forums

Honest Questions re: Recruiting

No_Fly_Zone

No_Fly_Zone

Rogue Gone Maude.
Maude
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
11,678
In the wake of this season's losses to l$u and UVAg, some of the attention has inevitably shifted to recruiting and the impact that winning consistently and putting players into the NFL has on recruiting. Maybe I am misreading the board, but there seems to be a general consensus here that we won't land the elite local recruits consistently until we start winning consistently. The board also (generally) agrees with the working theory that to get into the CFB playoffs and compete for championships, UM needs to have a blue-chip ratio of at least 50.1% (i.e., majority of the roster being 4*/5* guys). The general consensus also seems to be that Miami does not play the bag game to the level of schools like Baga, l$u, o$u, Texa$, Ole ****, and a host of others, and that if UM ever tried to step up to that level, the NCAA would obliterate us because we aren't an $ec, e$pn, or Emmert darling.

So my question is, other than bags, how are we supposed to develop into this program that consistently wins big and keeps elite local recruits home without the elite recruits necessary to win big consistently in college football? Is the answer to make this a long play by establishing better relationships with youth football programs in the tri-county area, so that we're making meaningful relationships with those kids and their parents years before the $martS and $abags of the world show up at their door? Would that even make a difference (and are we honestly that patient of a fanbase to allow a head coach that much time to put a plan in place)? I imagine a lot of the answers may address changing our offensive philosophy/identity, but I can't help think that's not enough (after all, we're losing out on tons of elite recruits on the defensive side of the ball, where we are killing it).

P.s. - I will add the "@Cane Dynasty Qualifier" to my question... assume we don't have access to a time machine and Butch Davis circa 1999, Jimmy Johnson circa 1988, or Howard Schnellenberger circa 1983.
 

Advertisement
The thing is relationships don't even matter when the big $chools get involved. Campbell last year coached by Rumph his whole life, we offered kids in 9th grade built relationships, and these kids bounce 2 weeks before signing day when bama come$ knocking. You have to be involved in it to get there, the problem is the $ec and especially Bama play with a stacked deck knowing there will be no blowback from the NCAA with Mark Emmertt in charge.
 
We have better talent than Virginia (and everyone else in our division, for that matter). We need to beat teams like that. There is no excuse for not being able to put up more than 13 points against a completely average ACC team, especially when the defense holds the opponent to 16 and gives the offense three extra possessions by way of takeaways.

There is no reason we shouldn't have gotten through this year's schedule with a loss to LSU and showed up in Charlotte to play Clem$on for the ACC Championship with 1 loss.

Until we start doing that, the rest of OP's question/post is moot.
 
I don't believe winning is the cure-all simply because we won't start winning all the games we're supposed to win, and maybe some we're not supposed to, until we can somehow overcome the bag game and achieve that 50.1% blue-chip ratio prescribed. Unless something changes in the recruiting landscape soon, it'll be an uphill battle for the foreseeable future.

It's obvious that Richt is making a concerted effort to establish relationships with the youth football leagues and high schools. That takes time. Especially since those relationships were extensively damaged by previous staffs. I'm reasonably certain there's not many coaches that understand the culture of high school football in SFL like Richt does. How soon those relationships begin to bear fruit is anybody's guess.

Recently, it's been shown that even when the U seems to have a recruit "locked in", one of the $$$ schools swoops in at the 11th hour and suddenly said recruit has an epiphany. Ingraham is a perfect example. It's a clear as the nose on my face why this transpired. As established as the bag game is, I'm not sure how the U can compete with it. Especially if the U's model is to run a clean program (almost out of necessity due to previous transgressions and the heavy scrutiny applied).

Drawing a line in the sand like Schennly did in the 80's is no longer an option. The cat is out of the "bag" now because many schools across the country know that SFL is one of, if not the most, fertile recruiting grounds in the country.

It's definitely an uphill battle to say the least.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
We have better talent than Virginia (and everyone else in our division, for that matter). We need to beat teams like that. There is no excuse for not being able to put up more than 13 points against a completely average ACC team, especially when the defense holds the opponent to 16 and gives the offense three extra possessions by way of takeaways.

There is no reason we shouldn't have gotten through this year's schedule with a loss to LSU and showed up in Charlotte to play Clem$on for the ACC Championship with 1 loss.

