As bad as the AAC is..

[freescooter]

Pudge, I'm inclined to agree with you which is scary for both I would guess. Except that Wannstadt was in a whole different class than the other two you mentioned. Actually Pasqualoni in his Syracuse days was too, really. Robinson was a mess. Though he came with a big rep as a brilliant offensive mind, whatever that means. I'd sign for Wanstadt in a New York minute today. He actually lost 2 Big East titles, which people forget, on the last day of the year. Went 10-2 one year too. He wasn't great but he rebuilt Pitt.

 

[Alum86]

I'm with Noey. If we are going to s*ck, let's lose 73-70 instead of 7-3.
No more repeats of the USF fiasco last year.

 

[noeynox]

Didn't have to be Whipple. Could have been Tom Herman instead of Diaco.

Whipple at least injected some life into UMass. Like TJ Weist did the last 3 games of 2013. Last year was,tough on the die hard fan, forget the casual fan.

If Bob wins 7-3, I'd prefer that than losing 73-70, but when you lose in the most unimaginative way possible, and your sitting on those bleachers like a frozen popsicle, you want to punch yourself in the face.

 

[Pudge]

From a UConn perspective, I thought Wannstedt teams were beatable. Regularly. He recruited Western PA well. Robinson was a disaster in 20 ways. And Pasqualoni - at UConn - was just dumb. BE - to me - gave us many opportunities to take games.

As for Offensive explosions ... I'm not sure UConn is set to Win that game. In the Northeastern Weather, we can play Giants & Patriot style ... This league will have a tough time with that. I'd vote against Whipple-like guys ... Unless you could guarantee me a Chip Kelly. Hermann? He ain't going to Connecticut. He spent decades in Texas before Ohio State; I see that as a guy wouldn't take the call.

The USF disaster? I'm not sure we had options. That's the funny thing. If you can't block for a passing attack (and that was horrific) you go to plan B or D or H or some other. No options

 

[Fishy]

The USF disaster? I'm not sure we had options...

You have to admit that it's pretty rare to see a team take all of its options off the table three minutes after running out of the tunnel.

 

[Pudge]

I'd say it was 10 minutes playing time.

But it was early. And the deficiencies were huge. Hmm ...

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Honestly at this point who knows. UConn Football as Pudge mentioned may be at its all time low point. A bad UConn program, in a bad league, surrounded by P5 teams has an uphill battle to climb.

I still say there's a huge gap between beating the regional P5 programs for recruits and then bringing in kids with maybe a FCS only offer.

It doesn't mean the kid won't be good or that Diaco can't be good but on the macro level it's going to be tough to rebound to respectability with that caliber recruit.

What bothers me now than anything is you point out our recruiting ranks and the first response is always a handful of players at UConn that achieved more than peer programs and recruiting sites predicted.

I love the program but we've had, what two winning conference records in 12 years? That speaks volumes.

 

[Pudge]

I love the program but we've had, what two winning conference records in 12 years? That speaks volumes.

I think I see a big gap in OUR respective view.

And this bothers me a lot.

PP and a crap first Diaco year. (Lots of programs have these disaster periods - ours wasn't as bad as some I'd opine)

But I'm hugely proud of going from 1999 to that Fiesta Bowl. And a bunch of other bowls. If you're standing next to me saying we suck - we only had two Winning Conference records, I'm going to roll my eyes.

We had the right formula to get far better - than Edsall's best. We've lost our way. I don't think we sucked for the last 12 years. I don't accept that view.

 

[huskymedic]

What bothers me now than anything is you point out our recruiting ranks and the first response is always a handful of players at UConn that achieved more than peer programs and recruiting sites predicted.

How 'bout this then?

SBNation 10:03am via TweetDeck
We made a team exclusively out of 2-star recruits. It is better than many NFL teams.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/6/22/8743525/nfl-two-star-recruits

Couldn't resist - it just came out this morning (even has a UConn mention).

 

[ConnHuskBask]

But I'm hugely proud of going from 1999 to that Fiesta Bowl. And a bunch of other bowls. If you're standing next to me saying we suck - we only had two Winning Conference records, I'm going to roll my eyes.

We had the right formula to get far better - than Edsall's best. We've lost our way. I don't think we sucked for the last 12 years. I don't accept that view.

I never said or even implied we sucked, that I wasn't proud of our two conference titles while earning a BCS bid.

From 2007 to 2010 we had good to very good football teams in a competitive Big East. We still went 3-4 in two of those seasons.

I'm also saying we finished last or near last in recruiting in our league nearly every year and I think there is a high correlation between that and our league records. I find 2007 and 2010 to be exceptions rather than the rules.

