P5 Portal Snapshot

This is taken from 247 as of 9:00 this morning ET. It's worth noting that when I started capturing data, Caleb Steward, Phil Patterson, and Khalil Ladler were not included by 247, but they were by the end of it, so i included them. What that means is that the portal is changing constantly and it's possible that not every team is current. Hence the word snapshot

I won't be drawing conclusions or anything, Just wanted to share. I included low, high, and 25th and 75th percentile numbers.

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

Comments

My 2019 Season Challenge: only comment with Star Wars memes. (completed as of Nov. 29)

I wish they would make another Portal game. Portal 2 was the shit.

This is the kind of comment that low-key needs to go plaid. Anyone know employees at Valve that are Hokies fans?

"Now Miami wants to talk about it." *Cue Enter Sandman*

Here's a por-tal-trayal of VT football players leaving the program:

VT Marketing Class of 2009
Current Roanoke-Hokie
Go Hokies!

So you're saying we are above average !?

Dope.

VT has nearly double what the 2 teams that played in the ACC Championship last year have combined. Maybe there is something to that.

or maybe there isn't. Oklahoma won the Big-12 and went to the playoffs and they have 12.

or is your argument that dejuan ellis and nathan proctor would have been difference makers if they hadn't bailed before the season?

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

My argument in the case of VT is a culture one. Nobody would raise an eyebrow if you said a 5 star WR at Oklahoma passed Hazelton on the depth chart for example. Oklahoma is in the playoffs every year. VT had to hire jerry kill after a neck stomp from a basketball school at home. Draw your own conclusions.

The ideal scenario is to bring in the right players at the right time and everyone stays and we win a lot of games.

After that, I think it's too reductionist to say "it's a culture thing", especially for the guys who are transferring now and not the ones who actually did leave before the 2019 season.

In that case, if the right guys aren't on the team, it makes sense for them to cycle out and to cycle new ones in.

I'd rather have a high rate of attrition for now if it means we get the right guys on the squad as opposed to having the wrong guys on the squad.

Having the wrong guys on the squad even to begin with is concerning because it points to evaluation/planning deficiencies.

but having said that, if the choice is between wrong guys and right guys, we should want the right guys every time.

if your issue is with the coaching staff identifying the right talent and closing on the right recruits, that is probably more valid than "it's a culture issue"

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Why is it a culture issue for VT but not a culture issue for UNC, UMD, Stanford, Michigan, Miami, Florida State, NC State, Duke?

Maybe VT has a culture problem, I dont know, but maybe youre the one drawing the conclusion....

Ill take these one at a time:

UNC - Coaching change and mediocre football program for the past 20 years.
UMD- see above
Stanford- Shaw is an established coach that has won NY6 bowls, and conference championships. This is likely an anomaly vs. him losing his locker room
Michigan- they win 10/11 games a year. they probably do actually have young 5 star recruits passing vets on the depth chart
Miami- coaching change
Florida State- 3 different coaches in 14 months
NC State- your best argument
Duke- Cutcliffe is their Frank Beamer.. it's likely the same ending decline now

Personally I really like having you around because you do bring some very valid, yet unsavory, points to the board and do a good job of riling up a few shills around here.

Flip side, it's also really fun watching you mental gymnastic your way to validate a narrative you like to stick to.

Everyone gets a pass except us

Edit: Like to add when drawing a line in the sand type argument, using "probably" and "likely" does not enhance ones position

UVA has a ton of seniors. That's the biggest factor in portal numbers. More seniors graduating = less portal/transfers.

We put the K in Kwality

Idk why no one understands this. If we have 85 scholarships and only lost what 3 scholarship seniors? That means we've got 3 classes of kids buying for starting time. If you're not getting the number of looks you want there's a good chance one or more of the guys in front of you are going to be there your entire career.

(add if applicable) /s

Exactly.

