Theories on recruiting improvement? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Theories on recruiting improvement?

Exit 4 said:
I think it’s staff continuity. A stable staff is more productive. I also think the exciting schedule and the strong effort by the young guys on the staff is working. Having a national TV deal is also important. But I think it all starts with a young staff that has sharpened their recruiting game over the past couple seasons. They know what they are selling and how to sell it and when to move on when the pitch isn’t going anywhere.
Expand ...

I agree on the young enthusiastic staff that can connect with these kids.

It definitely isn’t the continuity. If you are a recruit and looking for stability the next 4-5 years UCONN is not who you would choose.
 
huskysupporter said:
I agree on the young enthusiastic staff that can connect with these kids.

It definitely isn’t the continuity. If you are a recruit and looking for stability the next 4-5 years UCONN is not who you would choose.
Expand ...

Regarding Continuity - by that I am referring to the simple fact that this is the first off season without any position coach changes in perhaps 10 years. Every coach is that is reaching out to kids this year did so coaching the same position last year. Every coach that recruited in certain regions and with certain schools in 2019 is doing the same in 2020. Every parent, every HS coach, every guardian and athlete advisor to a recruit is getting the same faces and probably largely the same message. We haven't had too much year over year stability until now. Plus, and this is perhaps underrated, but the staff has a much better idea of what kinds of kids will succeed in UConn's environment academically and the staff has a better idea of what Randy wants - and what will and wont work in general. Better cohesion at multiple levels.
 
Last edited:
billybud said:
Yep...Looked at that red.......


Thanks...it is rare..But I was wrong.....
Expand ...


All that clean, fresh mountain air lets the mind wander.
 
Chin Diesel said:
Going independent was only a step in the right direction if the subsequent TV deal was made. We went independent without a known TV deal.
Although my spidey senses suggest UConn hired some very competent people behind the scenes to verify a good enough TV deal was out there if UConn went independent in football.
It's possible UConn just went all in for BE to save basketball and decided they would figure out football on the fly. I just don't believe that is the most probable path that was taken.
Expand ...

They always knew they had the SNY option, which I reported multiple times. The regional aspect of SNY was the killer. SNY could have paid more than CBS and still, they couldn’t offer the same opportunity due to the lack of national exposure.
 
I think continuity on the staff along with starting to play an independent schedule is helping. Edsall and co can go in and use the “do you want to show we are world beaters?”
 
.-.
Slick said:
The new TV deal is huge. Going independent was also a big step in the right direction for us. Another factor is players can see that they have a real chance to play as freshmen here. Most P5 schools they will sit the bench for 2 or even 3 years and kids that can really play see the opportunity here and are jumping on it. Another factor is Edsall has always pushed academics much more then most programs. I see most of our recruits are much more academically oriented which is a big plus for us.
Expand ...
Looks like Dave Benedict had it right after all. He took a lot of heat for a "crazy" idea when football independence was first announced.
 
Hoophound said:
They always knew they had the SNY option, which I reported multiple times. The regional aspect of SNY was the killer. SNY could have paid more than CBS and still, they couldn’t offer the same opportunity due to the lack of national exposure.
Expand ...

Yeah, the SNY was a good piece of leverage. Do you think an SNY package would have been as beneficial as the CBSSN deal in terms of getting recruits from Florida and Texas?
 
Chin Diesel said:
Yeah, the SNY was a good piece of leverage. Do you think an SNY package would have been as beneficial as the CBSSN deal in terms of getting recruits from Florida and Texas?
Expand ...

Not many in Florida know what SNY is I would wager. Not kids who play football and watch ESPN, ABC...the SEC.
 
billybud said:
Not many in Florida know what SNY is I would wager. Not kids who play football and watch ESPN, ABC...the SEC.
Expand ...

They may not have hear of it, but if it the service is available they would readily start streaming it. If your point is they haven't heard of it and therefore doesn't have the cache of a national stream like CBSSN, fully agree.
 
.-.
John
I agree and would add we have solid contacts now. I’ve always said it helps to tell a parent if not a kid, that your son will get a good education and when his Playing career is over he will be able to become a productive member of society. Especially big selling point to moms.
 
JohnFSilver said:
Here is what happened folks...
UConn is a good school academically, has great facilities, good standard of living and proven ability to go to the nfl.

And most importantly, the education is taken care of
Expand ...


If that’s all there is to it, why have we sucked for 10 years?
 
.-.
JohnFSilver said:
Management.

I am telling you, Diaco leveled the place when he came in. Absolutely leveled it behind the scenes. Randy can coach and recruit, knows the landscape, and has still struggled immensely for traction.

