Thread: I m so proud of Our In State Recruiting efforts

Makes me proud to be a UA Football fan:

Who are the worst in-state recruiters? - Pac-12 Blog - ESPN

not surprising really. the fact that ASU was able to go 2-12 is shocking considering the time frame.

Wow I thought Ka'Deem carey was a top 150 recruit. Oh well that sucks.

Rich Rod will change this.

Originally Posted by IT'S MILLER TIME

Rich Rod will change this.

Well we've set the bar pretty damn low so I would hope so.

I also thought adam hall and marquis flowers were top 150

Originally Posted by AztecWildcat

Wow I thought Ka'Deem carey was a top 150 recruit. Oh well that sucks.

Carey was rated high by 1 of the 3 recruting services. I forget which one. Flowers was the AZ Gatorade player of the year, as was Carey I believe. I don't really believe in rankings because it seems every year when they do the "re-ranking 2008 etc" article there are about 2-3 schools that stay in the top 10 (and usually in a new order) and all the others are new and were seriously miss-judged. My opinion has always been about development. It's how you develop that 3* recruit and IF that 3* recruit wants to be developed. It's equally important how you develop that 5* recruit. Georgia seems to have a top 5 class every year yet that talent doesn't have us talking about the Bulldogs in the preseason as a national title contender. UCLA put together some very nice classes under Nuheisel (sp). That talent didn't translate to the field. Also, someone like RR is a system guy. Not a bad thing in college football, but he is reliant on specific types of players. Those players are not always ranked in the top 100. CAVEAT: RR would take a top 100 in a heart beat and they would do well in his system, just making a generalization that you often need the 19th rated QB for your system because Andrew Luck doesn't fit.

Anyway, ESPN published this: CFB - Why blue-chip recruiting classes do not transform programs - ESPN

If you have insider it's a good read. If you don't or have D54's attention span I will sum it up here.

"(There is) no correlation between the number of recruits with three or more stars on an FBS team and its subsequent winning percentages."

Originally Posted by Catman

I also thought adam hall and marquis flowers were top 150

not by ESPN. Maybe someone else. Flowers was an Under Armour all american. But that's different

Originally Posted by Palpalife

Carey was rated high by 1 of the 3 recruting services. I forget which one. Flowers was the AZ Gatorade player of the year, as was Carey I believe. I don't really believe in rankings because it seems every year when they do the "re-ranking 2008 etc" article there are about 2-3 schools that stay in the top 10 (and usually in a new order) and all the others are new and were seriously miss-judged. My opinion has always been about development. It's how you develop that 3* recruit and IF that 3* recruit wants to be developed. It's equally important how you develop that 5* recruit. Georgia seems to have a top 5 class every year yet that talent doesn't have us talking about the Bulldogs in the preseason as a national title contender. UCLA put together some very nice classes under Nuheisel (sp). That talent didn't translate to the field. Also, someone like RR is a system guy. Not a bad thing in college football, but he is reliant on specific types of players. Those players are not always ranked in the top 100. CAVEAT: RR would take a top 100 in a heart beat and they would do well in his system, just making a generalization that you often need the 19th rated QB for your system because Andrew Luck doesn't fit.

Anyway, ESPN published this: CFB - Why blue-chip recruiting classes do not transform programs - ESPN

If you have insider it's a good read. If you don't or have D54's attention span I will sum it up here.

"(There is) no correlation between the number of recruits with three or more stars on an FBS team and its subsequent winning percentages."

I'd like to see what correlations are related to high winning percentages then.

Originally Posted by AztecWildcat

I'd like to see what correlations are related to high winning percentages then.

in this article, they are saying that high winning percentages are due to coaching and development of players. Because of the subjectivity of recruiting rankings, they are basically saying that a team loaded in 3* players can be just as good as a team loaded in 5* players because of the physical development needed in football that is absent in most other sports. Done properly, and in the right system, you can build yourself a solid team regardless of rankings.

EDIT: The belief that success is due to development and coaching is also subjective. What that means, is according to that article they could not find any correlation to recruiting and winning percentages so they just chalked it up to coaching.

Originally Posted by AztecWildcat

I'd like to see what correlations are related to high winning percentages then.

How were the Super Bowl players ranked as recruits? « HolyTurf

Ok i may have been a little hard on the in state stuff. First of all, we are pulling from an extremely small sample size when compared to states like TX and CA.There has only been 12 kids as opposed to CA where at least 20 kids a year are ranked in the top 100. The instate efforts of Cal and Stanford look worse considering the the fact these top 150 kids are in their backyard. AZ needs more kids so that we can get a more accurate representation.

Now if AZ keeps growing like it does, and UA'S in state recruiting continues to suck then I wont make any excuses.