With so many underclassmen log-jammed, I think this is mostly a good thing by allowing VT to even out the age/class composition of the roster. Individual players aside, I suspect the coaching staff assumed this would be happening and, by and large, aren't overly upset by it.

Not to mention that of all the power 5 schools, I only saw UMD and Stanford had more in the portal. Is it just young kids being kids? I don't know, but it doesn't seem good regardless.

HTHokie93

That players want to play for teams that are successful? I for one, am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

One thing i did find interesting -- if almost 7 players intend to leave a team, and teams are only taking on average a little more than one player each, where do those other 5 players go?

While some players do return to their school (which eliminates a "player out" but doesn't add a "player in"), the vast majority who leave are dropping down to G5, FCS, etc.

The takeaway for me is that teams are probably using the transfer portal more effectively than the players are -- target a key transfer or two (just 8 P5 teams are taking 3 or more incoming transfers) to help patch some gaps (see our RB room as an example), and use recruiting to make up for any other outgoing players (or use the portal to help make numbers work).

For players, unless you are truly an impact player, it is unlikely that you will enter the portal, leave your P5 program, and land on your feet at another P5 program.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

if almost 7 players intend to leave a team, and teams are only taking on average a little more than one player each, where do those other 5 players go?

The portal will have its sacrifice. The portal will be appeased. All hail, portal!

If you play it, they will win.

"How the ass pocket will be used, I do not know. Alls I know is, the ass pocket will be used." -The BoD

JJ was the only portal player last year to land and stay on a P5 program roster (Hill doesn't count DC).

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Jordan Stout?

(add if applicable) /s

Does Stout count toward the numbers? IIRC he was a preferred walk-on that did not have a scholarship, leaving for one at PSU.

Unless they're specifically saaying scholarship players he was still in the portal

(add if applicable) /s

While some players do return to their school (which eliminates a "player out" but doesn't add a "player in"), the vast majority who leave are dropping down to G5, FCS, etc.

Do you think that this will cause a bad cycle that will happen in recruiting? Getting players who might not be P5 players but get offers "to make the numbers work". Then they will transfer out to a more appropriate FCS or G5 school. The cycle then repeats itself over again.

Can't spell DBU without Bud

Yes. the less scholarships you have the MORE selective you should be. Not the other way around.

That was not the mission statement of the 2020 recruiting class based on the number of P5 offers the majority of those players have. The smallest class in recent memory also happened to be the worst in recent memory.

The takeaway for me is that the Maryland coach knows how to hoe a row and plant seeds, but then he forgets the fertilizer and water.

Leonard. Duh.

Or, they talk a good game, they just don't play one.

They drop down to FCS... immediate eligibility when dropping down a subdivision (that's still a thing, right?)

Meant to reply to gg chumps.

If you play it, they will win.

"How the ass pocket will be used, I do not know. Alls I know is, the ass pocket will be used." -The BoD

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

We are definitely above average so far in the Portal era.

Last year was more troubling to me, not because any of those guys ended up being contributors at their new destinations (they didn't and not one of them would have been better than the guys we put on the field this season), but because it was clearly due to the locker room and team dysfunction we had going on in 2018.

This year, we KNEW, and I can find posts where I told everyone months ago that they needed to prepare themselves for more transfers in the winter/spring because we NEEDED them to have all our recruits, even from this small class, make it onto campus and on scholarship. Pinckney is disappointing and unexpected. Ladler makes sense, but leaves us with little depth at the nickelwhip spot. It's not ideal to lose guys like that, but if you're losing sleep over losing Caleb Steward, who wasn't going to be a factor here and simply wants to find a place where can play football, then you're not thinking rationally. Phil Patterson, while flashing in moments, had 3-4 years to work his way into the starting lineup consistently and couldn't do it. Grimsley has legitimate family issues to deal with, and we heard he may look into moving closer to home. Not to mention, his snaps decreased substantially as this past season wore on as TRob became the primary slot receiver. He was basically just a returner for us by the end of the year. Hazelton is puzzling, I do think that's a big and confusing loss, but his situation is the exception, not the rule.

