thinks these coaching changes are going to appreciably change VT's recruiting position on the recruiting ladder.

Can anyone name 3 programs since the BCS era began which started recruiting in a truly different talent tier (up - ands maybe even down) solely as a consequence of substantial coaching staff changes?

Oregon.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

During whose tenure?

Chip Kelly and his high octane offense? Or before Chip Kelly? Right now, it seem Oregon has leveled off a bit.

7th ranked class last year 16th ranked this year.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I would hardly say Oregon has leveled off. However, Oregon is one of these schools with absurd money (due to Nike) and amazing facilities. Unless they hire a horrible coach in the future I don't see them slowing down

Go for it

Oregon had some bad recruiting classes during Chip Kelly's tenure (possibly because Chip Kelly was target players different from the rest of the country). Cristobal is recruiting a clip unprecedented at Oregon.

Twitter me

Oregon got a HUGE influx of money which corresponds with their ascendency in recruiting.

They've gone through several coaching changes and yet maintained top 15-ish recruiting for the most part for the last decade or so. If anything, they are the poster child for making my point that $$, not coaching staffs, mostly drive recruiting success.

USC being on limited scholarships helped out a lot, too. Signing only 15 kids a year limits what you can do from a recruiting standpoint, add in a huge pot of money from a wealthy donor and you can see why Oregon's recruiting took off. It's no coincidence that since SC got put on probation from the Reggie Bush scandal, Oregon has been a better program.

Here is the Raw 247 Composite Data of Oregon's Recruiting from 2003-2019, graphed.

A couple of things to keep in mind:

-247 data pre-2010 for most teams are typically skewed low due to incomplete evaluation of lower-end recruits (with more complete data, the red line that starts below 85 might in reality have started closer or even a little above 85).
- The facilities upgrades at Oregon occurring within the time frame of these graphs have been subtantial
- Oregon is not without controversy during this timeframe, either. Top 2011 Running Back Lache Seastrunk was released after some shady payment information was discovered in regards to a person close to his recruitment. Oregon had quite the successful run during this time period without him, he was their top recruit in 2010.

Success & Failure at an institution under a head coach is typically associated with that coach (i.e. "the Chip Kelly era").

So what combination could the recruiting success at Oregon be attributed to? (In terms of recruiting talent, they have grown from a middling Pac-12 school into a neck-and-neck battle with Washington for 2nd place).

1. Coaching staff changes and turnover?
(There were new head coaches in 2009, 2013, 2017 & 2018)
2. Success on the field? A difficult to defend scheme?
3. Upgraded facilities?
4. Behind the scenes shenanigans?

Bear in mind, other institutions have a "Chip Kelly era" that are not identical to Oregon's.

UNC. They are in top 20 for first time in many a moon. All because of a coaching change.

Overheard as Duke assistant coaches took elevator down from press box: β€œGuys, they stopped the run with a three-man front.” - David Teel Tweet 2018

Not true. UNC has this "everyone knows they didn't recruit well till Mack came back" buts it's simply not true:
2018: 20

2011:18

2009:12

That doesn't include multiple classes between 20-30. UNC has recruited decent to very well for most years.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

How often does UNC land multiple 5*s? Bc they will this year.

I know you doubled down on how UNC was nothing to worry about on the trail when Mack was hired but they're recruiting circles around us at a level beyond "normal."

They don't have a single 5 star much less multiple commitment for 2020.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Evans has been flipping between 5* and super high 4*.

Depending on the day this is currently correct, but he's basically a five star still with a .98+ rating. He's in a spot where any small change from a single service swings his rating into 5 or 4 range by thousandths and ten thousandths decimal of his rating.

I mean he did claim they will sign multiple 5*. I don't see where they are getting multiple 5* as they don't seem to be in the running with any other player at that level.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

They were the heavy favorite for LB Trenton Simpson (100% to UNC) until last night when Clemson offered him last minute when they realized they probably weren't getting Flowe or Burch.

Simpson is a 5* on rivals and 247 in house rankings, he's a super high 4 on the composite because ESPN sucks and is always lagging behind.

Either way, it's correct they won't land multiple 5*'s in this class, but at the time he made the comment it definitely looked like it would.

Y'all are nitpicking specifics, but his overall point is cogent. UNC has elevated their recruiting profile where they are in it for these high level prospects, landing a guy like Des Evans and (at the time) trending for Trenton Simpson speaks to their elevated status on the trail right now. Their current DL class is beast, better than any ACC school not named Clemson.

We will see how things shakeout longterm, but right now Mack Brown has upped their recruiting and have been trending well with the 2020 and 2021 class so far.