Until we start doing that, the rest of OP's question/post is moot.
Click to expand...
Virginia has NO offensive linemen listed higher than 3 stars in HS. Many of the OL-men are sophomores and they still play as a unit.
First, get the recruits. Virginia showed that you do not have to have 5 and even 4 star people to develop a solid offensive line. You juts need a good eye to spot the material. Purdue and Central Florida have shown this. If you look at their 3 star lines out of high school.
Second, have a coach that really knows how to develop them.
Until this problem is solved it will be a 4th year, then a 5th year, then a 6th year etc. of SOS
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
stb said:
Virginia has NO offensive linemen listed higher than 3 stars in HS. May of the OL-men are sophomores and they still play as a unit.
First, get the recruits. Virginia showed that you do not have to have 5 and even 4 star people to develop a solid offensive line. You juts need a good eye to spot the material. Purdue and Central Florida have shown this. If you look at their 3 star lines out of high school.
Second, have a coach that really knows how to develop them.
Until this problem is solved it will be a 4th year, then a 5th year, then a 6th year etc. of SOS
Click to expand...

isnt OL the hardest position to recruit bc stars truly dont tell the whole story with OL? what was the OL rated that gave up almost single digit sacks in the early 00s?
 
stb said:
Virginia has NO offensive linemen listed higher than 3 stars in HS. May of the OL-men are sophomores and they still play as a unit.
First, get the recruits. Virginia showed that you do not have to have 5 and even 4 star people to develop a solid offensive line. You juts need a good eye to spot the material. Purdue and Central Florida have shown this. If you look at their 3 star lines out of high school.
Second, have a coach that really knows how to develop them.
Until this problem is solved it will be a 4th year, then a 5th year, then a 6th year etc. of SOS
Click to expand...
Very true we cannot find a starting lineup in the offensive line midway into a season with guys that have had the same coach for years..
 
Advertisement
That’s what I’ve been preaching. You want to win but don’t have the kids to do it. We’ve recruited well in all positions except trenches. You need a lot of them cause you’re going to have to sit on some and drop some cause they don’t pan out. Everyone agrees that Neal is a must get because of the position he plays. Problem is that kids like Neal get broke off to the blue chip schools that have the brinks trucks.
No one has one a natty or has been a perennial playoff contender with out consistently getting a top 5 class and news flash those schools still manage to lose 1 or 2 game a year despite the talent discrepancy but the dudes that coach them are “legends”. Look at ucf with the longest winning streak in the nation with 2 coaches!!! No one is flocking to them. No 5 star recruits are tweeting to them to get an ov at ucf. Now more than ever it should be obvious what the game is.
 
pacusmc said:
That’s what I’ve been preaching. You want to win but don’t have the kids to do it. We’ve recruited well in all positions except trenches. You need a lot of them cause you’re going to have to sit on some and drop some cause they don’t pan out. Everyone agrees that Neal is a must get because of the position he plays. Problem is that kids like Neal get broke off to the blue chip schools that have the brinks trucks.
No one has one a natty or has been a perennial playoff contender with out consistently getting a top 5 class and news flash those schools still manage to lose 1 or 2 game a year despite the talent discrepancy but the dudes that coach them are “legends”. Look at ucf with the longest winning streak in the nation with 2 coaches!!! No one is flocking to them. No 5 star recruits are tweeting to them to get an ov at ucf. Now more than ever it should be obvious what the game is.
Click to expand...
Ucf isn't a big program and has no history.
 
Easy...stop losing games to teams you have more talent then.

Have a 70% winning % against the teams with equal or more talent.
 
Advertisement
252cane said:
Ucf isn't a big program and has no history.
Click to expand...
So then it’s not just about winning.

It’s about winning but winning against teams that are better than you.
It’s about wining and not losing to teams that are worse than you. And all teams do that even bama lost to auburn last year. But but tua....
It’s about coaching
It’s about relationships
It’s about performance on the filed
It’s about having a coach that has won a natty
It’s about cool looking ipf’s and facilities
It’s about the dorms
It’s about the nutrition program
It’s about an on campus stadium
It’s about tradition and history
It’s about the college experience
Its about getting the mom on board
It’s about getting dad on board
It’s about the women
It’s about getting away with murder and the coach covering it up
It’s about playing time.
It’s about texting them everyday.
It’s about academics
It’s about life after football

I think I’ll check out till after nsd. I’m even starting to annoy myself.
 
We have FAR more talent than any team in the Coastal. We should be like Wisconsin. Perennial division champ who loses in the Conf. Championship.
 
Lots of sky is falling here. I guarantee you that if we had coordinators/coaches that could scheme and maximize our talent, we wouldn't be having these conversations.
 
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
In the wake of this season's losses to l$u and UVAg, some of the attention has inevitably shifted to recruiting and the impact that winning consistently and putting players into the NFL has on recruiting. Maybe I am misreading the board, but there seems to be a general consensus here that we won't land the elite local recruits consistently until we start winning consistently. The board also (generally) agrees with the working theory that to get into the CFB playoffs and compete for championships, UM needs to have a blue-chip ratio of at least 50.1% (i.e., majority of the roster being 4*/5* guys). The general consensus also seems to be that Miami does not play the bag game to the level of schools like Baga, l$u, o$u, Texa$, Ole ****, and a host of others, and that if UM ever tried to step up to that level, the NCAA would obliterate us because we aren't an $ec, e$pn, or Emmert darling.