Edsall had a great eye for talent and had discipline teams that won the games we should and very rarely had the firepower to upset the good WVU and Cincinnati teams.

I find it hard to reconcile saying

A) Randy had the formula for UConn football

B) Saying we can get much better than what he took us, using his formula.

I think the argument could be made that Edsall had a winning formula to be competitive (a huge accomplishment here) and that if you wanted to get better, you needed a big time recruiter to get more highly rated prospects.

I don't think following the Edsall method is a blueprint, but it's an exception to the rule around CFB.

 

[UConnNick]

Right now, I don't think it is realistic to expect UConn to win recruiting battles against BC, Syracuse, or Rutgers. Most high school kids that have offers from P5 schools and G5 schools are going to choose the P5 school. Especially over a G5 school that doesn't win football games. It's natural for athletes to want to try and play at the highest level possible. Lets face it, the AAC is double A and the P5 are the major leagues. UConn needs to focus on getting the kids that are a rung or two down on the talent level and then make them better. We need to out recruit UMass in our region, make sure we are getting the kids on that next rung and not them. If we do that, and win football games on the field, then you will see our recruiting start to improve. It's going to take time, but we can do it.

I find the comment that "We need to out recruit UMass in our region, ..." as one of the most disconcerting remarks I've ever seen here.

 

[whaler11]

I got into the Edsall formula earlier.

You'll find few stronger supporters of Rangoon than I, that being said:

Some of the success from 07-10 can be attributed to being in a small league where half the programs made huge hiring mistakes. Maybe the AAC could break where programs in the division all share the same down period - but outside of 2009, even the good teams were completely exposed when playing up.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

I got into the Edsall formula earlier. You'll find few stronger supporters of Rangoon than I, that being said: Some of the success from 07-10 can be attributed to being in a small league where half the programs made huge hiring mistakes. Maybe the AAC could break where programs in the division all share the same down period - but outside of 2009, even the good teams were completely exposed when playing up.

Of course you can find excuses for why we played well. Look hard enough and you'll find them. You're an expert at that, Debbie.

 

[junglehusky]

Formula 2011 is not a good bet if the goal is to be a 9+ win team and challenge the big names of college football the way Boise or TCU did. But let's not delude ourselves. That is a silly goal right now. Formula 2011 should be enough to get UConn to bowl eligibility. That's all I care about for the immediate future.

 

[whaler11]

Of course you can find excuses for why we played well. Look hard enough and you'll find them. You're an expert at that, Debbie.

So if the topic is what type of strategy would UConn use to be successful... and if what Edsall did was repeatable... you should ignore the things outside of your control that helped.

Just sit back and hope that a decent percentage of coaches in the league are worse hires than Paul Pasqualoni.

Why discuss what really happened and instead just call people names.

 

[06029]

PP and a crap first Diaco year. (Lots of programs have these disaster periods - ours wasn't as bad as some I'd opine)...
We had the right formula to get far better - than Edsall's best. We've lost our way. I don't think we sucked for the last 12 years. I don't accept that view.

Okay, I'll bite, who had a worse mess in the 5 seasons after a BCS year and replacing a departing coach?

What was that formula? It certainly involved an upgrade in recruiting talent. For lack of a better evaluation tool, I am using Rivals and their national recruiting rankings for Uconn -
2004 #99
2005 #80
2006 #86
2007 #65
2008 #71
2009 #76
2010 #84
2011 #102 (the abyss part 1; 16 players)
2012 #78 (bounce back year for PP; big prize was Cochran)
2013 #65 (huge class with 25 players helps the ranking; also creates part of the # crunch today).
2014 #117 The abyss part II; 15 players)
2015 #100 (22 players)

While the evidence is not 100% consistent, it does say that if the strategy/formula is building a team that has under rated players with a few higher rated players mixed in, then getting recruiting to stay consistently in the 65-80 range is important. The 2014 and 2015 classes my be long on heart, effort and buy in but they need to significantly over perform. With this year being a small class, there can not be too many fliers.

 

[rich1122]

The staff "getting a pass" for this may just be us being used to it. We have never beat out our conference mates for recruits consistently. In terms of the percentage of recruits with offers from any FBS school, the percentage of kids in the 2015 class with other offers is exactly that of the 2008 class. The 2007 class had a higher percentage, but several of them (Nixon, Miller, Russell, A.J. Johnson) never made it to campus or never suited up. The 2009 class had 11/21, but 2 of them never showed and 3 of them had only an offer from Army, a clear step down at a time when we were playing in the Big East.

Not only did we have a low ranking we get a low % of kids to finish the program - play 4 years. Take a look at the 2009 class and ask yurself man we lost soooo many kids. Either did not suit up, quit, left for grades. This was beginnng of the end and is the reason we are not where we re. We had low ranking before and kids like Twyon Martin became pretty good player. Stephan, Thomas. If you draft kids that are as develped as the 4-stars then you have to have them stay and develop not quit. Look at Robert MacLain. I mean we get no more Robert Maclains. Kid gets moved from RB to CB, blows out the combine, and gets to the NFL. Why? He played 4 years, and developed though the program.

Hope the link works. Scout is tough.

http://www.scout.com/college/uconn/...&minimumInterest=SoftVerbal&sortBy=CommitDate

 

[Excalibur]

I got into the Edsall formula earlier.

You'll find few stronger supporters of Rangoon than I, that being said:

Some of the success from 07-10 can be attributed to being in a small league where half the programs made huge hiring mistakes. Maybe the AAC could break where programs in the division all share the same down period - but outside of 2009, even the good teams were completely exposed when playing up.

Maybe, but I think that the recruiting talent gaps, top to bottom, were far larger then, particularly with Pitt, WVU, and to a lesser extent RU putting together deep classes. Also, the conference was dominated in those years by Cincinnati, a team stocked in those years with players with only MAC and or FCS offers. I also think that the 2008 and 2010 UConn teams under-performed their talent level.

 

[Pudge]

Recruiting rankings? What? Rivals? I'm taking back the 100 posts I've written about this. There is NO correlation between our Edsall years and anything from Rivals. Just nonsense.

My view: Every year Athlon or Sporting News would have us 65-90 in their Annual preseason magazine. (Often this was a view of talent and ... Recruiting rankings). Every year ... My view was we were 35-55. We consistently over performed what Rivals/Scout/ ESPN pegged our talent. With some notable bigger upsets.

Were the recruiting rankings valid? There's no rigor in how they do these. And New England - in particular - was poorly judged. I'm not having this argument repeatedly with you. Read your crap. I think ... Diaco & Co are a good staff. I'm hopeful beyond reason.

 

[06029]

I do not disagree that the Edsall teams consistently outperformed ranking, similar to the way the Willingham, Weiss ND teams under perfromed their rankings.

So what is the formula? Superior coaching? Superior talent evaluation? Edsall and his staff were very good on both. BD is a work in progress and probably needs until 2017 for his abilities with either to be proved or found to be lacking.

Things to like, his ability to grab two decent transfers including 1 that should be a 300% improvement at QB versus the last 4 years. Things to not like, he did not show an ability to coach up existing talent at all and very weak overall recruiting that puts Uconn near the bottom of FBS. Agree or disagree with their methodology (and there is a lot to disagree with) it is hard to ignore that the recruiting is subpar at this point versus the balance of the AAC. So the coaching needs to be off the charts better.

I am glad you are hopeful. That is what every fan should be deep down. After last season, hope is the only thing left. The kids are a year older, stronger (hopefully) and the coaches more focused on how to win over developing a process and a culture that (hopefully) took hold last year. I have hope that I will lose 50 pounds in the next year. Some hopes are more realistic than others.

In the summer before the season, a perfect season is out there to be achieved.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

There is a different purpose to the coaching this year.

 

[Confident Carl]

G

Okay, I'll bite, who had a worse mess in the 5 seasons after a BCS year and replacing a departing coach?

What was that formula? It certainly involved an upgrade in recruiting talent. For lack of a better evaluation tool, I am using Rivals and their national recruiting rankings for Uconn -
2004 #99
2005 #80
2006 #86
2007 #65
2008 #71
2009 #76
2010 #84
2011 #102 (the abyss part 1; 16 players)
2012 #78 (bounce back year for PP; big prize was Cochran)
2013 #65 (huge class with 25 players helps the ranking; also creates part of the # crunch today).
2014 #117 The abyss part II; 15 players)
2015 #100 (22 players)

While the evidence is not 100% consistent, it does say that if the strategy/formula is building a team that has under rated players with a few higher rated players mixed in, then getting recruiting to stay consistently in the 65-80 range is important. The 2014 and 2015 classes my be long on heart, effort and buy in but they need to significantly over perform. With this year being a small class, there can not be too many fliers.

Nice effort, thanks for the research.

 

[Carl Spackler]

There is a different purpose to the coaching this year.

You know this or just hoping?

I'm hopeful that the purpose is different no matter what, because last season didnt work to generate wins.