Hopefully moving forward, we don't have to see as much portal movement each offseason once we get our numbers under control. Ideally you want to end up taking about 20-25 guys each class and expect 5-7 transfer per year.

So if none of these guys contribute at other schools and Steward was never going to play for VT, etc. Recruiting- as I have been saying for years, is the issue. If you are constantly losing scholarship players that can't play elsewhere, you are not recruiting the right and or talented enough guys. and if guys like Steward can't play for us, we should start seeing this young talent produce better on the field. also House Gaines could absolutely help us in 2020. He is not a case of "meh", IMO. DE play has been mediocre at best.

I'm not defending the recruiting misses at all. I tend to agree about House in the sense that he definitely could help us at DE, but I think there is a lot going on with that situation that makes it very irregular. I know several insiders never expected him to play football again, much less return to VT.

having underperforming players "process" out isn't a problem.

having underperforming players NOT process out; and having top players unexpectedly process out are problems.

This many underperforming players is either poor recruiting or poor development. You choose. It's not an issue at Oklahoma, because they actually win.

The flip side of this is that other players might be overperforming. We had a huge rush to bring people in to fill gaps, it's not a huge surprise that some of them didn't shake out, and that some have developed more quickly than others. You seem to tend to focus on the folks who are leaving, rather than those who are staying/coming in. Are you telling me that you'd rather have Steward than Herbert? That seems like a recruiting win meaning that somebody didn't have a path to playing time here.

FWIW, I agree on the depth concerns you've raised other places, but I think that's a little bit the new normal. Players who think they have a shot at the next level will do what they can to maximize their playing time, and get their best tape together, and that's gotten easier and easier to do. If Fu was overly worried about that, and playing older guys over young hot-shots, there'd be grousing about that too. Can't make everybody happy with limited resources.

To a degree, it is a problem. I kind of liken it to companies that slash their bottom 10% of performers each year - if you have to cut 10% of your employees every year, then that indicates a hiring/talent acquisition issue to me.

If you're upgrading with each recruit, then it makes sense. But I'm not confident that we're upgrading over Pickney.

Twitter me

That's not necessarily true. Jack Welch would fire the bottom 5% of performers every year and hire new people. The thought being you're constantly raising the average performance of your team because you're keeping the talented people and getting rid of the not talented ones.

Firing your bottom X% of performers is terrible for culture. It creates a combative culture where people mislead coworkers instead of calliborate (Adam Grant, Professor at Wharton and renouned organizational psychologist, has done some fascinating research about this over the past decade). Imo Jack Welsh is incredibly overrated as a ceo.

Twitter me

I think it depends. If people look around and there are lazy or dishonest coworkers, that's a drain on morale as well. If you consider those as your bottom 5%, the top performers would probably be happier that they were gone.

If you have almost exclusively top talent, I could see where that could create a paranoid culture where everyone is out for themselves.

I was looking at it from the perspective that the players who were way down on the depth chart, and won't really see the field, we as fans shouldn't really be too sad if they go. We can want them to succeed where they land and maybe they'll have a good career at an FCS school or something. I know DCWilson has pointed out recruiting misses, but I'd guess every program has those, so you should expect (hope?) to see at least some turnover every year as you replace the misses with other recruits. You just don't want to see double digit turnover year after year.

I don't remember you saying that (but is probably that I missed it). We had 5 graduating seniors. If you're going to bring in a class of 20, that means you need about 15 people to transfer out, and BAM, we're at 14. Makes absolute sense to me.

People may argue that our class sucked though. I get that, but if 15 people are going to transfer out, do you know who will be leaving? Will they be WRs since we have a lot of them? Will they be from the defense because Foster announced he was retiring (I think people probably expected that, so if you go out and start looking at guys on defense to bring in, but none of them leave, seems like you have to change the positions you're recruiting for).

