What method is more effective?

[Darth_Shiveman]

Ok will add those 4


As for vickers. Having a spot isn't always a bad thing

You still can't count Vickers as a flip.


You should remove Mixon as well. He was not a "late flip" and was not committed when we got him on board. He signed with Nebraska in 2012, didn't qualify, and we got him on board as an early enrollee as a result. There was never a decommitment there.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

A large % of those taken early haven't stuck

I am speaking of 3 star guys across the board. Many of the names listed here by others were 4 stars on some sites

lol wolf was a 3 star across the board. You list Paulk on your list, but he had at least one 4* ranking.

Of course, that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to craft with shoddy information.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Thomas was also a consensus 3* without any good offers when we took him. Why leave him off your list?

 

[bignewt]

what is the point of this? There are no distinct methods in this recruiting game. There are too many variables. You do what you do and hope you get the best players regardless of stars or hurting feelings in Memphis. I sure wish that high horse you are on would buck you.

 

[BruinVol]

Thomas was also a consensus 3* without any good offers when we took him. Why leave him off your list?

3 ranked center in the entire country by scout


Wolf was also a top 300 player.

They were well thought of for sure when they committed. There was very very little talk about either being reaches

 

[lilesrt]

Bruin,
This is a good topic for discussion. I think that both scenerios can work if the coaches are convinced in the kid's ability to compete at a high level regardless. Filling each class with soley 4 and 5 star talents is a difficult task. The 3 star fringe-type players must have high potential and there must be a clear vision on how they will be developed and implemented into the offense/defense. Malik Foreman and Devaun Swafford are two great examples.

The problem I have is taking marginal players right out of the gate, when you know that their chances are slim with regard to actual contribution. To answer your question more directly, I like the option of filling the class up first, and then culling the ones that are recruited over. I do not think the process has as much to do with your examples as just sheer luck of the draw and/or player evaluation.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

3 ranked center in the entire country by scout


Wolf was also a top 300 player.

They were well thought of for sure when they committed. There was very very little talk about either being reaches

Thomas was a the 640th best player by the 247 composite. 807th by 247.

Wolfe was the 325th composite, 494th by 247.

And those are final rankings, not where they were after camps in the summer and their senior seasons. At the time of their commitments, the main reason neither were considered reaches is because they were huge positions of need and we had a gazillion scholarships to work with.

If we accepted guys with those rankings early in the 2017 class, you'd be questioning whether they deserve a spot.

Come on, Bruin. You're not letting yourself look at the facts on this.

 

[BruinVol]

Thomas was a the 640th best player by the 247 composite. 807th by 247.

Wolfe was the 325th composite, 494th by 247.

And those are final rankings, not where they were after camps in the summer and their senior seasons. At the time of their commitments, the main reason neither were considered reaches is because they were huge positions of need and we had a gazillion scholarships to work with.

If we accepted guys with those rankings early in the 2017 class, you'd be questioning whether they deserve a spot.

Come on, Bruin. You're not letting yourself look at the facts on this.

Again check the other sites.

Scout liked both of those a lot.


But regardless that makes option one 6 for 23 now if we add those to that list


Surely that is an alarming failure rate?

 

[Dust10]

3 ranked center in the entire country by scout


Wolf was also a top 300 player.

They were well thought of for sure when they committed. There was very very little talk about either being reaches

Bryant and Paulk also had other legit SEC offers, if we are playing it that way.

 

[BruinVol]

Bryant and Paulk also had other legit SEC offers, if we are playing it that way.

I tried to list 3 star recruits outside of the top
300 that didn't have elite power 5 offers


I know bryant flirted with auburn but as I recall he never had a committable offer because of grade worries

Paulk I don't recall

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Again check the other sites.

Scout liked both of those a lot.


But regardless that makes option one 6 for 23 now if we add those to that list


Surely that is an alarming failure rate?

Well I'd argue that

1. You're leaving out Griffin and Austin Smith, who seem to have very bright futures.

2. Completely shutting the door on 3-5 kids who still have 2-3 years left to make an impact in one way or another and when at best, they deserve to be withheld as "incomplete" grades.

3. Even if you want to count them as failures, when you take 60 kids in 2 classes, you're gonna have some benchwarmers and attrition.

4. Some of the kids you're counting as failures will likely end up having successful careers at other schools (Brandon Powell, Paulk, etc)

5. The other list you're lording as an example of a clearly superior approach is loaded with players who don't even meet the criteria you laid out.

You know, I don't disagree with the idea that our staff needs to adjust their recruiting strategy moving forward. But you're just making a bad argument here.

 

[Dust10]

It's inevitable we will have 3 star players in every class, even Bama does. I think the coaches take them with the hopes that they will continue to develop into players we can use. I would personally be more selective of the in state and powerhouse program 3 stars, to keep relationships intact. In that respect, I can find common ground with Bruin.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I tried to list 3 star recruits outside of the top
300 that didn't have elite power 5 offers


I know bryant flirted with auburn but as I recall he never had a committable offer because of grade worries

Paulk I don't recall

Paulk was a 4 star on ESPN.

 

[BigZiti09]

Option 3) let Butch do his thing and stop being a whiner

 

[Jax_Vol]

Copy Alabama....whatever they do is working.

 

[delfonic]

Uh... it appears as though the "data" being presented may skewed due to a confirmation bias.

 

[BruinVol]

Well I'd argue that

1. You're leaving out Griffin and Austin Smith, who seem to have very bright futures.

2. Completely shutting the door on 3-5 kids who still have 2-3 years left to make an impact in one way or another and when at best, they deserve to be withheld as "incomplete" grades.

3. Even if you want to count them as failures, when you take 60 kids in 2 classes, you're gonna have some benchwarmers and attrition.

4. Some of the kids you're counting as failures will likely end up having successful careers at other schools (Brandon Powell, Paulk, etc)

5. The other list you're lording as an example of a clearly superior approach is loaded with players who don't even meet the criteria you laid out.

You know, I don't disagree with the idea that our staff needs to adjust their recruiting strategy moving forward. But you're just making a bad argument here.

Darth

The point I am trying to make is we can go get josh smith, Kendrick, Hall, Moseley, even thomas and wolf later in the process just like we did with Dobbs, Williams,foreman, Roberson,..... Ect.

We don't have to risk the bridges being burned because history shows is we have the "power" to go get difference making kids late that aren't elite recruits. Late in the process we at least have the senior year to evaluate. It would eliminate a lot of these misses and history proves it

 

[BruinVol]

Paulk was a 4 star on ESPN.

Thanks

Will edit

 

[tennvols77]

Option 3: the most effective thing is winning National Championships, and multiple ones at that. See Alabumba and Saban.

Doesn't matter what you do as long as you win, and when you are winning, people find it very hard to disagree with the ugly realities involved in running a program, or, at least it's easier to turn your head away.

 

[CrunchingTheVolz]

Offer 1,200 kids a year if they want to. Just don't take the commitment if you're not going to honor it. Goes the same for recruits. Don't commit if you still want to take visits.

 

[Dust10]

Maybe someone should create a spreadsheet and see what the data says about the success of these methods. Based on Bruin's argument, I would suggest the following categories:

Category 1: Consensus 3 star recruit on Rivals, 247, and Scout (no one cares about ESPN) and commits to Tennessee prior to Sept. 1 and ultimately signs with Tennessee. I use Sept. 1 because that is a date often thrown out as an early signing period.

Category 2: Consensus 3 star recruit, who may or may not be committed to another team but commits to Tennessee after Sept. 1 and ultimately signs with Tennessee.

I would personally throw out 2013. Butch had no option but to recruit everyone late. Doesn't seem fair to lump those players in with this particular discussion.

Let's see what the numbers say.

 

[Mike4Vols]

I don't think this is a "pick one" argument Bruin. You need to have a healthy dose of both methods. Most schools (UT included) can't fill an entire recruiting class with elite 4 and 5 star players. If we have, say, 20 spots open, filling 10-12 positions with highly regarded 4/5 star players would be the start of a very good class. Then, they're tasked with identifying 2 and 3 star players who slide under the radar and have the potential to grow into solid contributors. Some of those players will have a good senior season and you stick with them. The others get released for other 3 stars who performed better --- or --- the occasional late-season 4/5 star pickup.

Long story short, I have no problem with how they conduct business.

 

[DaddyChad]

Option 3) Put Bruin on ignore.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Darth

The point I am trying to make is we can go get josh smith, Kendrick, Hall, Moseley, even thomas and wolf later in the process just like we did with Dobbs, Williams,foreman, Roberson,..... Ect.

We don't have to risk the bridges being burned because history shows is we have the "power" to go get difference making kids late that aren't elite recruits. Late in the process we at least have the senior year to evaluate. It would eliminate a lot of these misses and history proves it

What evidence do you have that get guys like Thomas, wolf, Hall, Kendrick late in the process though? Recruiting doesn't happen in a vacuum. Every year is different and every recruit is different. It meant a lot to to those guys that UT went all in on them early. Many were early enrollees. You don't know that they wouldn't have picked another school if UT had slow played them and then what?

This is just a bad argument you're making, Bruin. You're assuming that recruiting happens in a vacuum, that the same amount of underrated 3*s will hold things off until late in the process every year, that the ones who do will have interest in Tennessee, that they won't mind being slow played (cough cough Nate Johnson), that slow playing kids automatically means better HS relationships, and that just taking a commitment later means there is automatically a better evaluation.

Some of things are true sometimes. But you can't base your entire recruiting strategy on that for fear over having a school or two be unhappy with the coaching staff.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Maybe someone should create a spreadsheet and see what the data says about the success of these methods. Based on Bruin's argument, I would suggest the following categories:

Category 1: Consensus 3 star recruit on Rivals, 247, and Scout (no one cares about ESPN) and commits to Tennessee prior to Sept. 1 and ultimately signs with Tennessee. I use Sept. 1 because that is a date often thrown out as an early signing period.

Category 2: Consensus 3 star recruit, who may or may not be committed to another team but commits to Tennessee after Sept. 1 and ultimately signs with Tennessee.

I would personally throw out 2013. Butch had no option but to recruit everyone late. Doesn't seem fair to lump those players in with this particular discussion.

Let's see what the numbers say.

I wouldn't completely throw out ESPN's recruiting analyses just because they're unpopular around here. They have just as many hits and misses as the rest of the sites. Also, I think a later date might be better. Bruin is arguing that senior film should be seen for a complete evaluation, so why not pick a date closer to the end of the HS football season?

Other than that, I'd be interested to see this as well.