Mack Brown won't be there long. He's a older guy. And what did he do with all the talent at Texas. Choked almost every year. Should of won multiple NC with the caliber of players he had. Only won with a miraculous play by a special QB.

We went through this whole song and dance all offseason

1) people said the same shit about how Mack isn't actually a good coach, and how they would be awful this season and it would kill their recruiting momentum.

Reality: They made a bowl game, the true freshman QB he flipped from FSU late in last cycle turned out to break all of Trevor Lawrence's true frosh records, and they have recruited a great DL class this year instead of "falling off on the trail after a bad season." We could have easily lost to them at home. We won that game by the slimmest of margins, both figuratively and literally.

2) we know Mack won't be around too long, but he can build a solid foundation for his successor which is what the early returns are suggesting he is doing.

3) even if UNC is bad (they haven't been under him so far), every recruit we wanted that they land hurts us because we can't utilize them to make our team better.

This post is spot on. The sooner we realize that UNC is most likely the most significant threat in the coastal for the next few years the better off we will be.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

To be fair if we counted the players we almost landed, we would look better too.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Why are we acting like this is some new, incomprehensible development with recruiting at UNC though? They had even better recruiting classes than they do this year in both 2007 and 2009. You could argue that the foundation was built for success then and yet they managed to screw it up in short order anyway. I won't argue that it isn't ideal for NC talent to be less likely to end up at VT but people seem to think we can just flip a switch, recruit harder, and turn into Clemson over night when that isn't realistic. We need to establish a strong foundation and build from there, and that's what I believe we're seeing with the staff moves this off season. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work out by the way, but there's not a quick fix here short of committing massive NCAA infractions.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

Either way, it's correct they won't land multiple 5*'s in this class, but at the time he made the comment it definitely looked like it would.

Yeah what insane timing in that comment and Clemson swooping in...literally may have been minutes.

Y'all are nitpicking specifics, but his overall point is cogent. UNC has elevated their recruiting profile where they are in it for these high level prospects, landing a guy like Des Evans and (at the time) trending for Trenton Simpson speaks to their elevated status on the trail right now. Their current DL class is beast, better than any ACC school not named Clemson.

We will see how things shakeout longterm, but right now Mack Brown has upped their recruiting and have been trending well with the 2020 and 2021 class so far.

This was the main point. I think you nail it here.

How many moons are there between

2009 β€”-> 2011 β€”-> 2018 β€”-> 2020 ?

I would say "many" is a reasonable description.

This is the epitome of a cherry picked stat. Why those 3 years?

Because those are the three years with top 20 classes. Read the entire thread to get the context please.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Oregon, Washington, Clemson, Nebraska, Penn State.

EDIT: Adding UCLA to the negative.

@hokie_rd

Oregon? Money
Washington? No. Consistently in the 15-25 range under every coach except the shit-show named Ty Willingham - and he even had a couple decent classes.
Clemson? Sort of, but ok. But Dabo wasn't exactly walking into a place that wasn't already recruiting at fairly high level.
Nebraska? They've had 6 head coaches since Osbourne left in the '97. And they've all been pretty consistently in the Virginia Tech-ish 20-30 range with some outliers. I would argue since they moved to the B1G and have no natural recruiting base now, no coaching staff will change that - and hasn't.
Penn State? Disagree totally. They've always recruited well. Coaching staffs had nothing to do with them having a brief downward blip and subsequent renaissance.
UCLA? You're conflating recruiting and on field performance. They've been pretty consistently in the 10-20 range through several coaching staff changes.

So...Clemson. As I said above, they're clearly the aspirational peer for VT. But Dabo wasn't exactly taking over Wake Forest in terms of prior recruiting success and recruiting resources. Or even Virginia Tech.

People hate to hear it, but coaching changes have a fairly small impact on overall recruiting.

If we are to assume that the best source we have is 247, there are like 3 to 4 statements in here that are incorrect.

@hokie_rd

There's one incorrect statement in yours, but ok I'll play. Which ones?

UVAh just picked up a 4* OL stud who had offers from every big name school ☹️... His crystal ball prediction was BYU so I guess it makes sense bronco could flip him

Hokie Club member since 2017

True, but he is going on a 2 year mission trip. That is 2 years of not conditioning and exercising at a high level, and 2 years for him to change his mind. While it looks good on paper, it will be a long time before we know if he will 1) still play football, 2) play for UVA, 3) be successful.

Then why would he be counted as a 2020 commit?

Odd, isn't it?

Also, maybe we need an age limit for college football freshmen.

Oh he is? Whoa that is interesting information. I figured he was mormon from his BYU commit over more elite football schools.

Hokie Club member since 2017

fun fact: there are definitely instances of BYU arranging for a 2 year mission to take place somewhere with training facilities available and mentors with sports backgrounds so that exceptional mormon athletes can still be in a position to contribute when they're done. Sauce: my father in law grew up mormon and was a pretty good HS basketball player. Was offered a sweet gig to do his mission in Chicago and they definitely pitched how he could keep up his bball training and still be at the top of his game when he was done. He opted for Argentina and spent 6 months of his mission locked up in prison down there, instead. Never got back into playing basketball competitively.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Really not much of a story. Local government didn't take kindly to mormons. Threw him and some others in jail. Friends had to bring them food because they'd only feed prisoners once a day. Good times.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

To catch Clemson we need to recruit in the top 10 Nationally That would easily take care of placing us in the top three of the coastal. But if we bring in the top class in the coastal but are only bringing in the 17th best class in the nation we aren't catching Clemson unless Saban retires and Dabo take the Bama job. Which is possible for when we play them in the 30's.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

I don't know how to say this gently but we aren't going to be recruiting in the top 10 nationally. It's just not happening short of a seismic shift in the college football landscape.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

Completely agree. But we don't have to recruit top 10 classes to have a top 10 team.

History proves that you actually do have to have top 10 classes to be in the top 10 consistently.

I don't disagree but anybody that has an expectation for VT to miraculously jump into a perennial top 10 recruiting giant will likely be very disappointed.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

I would gladly take one single Top 10 class!

I dont think it does. FSU has consistently had top 10 classes for thr last decaded. They haven't been consistently in bowl games much less bowl games. Florida, USC, and Texas have done very well in recruiting tol 10 classes in the last decade and neither of them are consistently ranked. So that right there are 4 spots in the top ten that recruiting at a slight less level and good coaching can get you there.

Clemson has 2 10th place a 9th and a 7th in the last 10 years. So no top 5, 4/10 top 1p finishes. They've done quite well which I attribute to having Venables as a DC and quality assistants all around.

I agree. I never said we would. I said to catch Clemson that's what we would need to do with how Clemson is currently doing.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

I know many are saying we won't ever be in the Top 10 recruiting, but I believe the big thing all the other schools have over us is a national championship. I know it's a chicken or an egg type of conversation, but if we had that trophy, it would definitely give us a bump on the recruiting landscape.

We have some solid talent coming in, and there seems to be some great energy for future recruits. If we keep this momentum and start pecking into the playoff and top 10 ranking discussion, the momentum would continue to build, and then we may eventually be able to get that national championship.

Previously LowBrau.

For starters, we need to out recruit UNC. Our football tradition is better than theirs. Yes, Michael Jordan and pine trees around the stadium are awesome, but one is a basketball player, and the other doesn't bother teams that take recruiting seriously. We also need to out recruit Duke and UVA for top 25 Virginia players. Let's start there. Let's not finish behind Wake in recruiting. Let's change the operation so that we can out recruit a 70 year old Mack Brown selling basketball tradition to football players.

I hear what you are saying about UNC, but colors, logo and their brand is strong with young people - and this is driving the train as much as football tradition. All young people don't feel as passionate about VT , its geographis location and traditions as our alumni do, and we need to take our goggles off and see this sometime.

Young recruits see hot girls, warm weather, top coaches and top competition(SEC) as some or most of their bullet points to make their decision. Paying the best and styling and profiling on a nice campus drive many of the decisions.

The only way VT and any other P5 school will ever compete with the likes of Clemson, 'Bama, LSU, Ohio State or any of the other perennial top 10 schools is when the NCAA mandates that any of the P5 schools can only sign x number of 5* and 4*'s and as many number of 3*'s they want so the playing field can be leveled. That ain't gonna happen.

We used to dominate Clemson way back in the late 2000's.

Dabo absolutely changed the recruiting landscape at Clemson. Y'all are crazy if you don't think that. Just listen to how players talk about him, how they pass up going to the NFL to play one more season because they want Bama, etc. It's so obvious, he is a great evaluator and makes strong connections with recruits. Clemson, SC isn't all that different than Blacksburg, VA.....he sold a vision and a culture.

clym on

This. So much this. I think if people can accomplish this, and then coach the talent well, they can do well. Mike London could sell the vision, he just couldn't coach the talent.

As an example ....Michigan landed 14 4 star players this week .....that's pretty average for them and they aren't EVEN in the CFP picture either so to ever have a hope of Va tech getting there we need to start recruiting at that level...pure and simple...now if you are ok with winning Coastal's , we can continue to recruit at the level we have in the past ( 3 stars with occasional 4 stars ) and coach then up . Fu realizes we will never get past that level if we don't take things to a new heights recruiting wise.