Developing Players: The Last 4 Recruiting Classes

[UConnJim]

In my opinion, UConn is a player development program as players in the Northeast don't play as much football as kids in other areas of the country. This doesn't mean kids in the Northeast aren't good athletes, but they are not as developed as in other parts of the country and are probably under-recruited and not highly rated as football players.

The key to being a player development program is keeping players in the program so that they can be developed into good football players. Unfortunately, the previous 4 recruiting classes shows some problems with retention and small classes due to coaching transitions.

2011: Mix of Edsall and PP. 5/16 left early, 2 were PP recruits (2 out of his 3 commits) and 1 a QB to play in FCS. Not bad retention, but small class..

2012: All PP. 10/23 left early or were injured or used up his eligibility (1). Not good retention.

2013: All PP. 8/25 didn't show up or left early. Five didn't show up or were gone by September 2013 and all 8 lasted one year or less in the program. Terrible.

2014: Mix of PP and Diaco. 1/15 has left the program due to injury (PP recruit.) Small class, but good retention so far.

The 2014 results are encouraging and based on what we are hearing about the bonding of this year's class, I'm encouraged that Diaco understands his mission as a developer of talent.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Football is the kind of sport where you need some sort of athletic ability, but you can pick up the sport and become a very good player at really any time in life.

This is why I don't really buy the "developmental" label for the UCONN program, or more generally - to any Northeast based program.

Where a player is developmentally during their eligibility? That's what's really the crux I think. High school players that enter a program after playing football year round as kids and through high school, very well are more developed in fundamentals and skills than players that haven't played year round. No doubt. But what does that say about their ability to continue to develop and improve as their bodies continue to grow? Interesting question no?

It's fact that 14-18 year old kids are not physically, emotionally and mentally as developed as 18-22 year olds. In all respects. Because a kid at age 18, may have better mental and physical skills when it comes to some things, says very little about where they will be when they are 22 years old - physically, mentally, emotionally. In fact, it's possible that when a player comes in at a very high level of say 'football' at age 18 - they may not have much more to go to reach the 'ceiling.'

I absolutely agree, that the only way a player can acutally have the opportunity to develop, is to stay in the program. Attrition will always happen, but the players that stay, need to develop. its a two way street, coaches coach and players play - together they all develop.

What it really boils down to - is that success in player talent acquisition comes from having a definition of what player talent is, and the more detailed and exacting those definitions are as to various criteria - the better. And most importantly, once you have that definition - you do not waiver from it.

IT's much different in college than in professional football, if you read and research it. Because in college, you need to identify traits and characteristics that fit the player that do not involve football only, if you actually do have any value on the academic side of the athletic mission to develop young men through the game of football and get an education that can help you be productive member of society.

Bottom line: So far through 1 full calendar year and counting now, I am impressed with Diaco's recruiting plan, to identify player talent and do it within a complete plan for the football program with an academic institution mission. The only thing that remains to be seen is the speed of these players once they actually get on the field.

I've written it several times, if these guys who's names will be coming in tomorrow on the fax machine signed are as fast as they are big, for the level we want to be at? Very, very nice. No way to know for us - until we see them play.

What I am not impressed with, is Diaco's plan so far to put the players we have in position to succeed on the playing field and win games. You are what your record says you are there.

He does have the opportunity to change it, and I hope he does.

 

[Carl Spackler]

FWIW: One more post, then I'm out for today again. Excited for tomorrow.

I was part of a long discussion many moon ago about recruiting. Breaking down numbers, attrition, et. al.

What was found, is that the attrition that Edsall had over 12 years was no different than Pasqualoni's rate of attrition through 2 cycles. Within the 12 year recruiting cycle for Edsall, there were 2, four year cycles which began with large classes, maximum scholarships per NLI rules in a single year. Through 2008-2010, Edsall had let the numbers dwindle in excess from what happened in approx. 2000-2001 and then again in 2005-2006 if I recall correctly, but a large class for Feb 2011, would have kept things going in his cycle.

To his credit, I believe Edsall was well aware of all this, and had he not had another job offer to leave, we would have brought in an adequate class in Feb 2011, but he did know he was leaving, and he stopped recruiting the adequate volume of players.

What you can clearly see - looking at Pasqualoni's two classes above, from a numbers standpoint (and remembering that he had players backed up in prep schools) is that he was bringing in maximum numbers for two straight classes, but then we got another small class with the coaching changeover to Diaco. That third class from Pasqualoni maxed out per NLI rules would have brought us back to adequate numbers.

Diaco will have us back to adequate numbers and not be needing to max out NLI recruiting every year by next fall 2016. What he's doing with PWO status in-state so far is great.

(maxing out your new scholarships every season is not going to allow players to remain in the program and develop)

What remains to be seen, is how it all translates to performance on game day - and that unfortunately is what it all hinges on, and has been the weakest part of the new regime - it's got to change, come September.

 

[UConnJim]

Appreciate the feedback, but i don't remember Edsall classes losing so many players so fast. Five players leaving/not showing up within months of signing day? If you assume 85 scholarships and 5 years worth of players on the roster, that equals 17 players per year. Look at the sizes of the classes after attrition: 2011 is 11, 2012 is 13, 2013 is 17, and 2014 is 14. These are bad numbers. The roster needs this and another recruiting class to be replenished with players.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Appreciate the feedback, but i don't remember Edsall classes losing so many players so fast. Five players leaving/not showing up within months of signing day? If you assume 85 scholarships and 5 years worth of players on the roster, that equals 17 players per year. Look at the sizes of the classes after attrition: 2011 is 11, 2012 is 13, 2013 is 17, and 2014 is 14. These are bad numbers. The roster needs this and another recruiting class to be replenished with players.

I guess I'm not done yet for today, I am excited for tomorrow.

Anyway it was a surprise to see it, because the perception is that Pasqualoni was losing a lot of players. The perception is such, because Pasqualoni only had 2 full cycles, and was starting with a team that was deficient. It did not seem Edsall had that kind of attrition, because of his longevity at the program, and the longer 4 year cycles he produced. The 2010 NLI annual cycle, for him was his 12th cycle at UCONN, and should have produced a max size class, to keep his program going the way it had with recruiting numbers, and it was smaller than any of his previous classes when he left as of Jan. 2011.

The attrition rates, never really changed - the class sizes did.

That goes back to your premise of "development" and keeping kids in the program. You only have 85 scholarships. If you are bringing in 25 new recruits every year, there is not way that everyone can have a full 4 or 5 years of eligibility to develop.

Edsall was not doing that - maxing out every year. Pasqualoni did max out for 2 years, and when Diaco got here, he found a program where "seniors were no different than freshmen" developmentally.

It's all being corrected by Diaco - and it's great.

But once again the bottom line, is that only wins that really count, are the ones you can get in the fall, and there are only 12 opportunities every year. It's 8 months until we get another opportunity.

Diaco did a bad job of preparing the program for those opportunities to win, and everything that's being done to right the program will be for naught, if he doesn't change that.

Got to change that for the better.

 

[uconnell]

I am excited for the football season to start and hopefully Diaco will have the team we will be happy with (winning).