Less than 50% retention of recruits?

[LonelyIowaGopher]

Sid Hartman's column of this morning is alarming. He says that under Mason and Brewster, only 50% of those recruited stayed with the team throughout their years of eligibilty. Who cares what kind of recruiting results these two had if they couldn't keep players in the program?

 

[Omega015]

Isn't 50% retention about on par with the University as a whole? Why expect the football team to do better than the rest of the U?

 

[MaxyJR1]

That was for the last four years of each coach through a coaching change. Meaning that Brewster and couldn't retain Mason guys and Brewster couldn't reatain his own. Kill I believe is doing an okay job to this point.

 

[50PoundHead]

Sid Hartman's column of this morning is alarming. He says that under Mason and Brewster, only 50% of those recruited stayed with the team throughout their years of eligibilty. Who cares what kind of recruiting results these two had if they couldn't keep players in the program?

Agree 100%. This has been the Achilles heel of the program in my opinion. It was an area where I thought Brewster would improve upon Mason's record, but he didn't.

You build a consistent program by keeping your recruits in the system throughout their eligibility and I am guessing this is one area where Kill is going to improve things by setting out on-field and off-field expectations clearly and then recruiting players who understand that. There will still be some drop-off, but I am guessing it will diminish from previous levels.

 

[MNSpaniel]

Big difference

Omega ... the difference with the regular population and the athletic population is that the athletes are getting college paid for free.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Omega ... the difference with the regular population and the athletic population is that the athletes are getting college paid for free.

I agree. Training table, tutors, and time management are great built in advantages that athletes have. However, it takes a special commitment and desire to be a student-athlete.

 

[The 12th Man]

Look no further than Wisconsin for evidence of why retaining and developing guys is important. Carimi, Moffitt, and Watt were all low-ranked recruits who developed in the program and (Watt aside because he is going to the NFL early) got really good by the time they were seniors. Hell, look at the bowl teams under Mason. There were certainly exceptions to the rule (Eslinger, Setterstrom, etc.), but guys like Sean Hoffman were tough and developed as players.

Senior-heavy teams win ballgames. Retention is one reason Kill's teams have gotten better in the the third or fourth year. Guys stick around and get coached.

 

[harrys ghost]

That article seems inaccurate. We are going to sign 10 of Brewster's 12 recruits on Wednesday? I believe it is closer to 8 of 15. I still don't know where the 71 players on scholarship number comes from. It seems like it should be closer to 75 (see http://fringebowlteamblog.com/?page_id=12).

 

[Mulligan]

Am not into following specific recruits like some others (although I do read and appreciate posters who do). Don't know how much, but a big factor has got to be that we've taken risks and reached on so many players more solid programs don't need to recruit. For every one we succeed with, don't you think there's one or maybe more who don't pan out? Academic issues aside, how many red flags about maturity, work ethic, commitment, behavior, etc. do you think were ignored in pursuit of stars? Continuity seems to be one of Kill's tenets. I really hope he has some early success so our fans are patient enough to let him build that solid foundation.

 

[MaxyJR1]

That article seems inaccurate. We are going to sign 10 of Brewster's 12 recruits on Wednesday? I believe it is closer to 8 of 15. I still don't know where the 71 players on scholarship number comes from. It seems like it should be closer to 75 (see http://fringebowlteamblog.com/?page_id=12).

Plus Kill made comments that some of Brewster's guys that are no longer committed was mutual. Kill didn't think some of the guys would fit, so they were encouraged to look into other schools. He specifically mentioned not fitting academically, which could mean they were likely to not be admitted.

 

[harrys ghost]

It is possible that the retention of Brewster's players is close to 50%, but that would be if you included the complete train wreck that was the 2007 class. If you look at just 2008, 2009, and 2010 it looks like 57 of 74 players are still on the roster or used up their eligibility (this includes kids that did not get admitted or had no eligibility once admitted -- Thornton and Tillman). This is 77% retention.

 

[Killjoy]

Sid and Number......

can be dangerous. Be careful in how you use Sid's numbers. He seems to take information from a variety of sources and then repackage it without much thought and understanding. I expect he may have included in his number verbal recruits that changed their minds, recruits that don't qualify, etc. The important number is the number that the NCAA uses to measure graduation rates, not Sid’s. Sid's number could be useful if one knew how it was calculated and what other schools' numbers were.

 

[WHB Brewer]

can be dangerous. Be careful in how you use Sid's numbers. He seems to take information from a variety of sources and then repackage it without much thought and understanding. I expect he may have included in his number verbal recruits that changed their minds, recruits that don't qualify, etc. The important number is the number that the NCAA uses to measure graduation rates, not Sid’s. Sid's number could be useful if one knew how it was calculated and what other schools' numbers were.

I concur with Killjoy, and will add this note. What standard/benchmark are we comparing this statistic? For example, what is the retention rate of the average B10 program? What is the best/worst retention rate? On the surface, 50% might seem alarming, but if the average retention rate is 60%, considering all the coach upheaval of the past 5yrs, then I would say we are doing pretty well. If we see that Bucky's rate is 90%, then we should be alarmed.

 

[jovs]

It is possible that the retention of Brewster's players is close to 50%, but that would be if you included the complete train wreck that was the 2007 class. If you look at just 2008, 2009, and 2010 it looks like 57 of 74 players are still on the roster or used up their eligibility (this includes kids that did not get admitted or had no eligibility once admitted -- Thornton and Tillman). This is 77% retention.

Thats not a bad record at all, I didn't know it was that good. It should really make a difference in the next couple of years.

 

[harrys ghost]

Thats not a bad record at all, I didn't know it was that good. It should really make a difference in the next couple of years.

I recall previous discussions pointing out that Brewster's retention rates were an improvement on Mason's. Hopefully, Kill's will improve on Brewster's. It would be nice to be closer to 90%.

 

[gopherfreak15]

It was an area where I thought Brewster would improve upon Mason's record, but he didn't.

The problem with Brewster's recruits is he was so focused on getting players like he did in Texas that he took a lot of risks that back-fired it's not a good thing when you have academic risks on your team or players with behavioral issues in their past. I think Kill realizes that we in Minnesota like flashly recruits but that won't save your job the only way to keep your job is to consistently win games.