Great stuff, thanks for putting this together.

Our transfer out might seem high but from yesterday's news, we had several receivers and a Running back along with Ladler. Kind of makes sense since most are backup players. Hezzy was the only starter, his decision might have been based on our second half of the season going more towards a running game offense with Hooker.

I'm hoping we get strong contribution from the 2 new running backs who transferred in.

Hokies, Local Soccer, AFC Ajax, Ravens

So basically players aren't transferring into or out from elite/good programs, just away from mediocre/bad programs? So far...

Oklahoma is usually pretty good and they have 12 leaving.

Not sure what qualifies as "good" vs. "mediocre" but there are a lot of teams that I would qualify as good (based on both recent and historical success) that have 8 or more departures.
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ok. State, Texas, Stanford, atm.
Several more are arguably good too.

๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ

Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ok. State, Texas, Stanford, atm.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

based on both recent and historical success

Also, you pick out 2. And one of those two has been pretty damn good for the past 5 years.

๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ

Not saying I dont agree just simply weird to see nebraska referred to successful due to recent history and stanford laying an egg this year.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

That's fair. You can take Nebraska out. They haven't been good for awhile and thus probably do deserve a "mediocre" label much like VT.

Stanford has been on a slight decline, but even with the decline, they're still a really good program over the past 5 years (9 wins or more in 4 of those seasons). Last year may or may not be anomaly, I don't follow them closely enough to know what's going on there. But, if they were to make a NY6 bowl next year, would it really be that surprising?

๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ

It will be interesting to see if nebraska ever pulls itself out of the dark hole or not. Stanford on the other hand will be interesting I dont follow them at all so no clue why this year they were so poor.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

I just posted this to a different string, but I think it's worth noting where some of our transfers out are going:

DeJuan Ellis - Maryland
John Harris - Mercer
Joe Kane - Elon
Robert Porcher - NC A&T

That is poor recruiting. We shouldn't have offered those guys. Ellis was a HS QB- it was always going to be a gamble playing him somewhere else from the start.

Tayvion Robinson was a high school QB.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

Kam Chancellor was a high school QB.

Logan Thomas was a high school TE

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

False. Logan Thomas was a high school WR and converted to a high school QB. The first time he was officially listed on a roster as a TE was in the NFL.

Rivals had him listed as a tight end. Link

Correct...but he didn't play TE. He was being recruited as one.

Bucky Hodges was a QB as well...

We put the K in Kwality

Sorry - should have specified. You are correct about what he played in HS, but was just showing where the confusion may have come from.

Same as Kam Chancellor, Greg Boone, Bucky Hodges, etc

So our staff is at best 50% in the development of those 2. We are 14-12 the past 2 seasons, so it lines up

i laughed. please keep making my job bearable, dc, even if you're not trying

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

do you always wear these when using hindsight to evaluate recruits or is it just this year?

Harris had 13 P5 offers, Porcher had 17 P5 offers. Ellis had to know he wasn't going to be a QB when he came here -- remember when he committed as a QB, then decommitted, then recommitted as an athlete? Maybe that's on us, but I can think of worse things than taking a flier on a 17 year old who's an electric athlete.

Joe Kane? Sure, maybe we shouldn't have offered Joe Kane. Should we have offered Christian Darrisaw?

The better conclusion is "sometimes three star players don't pop" -- not "we should never have offered those guys because they didn't pop and wound up transferring"

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Call it what you want. When you miss more than you hit, you go 14-12 in a 2 year stretch.

have we missed more than we hit?

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Kumah, Patterson, Ladler, Beckett, Jackson, Denmark, Jimmie Taylor, Murphy, Hopple, Kearns, Dean, Carter- all portal guys or flat misses from just 1 recruiting class.

okay, now look at every class after that too and not just the one that was signed 3 weeks after a coaching change

Also do we consider a grad transfer a "miss"? I don't think so

i'm really confused about many things, but mainly why you're drawing a straight line from the dud 2016 recruiting class to us having 13 players in the portal in 2020.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Isn't the other issue with the 2016 class that it was a lame duck cycle - Beamer had announced he was retiring, but they hadn't announced Fuente until late November. So Beamer's staff was recruiting guys, and I find it hard to believe that a lot of other programs weren't saying stuff about current staff not being here, so the recruit wouldn't know who they were playing for.

So it doesn't surprise me that there would be more misses in the 2016 class than others.
People can make the argument that Foster didn't go anywhere, but how realistic was it to expect that he'd still be around? Most new HC's replace pretty much everybody, so even Foster being around was a big question mark at best for recruits until after Fuente signed on. But at that point, how many guys had already committed elsewhere?

....because some of them entered the portal just yesterday.....

>list a couple recruiting misses from the 2018 class who entered portal
>say we miss more than we hit
>list a bunch of other misses from the 2016 class who recently entered portal

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

How about 2018? Crossen, Goode, Ellis, Culver, Harris, Kane, Steward, Beck- gone and/or did not contibute in 2019. Others not in the 2 deep as of yet- Peoples, Thompson, Artis, Webb, Simmons, Patterson... Yes, Dax, Connor, Chatman, Turner, Tisdale and Mitchell can play in the ACC..

The 2018 recruiting class were either true sophomores last year or redshirt freshmen--can you really judge the class on their contributions or being in the 2-deep yet? But beyond that, 2018 actually looks like a really good class! Artis and Patterson have contributed (and Patterson was in the 2-deep in literally his first year of action), and some of the team's stars all came from the class.

2018 also had Eli Adams, Jermaine Waller, Christian Darrisaw, Luke Tenuta, and Jaevon Becton who have all contributed.

to follow up on milkyman above, let's list the whole class and tell me again there were more misses than hits. you conveniently didn't list Darrisaw, Tenuta, Shadley, or Waller. keep in mind, this class just finished its second year as either So or r-Fr. also idk who Ellis is

4*: Dax Hollifield, Tre Turner, Quincy Patterson, Jeremy Webb, Chamarri Conner, Alan Tisdale, James Mitchell (Webb injuries, everyone else contributed this year)

3*: Armani Chatman, Darryle Simmons, DJ Crossen, Keshon Artis, Walker Culver, Cam Goode, Dejuan Ellis, Nadir Thompson, Cole Beck, Jaevon Becton, Luke Tenuta, Christian Darrisaw, John Harris, Jermaine Waller, Eli Adams, Nasir Peoples, Joe Kane, Caleb Steward, Oscar Shadley

who are the definitive misses? I'd give you: Kane, Harris, Goode, Steward, Beck, Crossen
who are the definitive hits? I claim: Dax, Tre, QP, Conner, Chatman, Tisdale, Mitchell, Tenuta, Darrisaw, Waller, Shadley

6 misses, 11 hits

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

How is Beck a miss already? He was injured (I think he will leave for track so he won't contribute long term but he hasn't left the football team yet).

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I just said I'd give it to him ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

That is 6 members of that class who have already made significant impact in either their true FR/SO or redshirt FR seasons, which is something to be celebrated. Also, Patterson is absolutely in the 2-deep, and the rest still have time to develop, as they were only freshmen this past season. It is much too early to try to argue that the 2018 class was a "bust".

Edit: my bad for not reloading the page in the hour between opening the reply page and hitting submit, as pretty much everything here is mentioned above.

Caleb Farley was a HS QB

I was a HS QB.

We put the K in Kwality

HokieBen was a long snapper in highschool

"What are you going to do, stab me? - Quote from Man Stabbed

Should have read Gobble gobble Chumps response before posting

"These people are losing their minds" - Mike Patrick

It it an appropriate expectation that we will have one more "wave" of transfers coming? (Before signing day or after Spring ball?). If we pick up more recruits in February, where do they fit without more defections?

We still have a packed RB room and 1 extra 4* QB that will be 3rd string...

Thanks for compiling this

So, clearly we have more people leaving than the average program, but some other teams do to

It's important to consider quality and not just quantity. Wake and Houston lost their starting QBs. Temple lost its best player on D. We lost Hazelton. Not all transfers are equal is what I'm saying

Lastly - all 5 P5 conferences are averaging more players leaving than joining, which indicates that most players leaving a P5 school are not ending up at another P5 school, but rather G5 or FCS presumably. May speak to the talent level of the average player in the portal

We threw a bunch of recruits against the wall to see which ones stick. I don't know whether that is a good or bad philosophy.

"I am probably too rational to be here"

I would say this is probably part of the philosophy of most non-blue blood schools that have 5* recruits lined up for them to hand pick who they want and who they don't.

"These people are losing their minds" - Mike Patrick

I'm having a hard time explaining this away honestly. Maybe we don't have the most transfers in any single year, but for two years in a row we're in an upper percentile for transfers. One counter argument I've seen is we're unloading underperformers that will not be missed. But by that logic it follows that we've also had an abnormal amount of recruiting misses. It's not good no matter how you want to rationalize it.

I think you hit it. Call it misses or longshots, it almost seems to be part of the plan the way we have over recruited certain position groups. If it is, is the negative perception worth the slight increase in roster talent (assuming the tactic actually pays off)?

"I am probably too rational to be here"

I agree about weighing the potential roster benefits with the negative perception of losing players to the portal every year. I actually see this as really great way of using the portal to a team's advantage, and if this is indeed what the staff is doing, it's a pretty damn brilliant way of doing more with less. What better way to find diamonds in the rough than to bring in a bunch of guys, see how they respond to coaching and a few years in the program, then process them out if they don't turn out to be contributors. That processing of players in turn allows you to bring in more potential diamonds in the rough, and you end up with the high turnover we're seeing now.

Recruiting misses is a oft-used and incorrect term in a lot of cases. Typically, recruits fall into 4 categories (per most recruiting services). And there are sub-levels within the categories that should be considered too. (Not all 4* are the same, if you will.)

Just because a guy doesn't work out doesn't necessarily mean he's a recruiting miss. It may mean that for your system, the guy had potential (reason you recruited and signed him) but didn't develop into a consistent enough player to compete for playing time. If you look at the players currently in the transfer portal for Tech, you'll see a lot of 3* players who didn't develop into consistent enough performers to see the field in a large capacity. Some of them were recruited over/passed on the depth chart (as dc constantly likes to say). Some still want to play but realize they won't see the field here. And some just want/need to go somewhere else for whatever reason.

Before the transfer portal, this still happened a lot. It wasn't as public as it is now. There were lots of guys from Tech who ended up on G5 and FCS rosters who were released from scholarship or "graduated early".

Here are the descriptions of the categories from 247, Rivals, and ESPN for reference. Personally, I like ESPN's description because it's pretty easy to understand if you look at how guys perform on the field.

per 247

100 - 98 = Five-star prospect. One of the top 30 players in the nation. This player has excellent pro-potential and should emerge as one of the best in the country before the end of his career. There will be 32 prospects ranked in this range in every football class to mirror the first round of the NFL Draft.

97 - 90 = Four-star prospect. One of the top 300 players in the nation. This prospect will be an impact-player for his college team. He is an All-American candidate who is projected to play professionally.

89 - 80 = Three-star prospect. One of the top 10% players in the nation. This player will develop into a reliable starter for his college team and is among the best players in his region of the country. Many three-stars have significant pro potential.

79 - below = Two-star prospect. This player makes up the bulk of Division I rosters. He may have little pro-potential, but is likely to become a role player for his respective school.

per Rivals

6.1 โ€” 5-star/Franchise Player: considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 30-35 players overall, a potential first-team All American candidate and a player deemed to have first round NFL potential.

