MV's comment about recruiting

Donate To GopherHole
K

Killjoy

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
5,062
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Having been a long time active investor I have always appreciated the difference between "analysts" who are really sales people and true analysts who have a state in the game. MV makes a wonderful analogy/comparisons of these two types in recruiting with the following comment:

"As clear and apt a comparison I can think of regarding coaches vs. recruiting gurus is to go back to the old stand-by: finance. Recruiting gurus are like the guys selling subscriptions for their "stock picking strategies," whereas college coaches are asset managers. One of those two has skin in the game with whom they pick with deep consequences for being wrong, whereas the other does not."

There are no Warren Buffetts at the recruiting services or probably anybody close.
 

I've always thought that they steal from each other, then tweak their ratings to appear different. The cycle repeats and reiterates. Yeah, you could say "it has to start somewhere," and there has to be some basis for the top players. Maybe the top 100 or so are easy to pick. The rest are a complete crapshoot.
 

the overwhelming majority of asset managers don't beat index's over the long run and the majority of coaches get fired and don't leave on their own.
 

It definitely is a crap shoot but at the same time there is a science to it as well. It is not a coincidence that the teams traditionally bringing in the highest rated classes also tend to be the teams that finish near the top of the rankings each year. I will always put more stock in what a coach says over a recruiting guru but those guys have a lot riding on being right too, so to discount what they say is a mistake.

The analogy is true to an extent but the recruiting services do have skin in the game as well because if they are consistently wrong they will be out of business.
 

Every NFL team employs their own personal crew of "rivals" or "scout" evaluators and they still make plenty of mistakes.

How do you measure the difference between the 10th best high school offensive guard in the nation and the 44th?
 


I think every service (and by extension every coach and college recruiting staff) knows who the top 250 to 300 kids are. I think a lot of the services fall all over these kids and the top-tier programs that are the likely destination for these kids, which makes it difficult for the average fan at the average program to discern what is going on.

I don't know if Rivals, Scout, etc., have skin in the game. There seems to be an overwhelming desire for any information about recruiting, even if it's about a one-star lineman who plays for a nine-man team in West Virginia.
 

Killjoy said:
Having been a long time active investor I have always appreciated the difference between "analysts" who are really sales people and true analysts who have a state in the game. MV makes a wonderful analogy/comparisons of these two types in recruiting with the following comment:

"As clear and apt a comparison I can think of regarding coaches vs. recruiting gurus is to go back to the old stand-by: finance. Recruiting gurus are like the guys selling subscriptions for their "stock picking strategies," whereas college coaches are asset managers. One of those two has skin in the game with whom they pick with deep consequences for being wrong, whereas the other does not."

There are no Warren Buffetts at the recruiting services or probably anybody close.
Click to expand...
The problem is that this argument totally falls apart once you start looking at player offers. I honestly don't care at all what a players' rating is, but I do care if their offer list consists of nothing but FCS offers and non-BCS offers. Some of those kids per class are fine, but when that gets to be the norm, it's cause for concern that you aren't being competitive within your peer group.
 

Also, this is beside the point, but I wonder how his comments sit with his friends and former colleagues at Gopher Illustrated.
 

Gopherprof said:
The problem is that this argument totally falls apart once you start looking at player offers. I honestly don't care at all what a players' rating is, but I do care if their offer list consists of nothing but FCS offers and non-BCS offers. Some of those kids per class are fine, but when that gets to be the norm, it's cause for concern that you aren't being competitive within your peer group.
Click to expand...

Same here, especially with kids below the first 150 or so.
 



Killjoy said:
Having been a long time active investor I have always appreciated the difference between "analysts" who are really sales people and true analysts who have a state in the game. MV makes a wonderful analogy/comparisons of these two types in recruiting with the following comment:

"As clear and apt a comparison I can think of regarding coaches vs. recruiting gurus is to go back to the old stand-by: finance. Recruiting gurus are like the guys selling subscriptions for their "stock picking strategies," whereas college coaches are asset managers. One of those two has skin in the game with whom they pick with deep consequences for being wrong, whereas the other does not."

There are no Warren Buffetts at the recruiting services or probably anybody close.
Click to expand...

/\ /\ /\ /\
this is what fanbases do to try to justify mediocre recruiting. we pretend that those recruiting gurus are full of crap because we dont want to admit johnny 4 and 5 star have no desire to play for our favorite team. i hate these bs justifications. alabama, oregon, LSU, florida, usc, ohio st, all have top 10 classes year in and year out and they win year in and year out. do these recruiting gurus miss from time to time, of course. but its because of the number game not because they dont know what they are doing.
 

lakesgopher said:
/\ /\ /\ /\
this is what fanbases do to try to justify mediocre recruiting. we pretend that those recruiting gurus are full of crap because we dont want to admit johnny 4 and 5 star have no desire to play for our favorite team. i hate these bs justifications. alabama, oregon, LSU, florida, usc, ohio st, all have top 10 classes year in and year out and they win year in and year out. do these recruiting gurus miss from time to time, of course. but its because of the number game not because they dont know what they are doing.
Click to expand...