Year 4 and it is still gonna be tough.
Expand ...

wisdom
 
Diaco did a terrible amount of damage to the program. Hard to imagine one guy could be that bad. I agree with John that Edsall can coach and recruit and evaluate players. But aside from the odd Pasqualoni remainder there was no talent there. This was like going from 1aa to 1a all over again. He has been landing talent and weeding out the guys who really didn’t belong at this level. Given the numbers required that really took 3 years and we are just now getting a full roster of FBS level talent.

I also believe AD Dave knew the situation and Edsall won’t be under pressure until 2021. I think though that we will see some progress this year. Not 8 wins progress. But progress none the less
 
billybud said:
If UConn adds more three star recruits than NR from here on out...the average star ranking and points will move up....if more NR and two star recruits are added and less than two more three stars, than the rankings will remain static or move down some.
Expand ...
Prefer avg. player rating versus star ranking.
5.4 gets you two stars and 5.5, three stars. A 0.1 player rating difference gets you a 50% jump in star rating.
 
Duncan Idaho said:
Prefer avg. player rating versus star ranking.
5.4 gets you two stars and 5.5, three stars. A 0.1 player rating difference gets you a 50% jump in star rating.
Expand ...

The 247 math used for their rankings is interesting...

The team's commitments are ranked from highest to lowest based on their star rating. The scores are weighted, based on the rankings, according to a Gaussian distribution formula or a bell curve. In other words, the top recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second commit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, and down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.

The highest-rated recruits contribute more points to the total team score than the lower-rated recruits. Not just because their rating is higher, but also because they contribute a higher percentage of their rating than those commits with a lower ranking in the class. Here is the punchline: The top third of every class contributes most points to the team score, the middle third contributes some points to the team score, and the bottom third contributes very few points to the final team score.
 
Right now with 10 commits with two 3 stars...the top 30 % of the curve is favorable to Uconn...
 
billybud said:
Right now with 10 commits with two 3 stars...the top 30 % of the curve is favorable to Uconn...
Expand ...

It’s the second time you referenced this recently - where are you seeing “10 commits with two 3 stars”?
 
.-.
Holy God...it's 8 out of ten on 247 and 3 of ten on Rival ...give me my bi-focul
LOL...I use Rivals...three 3 stars...

connecticut.rivals.com

UConnReport

The definitive source for all Connecticut news.
connecticut.rivals.com connecticut.rivals.com
 
billybud said:
The 247 math used for their rankings is interesting...

The team's commitments are ranked from highest to lowest based on their star rating. The scores are weighted, based on the rankings, according to a Gaussian distribution formula or a bell curve. In other words, the top recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second commit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, and down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.

The highest-rated recruits contribute more points to the total team score than the lower-rated recruits. Not just because their rating is higher, but also because they contribute a higher percentage of their rating than those commits with a lower ranking in the class. Here is the punchline: The top third of every class contributes most points to the team score, the middle third contributes some points to the team score, and the bottom third contributes very few points to the final team score.
Expand ...

That is a terrible rating model. I don’t even want to get into it.
 
JohnFSilver said:
That is a terrible rating model. I don’t even want to get into it.
Expand ...

Yeah....I don't normally look at 247...I decided to look behind their team ranking model....it was interesting...I did not realize how they top weighted the commits.
 
JohnFSilver said:
That is a terrible rating model. I don’t even want to get into it.
Expand ...
billybud said:
Yeah....I don't normally look at 247...I decided to look behind their team ranking model....it was interesting...I did not realize how they top weighted the commits.
Expand ...


It's not entirely without merit. Their overall ranking model is geared towards the top recruits have most impact on overall team success. Having a handful of highly ranked players should have more impact than a gaggle of middling players.
 
Chin Diesel said:
It's not entirely without merit. Their overall ranking model is geared towards the top recruits have most impact on overall team success. Having a handful of highly ranked players should have more impact than a gaggle of middling players.
Expand ...

If I was designing the Billybud Ranking...I would weight high quality QB's, DT's, DE's, and OT's....
 
I've seen too many disparities over the years with recruiting at this level to believe that high school football players can be rated with this level of granularity. Projecting the physical development alone is a huge wild card. Sure the 5* and probably a good chunk of the 4* are pretty sure bets, but after that I think it gets pretty dicey.

The offers (assuming that the kids are being straight on that) probably are telling and my bet is that the recruiting sights rely very heavily on that. I'm absolutely convinced that if Nick Saban offered me a scholarship that I would get at lease 4* to go along with my 7.4 40, small frame and general avoidance of contact.

Seriously, you can't judge recruiting at a program like UCONN until the kids get on the field and start running and banging.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,271
Messages
4,560,889
Members
10,451
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom