What method is more effective?

#134
#134
BruinVol said:
Late flips to me are October and beyond.


Coaching changes are always going to be a part of the process. Every single year coaches leave and having open spots is always a good thing.


Foreman and Bynum started on a 8-4 team that has this fanbase in a buzz. Not sure how on earth they can't be considered high contributors
Click to expand...

Foreman wouldn't see much PT if he were signing this February.

In state coaching changes don't happen every year. Dobbs is here because Butch was a better fit that came available late. Dobbs would've been committed here early if Butch had been coach earlier.

Your argument is filled with flaws.
 
#135
#135
BigZiti09 said:
Foreman wouldn't see much PT if he were signing this February.

In state coaching changes don't happen every year. Dobbs is here because Butch was a better fit that came available late. Dobbs would've been committed here early if Butch had been coach earlier.

Your argument is filled with flaws.
Click to expand...

So if recruits like foreman wouldn't be good enough now then why on earth do we keep committing them early before their senior year of high school

You are making my point for me
 
#136
#136
Your argument is poor because the definition for your categories and success is subjunctive and not well defined. If you laid out a more concrete argument, some might agree that waiting is more favorable. One issue I have with it specifically is that you include guys that committed early and were subsequently let go as failures, but you ignore its counterpart for offering late. Would you not consider missing out on recruits late in the process as a failure of the waiting method? Good luck quantifying that, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#137
#137
BruinVol said:
So if recruits like foreman wouldn't be good enough now then why on earth do we keep committing them early before their senior year of high school

You are making my point for me
Click to expand...

Well, because it's how recruiting works. If a kid is willing to commit, you make the decision to either take his commit or slow play him.

Butch is gonna manage the commits how he chooses as he should.

Your theory is wack and has holes all in it. You've set your "Bruin criteria" and then steer it around however you wish to prove your point. This whole thread is dumb and I don't know why I'm replying to any of it.
 
#138
#138
CrunchingTheVolz said:
UT could have recruited Tim Hart and shown a lot of interest early. Tim Hart could have committed to Memphis in June or July. UT could have stayed in touch and evaluated his play as a SR in Aug, Sept, Oct, and into Nov. If they liked what they saw they could have pushed a committable offer. I think there is a very strong possibility UT gets him. If UT didn't like what they saw as a SR, that committable offer never comes.

I have no doubt this is how a crapload of schools do it.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that the staff is using camps and film of a 16-17 year old to project their impact as a 20-22 year old without seeing their senior season, which is arguably the single most important predictor.
 
#139
#139
This whole thing stems from the decision to let Hart go. Anyone have a list of players we have pulled offers from who have gone on to ball out at other places?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#140
#140
BigZiti09 said:
Well, because it's how recruiting works. If a kid is willing to commit, you make the decision to either take his commit or slow play him.

Butch is gonna manage the commits how he chooses as he should.

Your theory is wack and has holes all in it. You've set your "Bruin criteria" and then steer it around however you wish to prove your point. This whole thread is dumb and I don't know why I'm replying to any of it.
Click to expand...

It's as simple as this
Fringy early commits have failed at a 75% clip.


If you think that's an acceptable rate then the status quo is fine.

IMO that rate isn't acceptable and a more patient approach should be used when making the under the radar evals
 
#141
#141
Dust10 said:
This whole thing stems from the decision to let Hart go. Anyone have a list of players we have pulled offers from who have gone on to ball out at other places?
Click to expand...

Very very few have had success

Dews is in legal trouble

A RB had some mild success at Nebraska but I think he was a dd recruit

Kentucky had a LB but the same I think DD recruited him


Pretty sure booth has been a no show at Indiana
 
#142
#142
BruinVol said:
It's as simple as this
Fringy early commits have failed at a 75% clip.


If you think that's an acceptable rate then the status quo is fine.

IMO that rate isn't acceptable and a more patient approach should be used when making the under the radar evals
Click to expand...

I don't accept your numbers because you're using Bruin logic and math to compute.
 
#143
#143
BigZiti09 said:
I don't accept your numbers because you're using Bruin logic and math to compute.
Click to expand...

Well by all means

Put together a list of early commits we took of kids that were under the radar. 3 star outside of the top 300 without elite power 5 offers


Get back to me on the % of success your list shows
 
#144
#144
Here's how I see it. Option 2 is more of a 50% success rate without considering guys we missed on because we slow-played them. If you go back and find those guys, then I would venture to guess that the success rates are about equal.
 
#145
#145
Volnukem said:
Here's how I see it. Option 2 is more of a 50% success rate without considering guys we missed on because we slow-played them. If you go back and find those guys, then I would venture to guess that the success rates are about equal.
Click to expand...

And that would matter if we were leaving spots unfilled in our classes.
We arent leaving any spots unused and in fact the opposite is the case
 
#146
#146
BruinVol said:
And that would matter if we were leaving spots unfilled in our classes.
We arent leaving any spots unused and in fact the opposite is the case
Click to expand...

So for the waiting option, you are saying that losing a recruit that you want because you slow-played them isn't a failure for that recruiting method? That doesn't make any sense. I assumed you were arguing that we should exclusively use the waiting method. If so, you must consider losing recruits as a failure. Your logic is fallacious and your argument is biased to the result you presupposed. Perhaps, your conclusion is true. It would be interesting to look at a larger data set across all P5 teams with specific criteria for categorizing the recruits and their success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#147
#147
BruinVol said:
Well by all means

Put together a list of early commits we took of kids that were under the radar. 3 star outside of the top 300 without elite power 5 offers


Get back to me on the % of success your list shows
Click to expand...

Not gonna do that. Much easier just to point out the flaws in your argument. I'm not going to surf through 4 years of recruiting rankings and offer lists.

Where is the list of kids we told to take a hike? We have told 2 4* WR to look around. Von Pearson was a 0* when we offered. Christmas-Giles (though we couldn't hold on) was not rated when we took his commit and he had no offers. Dormady was a 2* when we offered. Bama wanted him badly later in the game.

I mean there is so much more going on here. Recruiting is fluid. Our roster makeup is soooooo much more talented now than it was 2 years ago. There's guys that fit your description of early commits that were 3* that we don't know yet what they will do. Especially since we actually are almost fielding an SEC roster now. There's guys like Bransiel who got on the field and had 3 catches because we were awful that you want to deem a success and guys like Darrell Miller we won't know about until later in his career because we have so much more quality players now.

There's so much wrong here that you are just looking past just so you can group your 2 options with weird criteria that really doesn't make any sense to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#148
#148
Just looking at 2015:
Austin Smith, Quay Picous, Darrell Miller, Stephen Griffin, Tommy Townsend, Riley Lovingood, Quinten Dormady, Chance Hall very well all may be players for us before it's all said and done.

Your late addition list of contributors is filled with guys we flipped from Vandy when Franklin left and guys we added because Dooley sucked and Jones was able to come in and steal some guys that should have been ours in the first place. That is called good fortune and you can't count on things like that happening every year. And in several cases the guys are seeing the field because they were here when playing time was prevelant.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top