The List

[Pudge]

The Sports Illustrated chart of FBS schools who equaled UConn's number of 2005-2009 high school NSD players drafted by the NFL or less. Most ALL were less. Including peers Louisville & Syracuse. And surprisingly Arizona & Arizona State & UCLA.

The Point: not only did we have several two Stars rise ... We had dozens perform to a high college standard. Our recruiting NEEDS this kind of production. We got it from HCRE. And regardless of Stars, we lost that in the PP era. This top level football - defined by me as top 40 Program - is absolutely achievable by UConn without this "the kid had no other P5 offers" mindset. Why? Geography tells me that we ain't getting the talent evaluator attention.

Arizona
Arizona State
Arkansas State
Ball State
Boise State
Bowling Green
BYU
Buffalo
Central Michigan
Cincinnati
Colorado State
Duke
East Carolina
Eastern Michigan
Florida Atlantic
FIU
Fresno State
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Kansas State
Kent State
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisville
Marshall
Memphis
Miami (Ohio)
Middle Tennessee
Minnesota
Nevada
Northern Illinois
Ohio
Oregon State
Rice
South Florida
Southern Miss
Syracuse
Temple
Troy
Tulane
Tulsa
UCLA
UNLV
Utah State
Western Kentucky
Wyoming

 

[TRest]

I was hoping it was your list of posters who shall not be named.

 

[Pudge]

I was hoping it was your list of posters who shall not be named.

Have given that one to Santa Claus

 

[Adios]

One advantage we have is we attract and produce men who have solid character and are intelligent. Our academic and moral standards are high. That does help in the long term.

 

[whaler11]

Since UConn has joined an FBS conference their recruiting has been judged as mediocre to poor.

In FBS conference games UConn is 31-47 (.397)

So unless you've got a different goal in recruiting than winning college football games, I'd probably stop pretending that the results haven't aligned with how the recruiting has been judged.

Winning recruiting battles against better football programs than UConn has historically seems like a pretty fair desire for someone who would like to see the team win more than 40% of their games against some pretty mediocre conference opponents.

 

[DoctorWho85]

Didn't take long for this turn negative

 

[UconnFamily]

Since UConn has joined an FBS conference their recruiting has been judged as mediocre to poor.

In FBS conference games UConn is 31-47 (.397)

So unless you've got a different goal in recruiting than winning college football games, I'd probably stop pretending that the results haven't aligned with how the recruiting has been judged.

Winning recruiting battles against better football programs than UConn has historically seems like a pretty fair desire for someone who would like to see the team win more than 40% of their games against some pretty mediocre conference opponents.

Well said.

Also, just because "1 or 2" 2 star players out of schools full of 3, 4, and 5 star players go to the NFL (JJ Watt) doesn't mean we recruit a team full of 2 star guys. We need a team full of talent (3 and 4 stars) with a few projects (2 stars). I don't see how we can win a lot of games with a team full of projects. History and research show that teams who recruit well win regardless if they were ranked 30th or 40th its that simple, they still have 1 or 2 4 star players In those classes. I don't agree with the comment, we need to recruit projects because we're not in a position to recruit against p5 schools. I say that's being small minded, if Temple and other small programs can get 3 and 4 star commits then why can't we?

 

[UconnFamily]

Didn't take long for this turn negative

Negative?

 

[whaler11]

Negative?

Yes it's negative to point out that a school's record is the best metric to judge their recruiting.

 

[UConnDan97]

This is one of the subjects that I cannot believe that people get offended by. Of all the things we argue about on the Boneyard, this subject is probably the one that has the most data to support it.

And that data says that star ratings matter. Period. End of story. If you don't think that they matter, you are only kidding yourself. Can a 2-star kid go to the NFL? Yes. Can a 5-star kid wash out? Yes. Does a team with mostly 2-star kids beat a team with mostly 4 and 5-star kids more often than not? NO. Absolutely not. Look at the last ten years of data if you don't believe me.

Again, we need to find the absolute best 2-star and 3-star kids we can find, and continue to develop them and continue to improve so that we become a destination for the 4-star and 5-star kids. But to act like we don't need the 4-star and 5-star kids here to eventually win big is a ridiculous notion that should be thrown out with the trash...

 

[whaler11]

This is one of the subjects that I cannot believe that people get offended by. Of all the things we argue about on the Boneyard, this subject is probably the one that has the most data to support it.

And that data says that star ratings matter. Period. End of story. If you don't think that they matter, you are only kidding yourself. Can a 2-star kid go to the NFL? Yes. Can a 5-star kid wash out? Yes. Does a team with mostly 2-star kids beat a team with mostly 4 and 5-star kids more often than not? NO. Absolutely not. Look at the last ten years of data if you don't believe me.