So my question is, other than bags, how are we supposed to develop into this program that consistently wins big and keeps elite local recruits home without the elite recruits necessary to win big consistently in college football? Is the answer to make this a long play by establishing better relationships with youth football programs in the tri-county area, so that we're making meaningful relationships with those kids and their parents years before the $martS and $abags of the world show up at their door? Would that even make a difference (and are we honestly that patient of a fanbase to allow a head coach that much time to put a plan in place)? I imagine a lot of the answers may address changing our offensive philosophy/identity, but I can't help think that's not enough (after all, we're losing out on tons of elite recruits on the defensive side of the ball, where we are killing it).

P.s. - I will add the "@Cane Dynasty Qualifier" to my question... assume we don't have access to a time machine and Butch Davis circa 1999, Jimmy Johnson circa 1988, or Howard Schnellenberger circa 1983.
Click to expand...


Hire Butch Davis
 
pacusmc said:
So then it’s not just about winning.

It’s about winning but winning against teams that are better than you.
It’s about wining and not losing to teams that are worse than you. And all teams do that even bama lost to auburn last year. But but tua....
It’s about coaching
It’s about relationships
It’s about performance on the filed
It’s about having a coach that has won a natty
It’s about cool looking ipf’s and facilities
It’s about the dorms
It’s about the nutrition program
It’s about an on campus stadium
It’s about tradition and history
It’s about the college experience
Its about getting the mom on board
It’s about getting dad on board
It’s about the women
It’s about getting away with murder and the coach covering it up
It’s about playing time.
It’s about texting them everyday.
It’s about academics
It’s about life after football

I think I’ll check out till after nsd. I’m even starting to annoy myself.
Click to expand...
For big programs winning is number 1. 10 of the top 12 teams in the ap top 25 are in the top 12 in 247 team talent composite rankings too.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
We have better talent than Virginia (and everyone else in our division, for that matter). We need to beat teams like that. There is no excuse for not being able to put up more than 13 points against a completely average ACC team, especially when the defense holds the opponent to 16 and gives the offense three extra possessions by way of takeaways.

There is no reason we shouldn't have gotten through this year's schedule with a loss to LSU and showed up in Charlotte to play Clem$on for the ACC Championship with 1 loss.

Until we start doing that, the rest of OP's question/post is moot.
Click to expand...

That's not how math works. Or football. The better team doesn't win every single time.

If we play Virginia 10 times, maybe we win 8 or 9 out of the ten. On the same note.... if we play 10 teams and we have an 80% probability of winning each game, then we should expect to win 8 and lose 2.

We're better than Virginia, but our odds of beating them were not 100%.

The better we recruit, the better our odds get of running the table and beating more teams that we are "supposed" to beat.

Fans get emotional and remember the Virginia game, but they forget the FIU, Toledo, etc games that we did win. We are not under-achieving. Vegas and the oddsmakers predicted 3 losses for us this year, and that's what we're on track for.

A random loss every now and then is to be expected.
 
Tee3000 said:
Easy...stop losing games to teams you have more talent then.

Have a 70% winning % against the teams with equal or more talent.
Click to expand...

The first part is much easier said than done. Every season more talented teams (by blue-chip ratio) lose to less talented teams. And every season talent-rich teams lose to talent-poor teams.

O$U has a 76% ratio and lost to Purdue by 4 TDs this year. USC has the third highest ratio in the country and lost to Texas (55%), Stanford, and Utah -- respectable teams, but teams with a much lower ratios. That clown show f$u actually has a higher ratio (67%) this year than they did last year, and they lost to us (46% ratio), VT, and Syracuse. Penn State (53%) lost to Michigan State and was an OT score away from losing to App State. Clemson (56% last year) lost to Syracuse last season. Clemson also lost to Pitt in 2016 (Clemson was 52% in 2016). L$U (65%) lost to Troy in 2017. And Michigan (61% last year) got worked by Wisconsin worse than we did last season despite having a 20 percentage points on us (Wisconsin is definitely a bit of an outlier, since they seem to do pretty well the last few years despite all the 2* and 3* players on their roster).

As to winning 70% of games against opponents with equal or more talent, last year we beat an f$u team (65% ratio) and a ND team (56% ) with higher blue-chip ratios than ours, and we throttled a VT team with similar talent, but obviously got smacked around by a more talented Clemson team. This year, Miami has a 46% ratio and we are 1-1 against teams with better talent than us. That makes us about 60% against teams with equal or more talent since the start of last season. It's not quite 70%, but I think 70% is a big ask anyway.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top