+1 Think you are right on in terms of why a lot of people want to discount the recruiting services.
 

Honestly, i don't get the angst when it has come to Kill's recruiting.
I thought the class he put together right away had some impressive "steals" in it, more than adequate IMO for having been hired a few months behind in the recruiting cycle.

Then his class last year was gangbusters IMO, but people discounted it when the recruiting sites gave us bad rankings. I'm more excited to see last year's class develop in the program than i was for brewster's 08 kids.

This year I see a specific pattern of being very careful with the offers, or accepting offers. Streveler looks better than we thought, Myrick too. Guys like Wipson and Salzwedel will be motor types on a defense that is going to need depth and speed to keep up. If we haul in Wolterisky or Edwards the class is a big success, and we move on to next year when we can give out a bunch of offers to local kids and some developmental types who should be able to redshirt unlike the developmental types playing for us right now.

The freshmen and sophmores on this team right now are playing very well, when they are juniors and seniors their depth and experience will really help this team and program.
 

Ole said:
Honestly, i don't get the angst when it has come to Kill's recruiting.
I thought the class he put together right away had some impressive "steals" in it, more than adequate IMO for having been hired a few months behind in the recruiting cycle.

Then his class last year was gangbusters IMO, but people discounted it when the recruiting sites gave us bad rankings. I'm more excited to see last year's class develop in the program than i was for brewster's 08 kids.

.
Click to expand...

I don't think this discusion is targeted at Kill as much as it is targeted at the recruiting services. Kill and his staff have a certain type that they recruit to which isn't going to be as flashy from the * starndpoint. However we are kidding ourselves if we try to pretend like Kill doesn't want those higher star guys, the bottom line is he doesn't land them very often. That isn't to say he is not finding talent in some under the radar players but any coach would be thrilled to fill up their class with 4* and 5* talent if they can get those guys to commit.
 



Have you noticed that. Many times the"top" school offers and then the ratings


Service follows with their 4or 5 rating. When we offer they give a 2 or maybe a 3. These services rely on how and then who they offer.
 

Rog said:
Have you noticed that. Many times the"top" school offers and then the ratings


Service follows with their 4or 5 rating. When we offer they give a 2 or maybe a 3. These services rely on how and then who they offer.
Click to expand...

Not even remotely true.
 

People love the underdog and doing the "underdog thing" can endear a coach to the fans, but the size of the dog in the fight usually means more than the size of the fight in the dog. Ain't no pony ever won the Kentucky Derby.

That doesn't mean Kill and the Gophers cannot be successful by finding solid players who fit staff's approach to the game. But even at Iowa and Wisconsin, which are supposed to be the models for the Gophers, a guy like Ron Dayne made a huge difference. We need to find a way to get what Jerry Burns used to call some "big knockers" (I know. I know. I used to fall out of my chair every time Burnsie talked about how the Vikings' big knockers either stepped up or failed to step up during a game).
 


dpodoll68 said:
Not even remotely true.
Click to expand...

No, it's fact. They have a server side check that sees if someone is committed to UofM, if yes then star rating <=3. Then it remains rooted at that level until a higher profile school offers and the recruit de-commits. At that point the rating becomes >= 4. It has nothing to do with the fact that the top recruits want to go to a top school.
 

Nate said:
No, it's fact. They have a server side check that sees if someone is committed to UofM, if yes then star rating <=3. Then it remains rooted at that level until a higher profile school offers and the recruit de-commits. At that point the rating becomes >= 4. It has nothing to do with the fact that the top recruits want to go to a top school.
Click to expand...

Son of a....I knew it. Those bastards, why do they hate us?
 

lakesgopher said:
/\ /\ /\ /\
this is what fanbases do to try to justify mediocre recruiting. we pretend that those recruiting gurus are full of crap because we dont want to admit johnny 4 and 5 star have no desire to play for our favorite team. i hate these bs justifications. alabama, oregon, LSU, florida, usc, ohio st, all have top 10 classes year in and year out and they win year in and year out. do these recruiting gurus miss from time to time, of course. but its because of the number game not because they dont know what they are doing.
Click to expand...

A lot of the stars come because they have offers from one or several of these programs. It's a circular argument. How can some Rivals analyst watching videos tell whether CB Johnny McWilliams from Nowheresville Texas is better than Malik Rucker of Robbinsdale? Just look at a school like Texas. They invite 100+ players to their junior days each year, and they usually get 15+ commits and most of these guys are then noticed by the recruiting services and assigned 4-stars.