6.0-5.8 โ€” 4-star/All American Candidate: considered one of the next-tier elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 300-325 prospects overall, a national All American candidate and a player deemed to have first to third round NFL potential

5.7-5.5 โ€” 3-star/All Region Selection: considered among the region's top prospects and generally among the nation's top 800-850 prospects overall, a potential All-Conference candidate and a player deemed to have mid to low-end pro potential and ability to impact at the college level.

5.2-5.4 โ€” 2-star/Low End FBS prospect: considered a mid-major prospect with limited pro potential and expected to contribute 1-2 years at a high level maximum or often as a role player.

per ESPN

Rare prospects: 100-90 [Five stars]
These players demonstrate rare abilities and can create mismatches that have an obvious impact on the game. These players have all the skills to take over a game and could make a possible impact as true freshmen. They should also push for All-America honors with the potential to have a three-and-out college career with early entry into the NFL draft.

Outstanding prospects: 89-80 [Four stars]
These players have the ability to create mismatches versus most opponents and have dominant performances. These players could contribute as a true freshmen and could end up as all-conference or All-America candidates during their college careers and develop into difference-makers over time.

Good prospects: 79-70 [Three stars]
These players show flashes of dominance, but not on a consistent basis -- especially when matched up against the top players in the country. Players closer to a 79 rating possess BCS-caliber ability and the potential to be a quality starter or all-conference player. Players closer to a 70 rating are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects.

Solid prospects: 69-60 [Two stars]
These players are overmatched versus the better players in the nation. Their weaknesses will be exposed against top competition, but have the ability to develop into solid contributors at the non-BCS FBS level and could be a quality fit for the FCS level of play.

The short version? Google draft busts. That is all about guys who performed well in college, then, for whatever reason, didn't perform well in the pros. Talent evaluation just isn't a given. Skills don't always translate.

Having said that, if our 2021 class signs kids who are a lot more talented, I would expect there to be high turnover again. I will take new 4 and 5* talent over guys who will always be buried on the depth chart.

Just because a guy doesn't work out doesn't necessarily mean he's a recruiting miss.

I look at this sort of like the regulations on the maximum amount of trace toxic chemicals that are allowed to exist in the water supply. It's understood that it's impossible to have 100% of recruits work out, especially since there are only so many starting roles to give out. Similarly, you're not going to succeed at creating a product that is completely pure from contaminants. At some point though, we have to say that there's a level of attrition where you have to question our ability to identify and retain the talent we need to (especially when the on the field results are questionable), just as there's a certain point of contaminant where you say "this water is not safe to drink".

I think you make an interesting point about how attrition always existed, they just didn't manifest in the portal. But right now we can compare our transfer portal to other schools, and the numbers aren't good.

I'm confused on why you felt if valuable to break down the star rating system? How is that a response to the point I made? Did I indicate I didn't know the basics of the recruiting systems?

I think the recruiting star break down is to say that just because Keshon Artis (0.8769) isn't a week-in-week-out starter doesn't mean he was "a recruiting miss". You evaluate the recruit to gauge the likelihood of their success at the P5 level, and a "successful" evaluation of a 3* looks very very different than a "successful" evaluation of a 5*

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Makes sense, that's just a lot of text to make that point lol.

as an aside, Portal Snapshot anagrams to Asphalt Protons -- probably the next greatest discovery by a multidisciplinary VT research initiative to build better roads and reinvigorate american infrastructure.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

People who are looking for a concrete simple explanation probably will never be satisfied. Each football team has 85 scholarships and thus 85 different minds and opinions. It probably has something to do with culture, logistics, playing time, and recruiting strategy.

Bottom line, VT has a lot departure. They needed departure to make the numbers work. Fuente does not promote a culture of VT is the end all be all (we will never see a player like Etienne retain). Several of the departures lost playing time or never saw the field. And Fuente is banking (perhaps out of necessity) that the new recruits can perform better than those departing.

๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ

3 Things I see that justify our portal results over the last 3 years:

1) the transition of cultures between Beamer and Fuente
2) huge freshmen classes up till this year (rebuild and culture changes created logjams of 2nd and 3rd year players with no hope of moving up depth charts)
3) THE BIGGEST REASON: Our coaches past experience in recruiting. They had to adjust their expectations of talent/process/systems coming from a mid-major to an ACC school! In short- inexperience at the P5 level was not just our players! Our coaches were learning as well! (Sure hope that Kill made a huge difference in his time here!)

I am encouraged that the "cultural issues" seemed to have calmed down a great deal. Also, we seem to be creating better balance in our recruiting classes (our newest class won't be expected to play nearly as major of a role in the first year)

With Culture and balance seemingly in better shape. My hope is that the coaches can focus on continuing to improve talent in 2021 and beyond...

THE BIGGEST REASON: Our coaches past experience in recruiting. They had to adjust their expectations of talent/process/systems coming from a mid-major to an ACC school!

That was true for 1/2 the coaches, Foster and co were coaching and recruiting at a P5 since the inception of P5. Perhaps their style wasn't best for P5 (focus on VA, for better or worse), idk.

It also worth noting that hiring a G5 coach is typical for a vast majority of P5 coaching hires. And even for the blue bloods, the hiring is typically of a HC at a lower recruiting level. The major exception is hiring of P5 coordinators or position coaches.

๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ ๐Ÿฆƒ

I'm not overly concerned about our high portal numbers right now. It's only been around for a couple of years. In a few years, if we're still consistently in the top 3 without a coaching change, then I'll be worried.

I agree with you. It's easy to see that some of the transfers are directly tied to playing time. As mentioned in your second point.

Many of these kids have NFL dreams. If they get stuck in the depth chart and feel they deserve more time/touches I can understand them wanting to look elsewhere. Proper roster management has to be a focus going forward. We can't assume kids are going to be "team players" and ride the bench. If they do their dreams may pass them by, realistic or not.

Nice to see us #1 in the ACC finally /s

I like DC have concern about the ability to build depth. But, I also think it is partially by design. The side effect is that you won't have upperclassmen in the two deep, but you may have a better average of younger talent. I guess we have to wait and see if it works out.

"I am probably too rational to be here"

Multiple threads about players leaving Virginia Tech and me reading through these threads of people trying to rationalize why players leaving.

It's a whole new world out there with fantastic point of views...oh sorry, wrong movie. Carry on.

โ€œWho is this Fuentes person that you speak about?โ€ -McHokie540

Idk if it's been mentioned, but Miami's best QB last year and former top 100 recruit Jaren Williams has entered the portal.

Well, they did replace him with D'eriq King.

This would be a really good get

and someone named Eldrick Ward, who I've never heard of, were listed for the Hokies.

This is a quote from Andy. It's a breakdown of the impact of transfers. I think we need to look deeper than numbers. Do we really want to count non scholarships players as losses?

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

for what it's worth, i didn't count him.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

What I gather from this is that we just need to recruit better players that leave early for the NFL and then the potential transfers will all get their playing time and not enter the portal. I am not sure that the blue bloods have less transfers (look at Justin Fields, Joe Burrow, Tate Martell most recently) because they are winning, its just that they have a lot of guys who are only on the roster 3 years so the studs they recruit don't get frustrated with lack of PT and look elsewhere.

Maybe we'll get there. Probably in 2021. Yep! Thats the year!

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

Something to consider in all this is that Justin Fuente was a transfer

"I am probably too rational to be here"

Players leaving opens more scholarships.
In all P5 there are a lot of transfers.

#Let's Go - Hokies

Only a few years of this portal stuff got me feeling like:

Let's Go

HOKIES

Me too, brother. Me too.

Reel men fish on Wednesdays