Again, we need to find the absolute best 2-star and 3-star kids we can find, and continue to develop them and continue to improve so that we become a destination for the 4-star and 5-star kids. But to act like we don't need the 4-star and 5-star kids here to eventually win big is a ridiculous notion that should be thrown out with the trash...

And star ratings matter because they are a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Everyone gets bent out of shape when a UConn recruit picks up a star because some big program is on them.... who you are winning recruiting battles against matters.

It's not perfectly efficient - but if you can win recruiting battles against your peers you probably aren't going to win football games against them either.

 

[junglehusky]

pudge and whaler are both kind of right. UConn in that period (05-09) developed some NFL talent - Donald Brown, etc. It was in the same ball park as some of our peers the Big East, but let's be honest - I don't think we ever really had the depth throughout the roster of what could be considered a major college power team. Remember years of special teams problems? It's an indicator of lack of depth. Recruiting tailed down at the end of Edsall's tenure and whatever #uptick was supposed to happen under Pasqualoni never materialized on the field. The program has gone from mediocre to a mess in that time, leaving fans to try to assess the recruiting classes. I'm sure the guys in this class are all solid core players who Diaco will try to build on, but that is a multi-year strategy Fans like whaler want a faster turnaround and I think most of the folks on this board want that due to the conference situation. Pointing out the number of NFL guys is higher than a pile of G5 schools with some mediocre P5 schools sprinkled in (Arizona and Minnnesota's turnarounds were recent) is not indicative of anything in the future.

Here's a chart that I think explains where things have to go.

Look at the neighborhood we are in. SMU, Toledo, ECU, SDSU, LaTech, oh and syracuse. Not quite what you'd call elite company. Actually this data is including older seasons and if you were to re-plot it with only the past 2-4 seasons UConn would be a lot closer to the bottom left corner. UConn has to get back to the top 40 territory in the rankings (y-axis), whether we do that by slightly outperforming our recruiting (x-axis) where Cincinnati and BYU are, or by getting star athletes that don't translate to top 25 rankings (Miami, Michigan), I don't care. But there is a very clear relationship between recruiting and wins. Even with the caveat that the star system is flawed due to being driven by subscriptions, it's still not outlandish to expect UConn to start beating out at least our peer AAC schools for recruits and hopefully some quote-unquote P5 schools. I'm not as hung up on whether they have offers or not, if they have "interest" from the likes of Pitt, Rutgers, BC, Penn State and a few powerhouse names that's probably good enough for me, but that's a matter of personal preference.

 

[UConnDan97]

pudge and whaler are both kind of right. UConn in that period (05-09) developed some NFL talent - Donald Brown, etc. It was in the same ball park as some of our peers the Big East, but let's be honest - I don't think we ever really had the depth throughout the roster of what could be considered a major college power team.

UConn resides below the median in both statistics, and you believe that the graph makes Pudge and Whaler "both kinda right"???

No. It makes Whaler right and Pudge wrong. And Pudge practically proves he's wrong by bringing up Louisville. Pudge is pointing at Louisville between the years of 2005 - 2009, which also contained the Kragthorpe years within it. Here is what a Kragthorpe recruiting class looked like:

https://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/louisville-100

Notice anything? One 4-star recruit and a lot of 2-star recruits in that class. Now, here's a Charlie Strong class in 2011 at Louisville, when they started to enjoy a great deal more success:

https://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/louisville-100

Notice anything? Four 4-star recruits, including Heisman Trophy candidate Teddy Bridgewater, and only one 2-star recruit.

I appreciate you finding that map, but it only further drives home the point that Whaler is right on this one and Pudge isn't...

 

[whaler11]

The graph looks like an example of correlation in a stats 101 class. And that's because.... it's self-fulling because it's based on offers.

 

[whaler11]

The other thing you could take from that grid is that...

Stanford, Boise, Oregon, Wisconsin, Northern Illinois and Cincinnati have been well coached. Shocker.

 

[junglehusky]

UConn resides below the median in both statistics, and you believe that the graph makes Pudge and Whaler "both kinda right"???

No. It makes Whaler right and Pudge wrong. And Pudge practically proves he's wrong by bringing up Louisville. Pudge is pointing at Louisville between the years of 2005 - 2009, which also contained the Kragthorpe years within it. Here is what a Kragthorpe recruiting class looked like:

https://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/louisville-100

Notice anything? One 4-star recruit and a lot of 2-star recruits in that class. Now, here's a Charlie Strong class in 2011 at Louisville, when they started to enjoy a great deal more success:

https://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/louisville-100

Notice anything? Four 4-star recruits, including Heisman Trophy candidate Teddy Bridgewater, and only one 2-star recruit.

I appreciate you finding that map, but it only further drives home the point that Whaler is right on this one and Pudge isn't...

The graph doesn't make Pudge right, obviously. But his point about UConn (i.e. Edsall) developing overlooked players into NFL caliber athletes is valid. There were times in the Big East that Edsall had UConn a little more to the right and a little closer to the top 40 on the y-axis. I think UConn can get there again. I thought I was clear that recruiting has to get better, though I'll add the bar for Diaco's recruiting has to do higher than Edsall at his peak here.

 

[UconnFamily]

The other thing you could take from that grid is that...

Stanford, Boise, Oregon, Wisconsin, Northern Illinois and Cincinnati have been well coached. Shocker.

Stanford, Oregon, Wisconsin, Northern Illinois, and Cincinnati all get high 3, 4, and 5 star recruits with some 2's scatted in there. Even if these schools recruiting class are ranked in the 30, 40, or 50's they still have those good 3 and 4 star athletes we need to compete consistently.

 

[whaler11]

Stanford, Oregon, Wisconsin, Northern Illinois, and Cincinnati all get high 3, 4, and 5 star recruits with some 2's scatted in there. Even if these schools recruiting class are ranked in the 30, 40, or 50's they still have those good 3 and 4 star athletes we need to compete consistently.

Wisconsin runs an offensive line factory with an AD who can step out of his office and win bowl games.

Oregon and Cincinnati win on being coaching factories.

Stanford has a niche that can't be duplicated.

If I'm never right about anything else I wanted P gone to hire Dave Doeren - NC State made the hire of the decade with him.

 

[UconnFamily]

The graph doesn't make Pudge right, obviously. But his point about UConn (i.e. Edsall) developing overlooked players into NFL caliber athletes is valid. There were times in the Big East that Edsall had UConn a little more to the right and a little closer to the top 40 on the y-axis. I think UConn can get there again. I thought I was clear that recruiting has to get better, though I'll add the bar for Diaco's recruiting has to do higher than Edsall at his peak here.

Not all coaches can do what Edsall did. Edsall did a really good job coaching the guys up, but at the same time we still had a hard time beating teams with really good recruiting classes.

 

[whaler11]

Not all coaches can do what Edsall did. Edsall did a really good job coaching the guys up, but at the same time we still had a hard time beating teams with really good recruiting classes.

Some day people will understand how great a job Edsall did at UConn.

 

[TRest]

Stanford, Oregon, Wisconsin, Northern Illinois, and Cincinnati all get high 3, 4, and 5 star recruits with some 2's scatted in there. Even if these schools recruiting class are ranked in the 30, 40, or 50's they still have those good 3 and 4 star athletes we need to compete consistently.

Not Northern Illinois and Cincy.

 

[UConnDan97]

Not Northern Illinois and Cincy.

???

Count the amount of 3-star athletes that Cincy has had over the last 8 - 10 years and compare that to us. Count the amount of 4-star athletes that they've had and compare them to us. Sure, Cincy's recruiting classes don't look like a B1G team's class, but they look a lot higher ranked than ours. And it's odd how that has correlated to their vast amount of success in the Big East and the American conferences respectively...

 

[UconnFamily]

Not Northern Illinois and Cincy.

Okay maybe not N. Illinoise, but they've been blessed with some really good coaches. In addition to that the level of talent their opponents have are at the same level as them. When they played Florida State they got destroyed because the talent level was not the same.

 

[TRest]

???

Count the amount of 3-star athletes that Cincy has had over the last 8 - 10 years and compare that to us. Count the amount of 4-star athletes that they've had and compare them to us. Sure, Cincy's recruiting classes don't look like a B1G team's class, but they look a lot higher ranked than ours. And it's odd how that has correlated to their vast amount of success in the Big East and the American conferences respectively...

I find that surprising, but don't follow recruiting whatsoever. We were usually one of the worst recruiting teams in the BE, so it makes sense.

 

[Kgun7]

Under the current circumstances, HCBD is not going to win any recruiting battles against multi-star/multi-offer recruits. It will not happen. Period. So why waste his efforts attempting the improbable.

The only way he can turn this thing around is to scour the landscape for over looked/under appreciated talent. Take advantage of unique situations where recruits have another reason to come to UCONN. Then he has to start winning and let his results do his recruiting for him.

If HCBD has half of Edsall's eye for talent and twice his salesmanship he has a puncher's chance.