I'm not making the argument that Kill is getting all of the guys he wants, he's clearly not. He extended over 100 offers to players this spring, top guys throughout the country that we would have been thrilled to get. Most people, coaches and recruiting analysts, can probably agree that there are 200-300 outstanding football players each year that every program would be thrilled to have. These are the guys given 4 or 5 stars and have huge offer lists. What Kill has to do is work a little bit harder and find players that have slipped through the cracks. He's said this himself numerous times in that we don't get to select players, we have to recruit them.
 

Sorry about opening up this can of worms again. Unfortunately the point MV was making got lost in all the noise here, i.e. the recruiting services are out there to make money while coaches have much bigger stake in their analysis of players. I am not sure if people here understand or care why that is important but I thought it was worth noting.
 

Killjoy said:
Sorry about opening up this can of worms again. Unfortunately the point MV was making got lost in all the noise here, i.e. the recruiting services are out there to make money while coaches have much bigger stake in their analysis of players. I am not sure if people here understand or care why that is important but I thought it was worth noting.
Click to expand...

It's an important distinction to note. Nobody at Rivals is going to get fired because 2-star recruits Derrick Wells and Cedric Thompson turn out to be All-B1G. However, if they don't pan out, JK never sees years 5-7 of his contract.
 


I'll just say this: Yes the best teams get the high star guys. Those are the guys that anyone can look at and see is a player due to size/speed/strength, etc. The Rivals guys are NOT experts at projecting the unfinished projects. The guys like Wells that can move but don't have the top level hips to be a great corner but have the frame to add 20lbs and move to safety and have the mental capacity to be in the right place at the right time. You and I could view 1000 prospects and pick the top 100 and be pretty accurate but after the elite things get muddled and that's where coaches are far better. They watch game film, not highlights. They talk to the kids coaches and opposing coaches. They know exactly what they need at each position out of a player and what their S&C program helps improve.
 


oleboy41 said:
I'll just say this: Yes the best teams get the high star guys. Those are the guys that anyone can look at and see is a player due to size/speed/strength, etc. The Rivals guys are NOT experts at projecting the unfinished projects. The guys like Wells that can move but don't have the top level hips to be a great corner but have the frame to add 20lbs and move to safety and have the mental capacity to be in the right place at the right time. You and I could view 1000 prospects and pick the top 100 and be pretty accurate but after the elite things get muddled and that's where coaches are far better. They watch game film, not highlights. They talk to the kids coaches and opposing coaches. They know exactly what they need at each position out of a player and what their S&C program helps improve.
Click to expand...

In fairness to those services how could anyone expect them to be as in depth as coaches? They are covering the entire country whereas coaches can focus in on a much smaller number of players and go more in depth in terms of analysis. The bottom line with the recruiting services is they are right more than they are wrong about players, and they are doing far more then just tossing darts at a board.
 

I don't think even the coaching staff can know if a guy can make a positional transition like Wells did. You talk to 'em, you try to get into their mind frame, how they handle things, but you just don't know. It's one thing to adapt well to change at the h.s. level, but then to do it at the B1G level, with hundreds of thousands of fans on your case if you fail at it, some guys just don't handle that well. You just hope you hit on more than you miss IMO.

I think Kill is, in some ways, "cocky" about his recruiting, in that he believes if he gets a kid in here who can move around a little bit (especially on defense), and shows quality character for the most part, and a desire to work hard, then he will get them in this program, get Klein working on them, and he will churn out B1G caliber talent on a regular basis. He's unconcerned about size as much, as he believes Klein can get them where they need to be in that regard without losing too much agility and speed. The closer that kid is to polished work, the better, but he'll probably take what he can get at this point considering this program's standing and what he's done in the past.

That's just my outside, no insight, opinion on what we've seen from Kill so far. As far as MV's point, yes, Kill (coaches in general) is far more invested than some recruiting site. After the elite kids, it gets muddy, and Rivals is not going to spend an infinite amount of time trying to truly separate these kids beyond a viewing of a highlight tape. That's just the way it is, and I wouldn't really expect them to go much further, I mean, it's just not profitable after a point.
 


MNVCGUY said:
In fairness to those services how could anyone expect them to be as in depth as coaches? They are covering the entire country whereas coaches can focus in on a much smaller number of players and go more in depth in terms of analysis. The bottom line with the recruiting services is they are right more than they are wrong about players, and they are doing far more then just tossing darts at a board.
Click to expand...

Which is it, you're contradicting yourself.
 

dpodoll68 said:
No, it's not. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if a kid gets verbally offered by Florida as a Sophomore or Texas invites them to camp (to use a previous example) or Notre Dame gives them a rosary it would influence the rating (or at least get the services to take a closer look). But overall, I would agree that the services rate players off their perceived ability not on who has offered.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom