Our Commits: No other offers... no problem?

[RodentRampage]

Agreed, getting players into the NFL is nice, but we're primarily interested in what these recruits can do in college. The NFL can do their own scouting.

 

[Unregistered User]

3 guys were not drafted on this list. Others have yet to play a game in the NFL. Gallery was considered an NFL bust as he is credited with giving up 20.5 sacks in 4 years. Not sure if this list proved anything.

Not trying to hack on your summary, but I personally don't care how college players produce at the next level. All of the players listed were contributors to a good college team.

Sure, it's nice to see players from your school make it to the next level, and that's what many of them dream of, but for the here and now I only care about our current and future players production as Golden Gophers.

[Edit: Oops...a little late to the party on this one, but I agree with the above posters.]

 

[calminnfan]

Agreed, getting players into the NFL is nice, but we're primarily interested in what these recruits can do in college. The NFL can do their own scouting.

True, but one of the influences in players choosing the college they attend, along with the college's winning and coaching is how the school prepares them for the NFL.

 

[Monty519]

The 4* guy.

Same here.

That said, not sure if Kill's in a strong position right now, team coming off 3-9, highly recruited players from the previous regime not blowing up like we hoped necessarily, Kill not having proven himself at a BCS level. I think he's working through that a little bit, but rather than fighting the battles, he's getting guys who may be "undercover" but still could fit in here.

It's also worth noting also that having 16 commits in July tells me something about how Kill and his selling ability. It's not like we're not used to getting a chunk of kids without BCS offers in our classes (outside of like '09 and '10), but difference is, Kill's getting them in the summer, rather than fall and winter. That is unheard of really around here, we usually get at most like 7 or 8 at this juncture. Obviously Kill's strategy is reeling them in quickly, which in some ways, kinda allows some ability to start even focusing on what could be a more "star-filled" 2013 class depending on the on-field product this upcoming season.

 

[GoAUpher]

True, but one of the influences in players choosing the college they attend, along with the college's winning and coaching is how the school prepares them for the NFL.

True, but it also isn't germaine to the OP's point (which is what MMM was responding to).

 

[Breakin' The Plane]

I have no idea what Kill's doing. I do know that he's built winners out of losers before, so I'll trust him until he proves me wrong. I get the feeling that Kill is much more interested in adding players who he thinks can be a part of an acutal football team, not a loose collection of exceptional athletes with jaw-dropping measureables who happen to play football. Sum of the parts being greater than the whole and all that jazz.

 

[Mustang Mountain Man]

Not trying to hack on your summary, but I personally don't care how college players produce at the next level. All of the players listed were contributors to a good college team.

Sure, it's nice to see players from your school make it to the next level, and that's what many of them dream of, but for the here and now I only care about our current and future players production as Golden Gophers.

[Edit: Oops...a little late to the party on this one, but I agree with the above posters.]

I don't care if college players make it to the next level either. I am not a pro sports fan. I agree that Iowa has had a solid program since Hayden Fry and beyond. My point by reproducing the list and commenting on their contribution to the NFL is merely for your edification and give you food for thought. If I were mining for data, most of those would not be on my list because it does not show that they made the next level, but were offered a shot at the next level. Some never panned out. Some had great promise and failed. Others, were good contributors. If you are not drafted (ranked), your chance at success at the next level drops to almost nil. Even being ranked as high as 2 (Gallery) does not guarantee success at the next level. I have watched the ratings, and they do not always pan out. However, there has been, and will be a higher correlation to success with higher rated players than a development program like Coach Kill is attempting. The Iowa example is actually quite poor. For their last B!G championship team, they had potentially 20 4 or 5 star recruits (Rivals) on their team. (I did not cross reference this for people on the team that year, only those of the previous 4 years recruited - so my data set is a bit raw and unfiltered.) This was no little sisters of the poor team, like we seem to be recruiting. This is another pie in the sky attempt to connect lousy recruits to a great outcome. But, as the data shows, at least on a surface level, Iowa had a very good nucleus of players to create its most recent championship team. The draft card analogy doesn't hold water and the lack of stars analogy only proves the point that success is correlated positively to better ratings of players.

I note that many of the people who always proclaim that ratings don't matter either: a) never went to the U. 2) never played a down of college ball 3) never graduated from any university.

I anticipate that the thumbs will be pounding the keypad any second now trying to crush me personally for telling the truth and restating that Jerry Kill is doing all of us lip service in recruiting.

Other things that bother me about the quality of fans here are comments like 'first come first serve' motivates players to come here and they will make so much better team mates. Not only is that based on nothing but misfiring neurons, but evidence in other areas of life completely contradict that view. Those who assess their futures and make full assessments of their decisions make for better employees. People who jump on the wagon at the point of the offer usually don't bring much to the table as employees, in fact, they are commodities. Thoughtful employees make better employees in terms of social interaction and productivity.

Nothing has changed my opinion since early June when I suggested that this recruiting class will be the worst in several decades. The class is almost full and it won't matter that we wait until National Signing Day in February to see that Kill fell flat on his face with this years effort.

Let me be the first to predict that we will have a new coaching search in place by 2014.

 

[Gopher07]

Let me be the first to predict that we will have a new coaching search in place by 2014.

Question: what's the harm in being positive, or at least taking a wait-and-see approach, at this point? I can understand skepticism, but seemingly outright rejection of the coaching staff? Just seems like you need a reason to be upset if you're downgrading the staff, when the staff really hasn't done anything in terms of tangible results yet.

Is it so you can come back, in the event the staff doesn't pull it off, and say "AH HA I was right all along, and you weren't. I therefore am smarter than you"?

Seems a little petty, but I guess to each their own.

 

[GoAUpher]

I note that many of the people who always proclaim that ratings don't matter either: a) never went to the U. 2) never played a down of college ball 3) never graduated from any university.

Wow...how does the air smell from your high horse?

#1 has no bearing on anything. #2 isn't much of a measuring stick either. You can understand football quite well without having played college football. As for #3...Where in the hell are you getting this stat? Not that it matters since it is also completely irrelevant.

 

[FreakyDeke]

Let me be the first to predict that we will have a new coaching search in place by 2014.

Let me be the first to offer you a wager on that. Any sum of money you want. You don't believe that, you're just being you. Brew got almost 4 years, 2 of which were disasterous. You're saying Kill will get less than 3? Especially with the effect of buying out Brew and Mason in such a short span?

 

[we will win this week?]

This coach is old school and he believes that work and more work=success. I think one part of his evaluation of players has a lot to do with their character and willingness to learn and work relentlessly-both in the classroom and on the field. I think we are looking at the beginnings of another golden era.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Nothing has changed my opinion since early June when I suggested that this recruiting class will be the worst in several decades. The class is almost full and it won't matter that we wait until National Signing Day in February to see that Kill fell flat on his face with this years effort.

Wow.

For someone who is so worried about recruiting rankings, you sure haven't followed it enough to make a statement like it will be the worst class in "several decades".

2004:
We signed 22 guys (6, yes 6 were QBs) and we had a grand total of 6 players rated at 3 stars (no 4 stars).
You could maybe make an argument that 8 guys made a difference at all for the U (that's including backup QBs)

2002:
We signed 27 guys and only 3 of them were rated higher than 2 stars (no 4 stars).

There are a lot of other classes which were obviously worse ranked classes (some of them turned out to be decent and some of them flopped) in the past decade but these two stood out.

For your point of reference:

We currently have 15 guys signed:
1 4 star
5 3 star
4 2 star
and 5 who haven't been ranked.

I'd be shocked if Hinojosa wasn't a 3 star kid, Maxx Williams will likely be a 3 star. I don't really have a clue on Ballesteros, Fruechte or Ekpe. However, even assuming they are all 2 stars and the rest of the guys we sign have 2 stars....this class still is ranked much higher than MANY classes in the previous decade.

 

[josh087]

Wow.

For someone who is so worried about recruiting rankings, you sure haven't followed it enough to make a statement like it will be the worst class in "several decades".

2004:
We signed 22 guys (6, yes 6 were QBs) and we had a grand total of 6 players rated at 3 stars (no 4 stars).
You could maybe make an argument that 8 guys made a difference at all for the U (that's including backup QBs)

2002:
We signed 27 guys and only 3 of them were rated higher than 2 stars (no 4 stars).

There are a lot of other classes which were obviously worse ranked classes (some of them turned out to be decent and some of them flopped) in the past decade but these two stood out.

For your point of reference:

We currently have 15 guys signed:
1 4 star
5 3 star
4 2 star
and 5 who haven't been ranked.

I'd be shocked if Hinojosa wasn't a 3 star kid, Maxx Williams will likely be a 3 star. I don't really have a clue on Ballesteros, Fruechte or Ekpe. However, even assuming they are all 2 stars and the rest of the guys we sign have 2 stars....this class still is ranked much higher than MANY classes in the previous decade.

I'm a believer in recruiting rankings, make no mistake about it - and correct me if I'm wrong - but haven't the star rankings increased on average in the course of the last decade? I'm guessing some of those Mason classes would be ranked higher (in terms of # of kids with 3+ stars) today than they were back 8, 9, or 10 years ago simply due to this "star ranking inflation."

 

[Gopher07]

I'm a believer in recruiting rankings, make no mistake about it - and correct me if I'm wrong - but haven't the star rankings increased on average in the course of the last decade? I'm guessing some of those Mason classes would be ranked higher (in terms of # of kids with 3+ stars) today than they were back 8, 9, or 10 years ago simply due to this "star ranking inflation."

It is tough to say. The database size has grown a lot over the past few years ... but there are more 3 stars (in numbers) today than there were 5 years ago on the site, and less two stars (by proportion). Interestingly the top echelon hasn't changed much (4's and 5's):

2011:
26 5-stars (0.26%)
306 4-stars (3.07%)
1590 3-stars (16.0%)
1851 2-stars (18.6%)
6174 unrated (62.0%)

2006:
38 5-stars (0.59%)
332 4-stars (5.15%)
871 3-stars (13.5%)
2402 2-stars (37.3%)
2798 unrated (43.4%)

2003:
31 5-stars (0.72%)
275 4-stars (6.45%)
1017 3-stars (23.9%)
2087 2-stars (49.0%)
799 1-stars (18.7%)
54 unrated (1.37%)

There were so many fewer players on the site in 2003 than in 2011 so it is tough to know exactly how the comparison falls out, plus it could just be that there weren't as many good players in the country that year (according to their scouts or whoever).

 

[Killjoy]

Inflation in stars?

I'm a believer in recruiting rankings, make no mistake about it - and correct me if I'm wrong - but haven't the star rankings increased on average in the course of the last decade? I'm guessing some of those Mason classes would be ranked higher (in terms of # of kids with 3+ stars) today than they were back 8, 9, or 10 years ago simply due to this "star ranking inflation."

Yea - I noticed the same thing. When I go to the grocery store I just don't get as much for my stars as I did before. But seriously, your question is a fair one.

The answer to your question for five and four star players is that there is no inflation since only a certain number of players assigned to these rankings per the following description:

http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/aboutrankings.asp?Sport=1

In order to answer your question as to whether the number of three stars players has increased, you would need to analyze this using Rivals search function for each year. You could search on that star rating and see how many hits you get for each year. That would be a good project for a summer intern. Actually it wouldn't take anybody that much time to do it. I could do it myself but it would cut into my nap time.

 

[50PoundHead]

I'm a believer in recruiting rankings, make no mistake about it - and correct me if I'm wrong - but haven't the star rankings increased on average in the course of the last decade? I'm guessing some of those Mason classes would be ranked higher (in terms of # of kids with 3+ stars) today than they were back 8, 9, or 10 years ago simply due to this "star ranking inflation."

Mason's 2002 class actually turned out fairly well. Arguably Mason's best class with Eslinger, Cupito, Setterstrom, Spaeth, Montgomery, Ainslee, Banks, and Hosack.

The 2004 class was miserable with only Simmons, Russell, VandeSteeg, and Dom Barber doing much of anything (and I suppose one could toss Hightower in the mix as well). 6--count 'em--6 QBs with only Ernst and Mortenson getting considerable playing time.

The thing that strikes me about all of Mason's classes though is the attrition. Tremendous number of kids who didn't stick around. That's the thing I want to see stopped under Kill. Get the kids here and keep them here. Continuity and progress.

 

[Gopher07]

Eff it, here are the years going back to 2003:

Edit: I listed how many per team, 120 teams. I know there were less a few years back but it was easier this way for quick and dirty.

2011:
26 5-stars (0.26%) (0.22 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.22 versus average)
306 4-stars (3.07%) (2.55 per team) (Gophers had 0, -2.55 versus average)
1590 3-stars (16.0%) (13.3 per team) (Gophers had 19, +5.7 versus average)
1851 2-stars (18.6%) (15.4 per team) (Gophers had 6, -9.4 versus average)
6174 unrated (62.0%) (51.5 per team) (Gophers had 0, -51.5 versus average)

2010 (3-9 in one year):
27 5-stars (0.28%) (.23 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.23 versus average)
395 4-stars (4.13%) (3.29 per team) (Gophers had 2, -1.29 versus average)
1645 3-stars (17.2%) (13.7 per team) (Gophers had 18, +4.3 versus average)
2017 2-stars (21.1%) (16.8 per team) (Gophers had 6, -10.8 versus average)
5473 unrated (57.3%) (45.6 per team) (Gophers had 0, -45.6 versus average)

2009 (9-16 over next two years):
35 5-stars (0.39%) (.29 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.29 versus average)
400 4-stars (4.47%) (3.33 per team) (Gophers had 3, -.33 versus average)
1295 3-stars (14.5%) (10.8 per team) (Gophers had 15, +4.2 versus average)
2133 2-stars (23.8%) (17.8 per team) (Gophers had 2, -15.8 versus average)
5093 unrated (56.9%) (42.4 per team) (Gophers had 0, -42.4 versus average)

2008 (16-22 over next three years):
37 5-stars (0.43%) (.31 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.31 versus average)
368 4-stars (4.31%) (3.07 per team) (Gophers had 7, +3.93 versus average)
993 3-stars (11.6%) (8.28 per team) (Gophers had 17, +8.72 versus average)
2200 2-stars (25.8%) (18.3 per team) (Gophers had 5, -13.3 versus average)
4941 unrated (57.9%) (41.2 per team) (Gophers had 0, -41.2 versus average)

2007 (17-33 over next four years):
37 5-stars (0.47%) (.31 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.31 versus average)
343 4-stars (4.36%) (2.86 per team) (Gophers had 1, -1.86 versus average)
989 3-stars (12.6%) (8.24 per team) (Gophers had 9, +.76 versus average)
2016 2-stars (25.6%) (16.8 per team) (Gophers had 12, -4.8 versus average)
4489 unrated (57.0%) (37.4 per team) (Gophers had 0, -37.4 versus average)

2006 (23-40 over next 5 years):
38 5-stars (0.59%) (.32 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.32 versus average)
332 4-stars (5.15%) (2.77 per team) (Gophers had 0, -2.77 versus average)
871 3-stars (13.5%) (7.26 per team) (Gophers had 9, +1.74 versus average)
2402 2-stars (37.3%) (20.0 per team) (Gophers had 11, -9 versus average)
2798 unrated (43.4%) (23.3 per team) (Gophers had 2, -21.3 versus average)

----At this point, Rivals stopped handing out 1-star ratings----

2005 (27-36 over next 5 years)
36 5-stars (0.70%) (.30 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.30 versus average)
285 4-stars (5.57%) (2.38 per team) (Gophers had 1, -1.38 versus average)
811 3-stars (15.8%) (6.76 per team) (Gophers had 10, +3.24 versus average)
2428 2-stars (47.4%) (20.2 per team) (Gophers had 9, -11.2 versus average)
3 1-stars (0.06%) (.02 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.02 versus average)
1557 unrated (30.4%) (13.0 per team) (Gophers had 0, -13.0 versus average)

2004 (28-34 over next 5 years)
34 5-stars (0.73%) (.28 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.28 versus average)
244 4-stars (5.21%) (2.03 per team) (Gophers had 0, -2.08 versus average)
660 3-stars (14.1%) (5.50 per team) (Gophers had 6, +.50 versus average)
2437 2-stars (52.1%) (20.3 per team) (Gophers had 18, -2.30 versus average)
1173 1-stars (25.1%) (9.78 per team) (Gophers had 0, -9.78 versus average)
131 unrated (2.80%) (1.09 per team) (Gophers had 0, -1.09 versus average)

2003 (31-31 over next 5 years):
31 5-stars (0.72%) (.26 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.26 versus average)
275 4-stars (6.45%) (2.29 per team) (Gophers had 2, -.29 versus average)
1017 3-stars (23.9%) (8.48 per team) (Gophers had 14, +5.52 versus average)
2087 2-stars (49.0%) (17.4 per team) (Gophers had 11, -6.4 versus average)
799 1-stars (18.7%) (6.66 per team) (Gophers had 0, -6.66 versus average)
54 unrated (1.37%) (.45 per team) (Gophers had 0, -.45 versus average)

There's a definite increase in number of 3-stars in the database from 2004 through 2011 (nearly every year is higher in count than the one before) although generally, with the exception of 2003, the percent of the database classified as 3-stars is relatively consistent, between 11.6% and 17.2%.

But, based on number of 3-stars available to teams, there are just more now then there were 5 or 6 years back, so I would agree that a 3-star in 2004 meant "more" to rankings than a 3-star in 2011.

Edit #2: Added how far off the "average" the Gophers were in that given year. Knowing that we can only sign about 25 per year some of the gaps are unrealistic. But it gives an OK view, I think, of how we did in each year given the "stars" available. Obviously you want higher numbers for higher stars and lower numbers for lower stars. Only one year - 2008 - did we exceed the average number of 4-stars given 120 teams. We're typically getting more than our share of 3-stars, which should be expected given that we're a BCS team.

 

[highwayman]

MustangMountainMan has (at least temporarily) taken the crown from lakesbison as the most ignorant, moronic, least analytical, and schtupid dufus on this board. Go ahead, say I'm wrong. Over/under he gets banned: August 15.

 

[GreasyGopher]

When did novelty rating systems produced by guys who have minimal or even no coaching experience become the bible in college football recruiting.

If a coach offers a player a scholly after attending a camp, the kid can obviously play regardless of what a recruiting service says.

Coach Kill isn't building someone elses team. He's building his team.

We already saw how well it turns out when a coach tries to build someone elses team.

 

[stocker08]

I note that many of the people who always proclaim that ratings don't matter either: a) never went to the U. 2) never played a down of college ball 3) never graduated from any university.

I anticipate that the thumbs will be pounding the keypad any second now trying to crush me personally for telling the truth and restating that Jerry Kill is doing all of us lip service in recruiting.

Other things that bother me about the quality of fans here are comments like 'first come first serve' motivates players to come here and they will make so much better team mates. Not only is that based on nothing but misfiring neurons, but evidence in other areas of life completely contradict that view. Those who assess their futures and make full assessments of their decisions make for better employees. People who jump on the wagon at the point of the offer usually don't bring much to the table as employees, in fact, they are commodities. Thoughtful employees make better employees in terms of social interaction and productivity.

Nothing has changed my opinion since early June when I suggested that this recruiting class will be the worst in several decades. The class is almost full and it won't matter that we wait until National Signing Day in February to see that Kill fell flat on his face with this years effort.

Let me be the first to predict that we will have a new coaching search in place by 2014.

What does an employee have to do with football. People who jump on the wagon at the point of the offer usually don't bring as much to the table as employees (stats, or made up jibberish)? Football players who accept a scholarship to a BCS school at the point of the offer are worse players? That was the worst comparison I have ever heard. Blabbing about how the positive fans are wrong by making a point with one of the stupidest and least relevant things I have seen on this board in the last week (colorados cool schedule included).

Now, I realize that you are a recruiting guru, so you know more about the players accepting our offers than Kill himself. /sarcasm. You really think that he spent 20+ years coaching so he could get to a BCS school and blow it by offering a bunch of random kids. He clearly sees something that he likes with these players which is why he is trying to get them in early. I am not trying to say that ratings do not matter, but we are talking about players that have their senior seasons ahead of them. Who knows what "star rating" they will be by next spring. Kill sees something he likes about them and I will take that and his stellar coaching record over the mountain mustangs psychic predictions any day of the year.

 

[pharmacygopher]

Let me be the first to predict that we will have a new coaching search in place by 2014.

PM me...we'll exchange contact information and place a wager if you want to put your money where your mouth is

 

[3399]

I was discussing our current commit list with a friend of mine who is a major Iowa Hawkeyes fan. He argued coaching, not offers, creates productive players and if Kill can do that we should be fine. As evidence, he offered the following list of Iowa Hawkeyes who went into the NFL (their "other offers" in parentheses):

1) Robert Gallery (none- walk on)
2) Dallas Clark (none- walk on)
3) Kevin Kasper (none- walk on)
4) Chad Greenway (South Dakota)
5) Bob Sanders (Ohio)
6) Karl Klug (no other offers)
7) Tyler Sash (Iowa State)
8) Ricky Stanzi (Miami-OH, Purdue)
9) Amari Spievey (Rutgers)
10) Pat Angerer (No. Illinois, Iowa St., Indiana)
11) Julian Vandervelde (Ball St., Cent. Mich., Toledo, Stanford)
12) Bradley Fletcher (no other offers)
13) Mitch King (Iowa St.)
14) Matt Kroul (no other offers)
15) Marcus Paschal (Georgia Southern, Hofstra, Troy)
16) Jovon Johnson (no other offers)

I must admit I was floored by this.

EDIT- thanks for the edit Go4.

I would agree with using this evidence in the arguement if they were all recruited in the same class. Kirk Ferentz has been at Iowa for a very long time and these guys stretch out over time. Plus, he has recruited plenty of big timers that helped in their development. Kirk Ferentz has proven over time that he and his staff have the ability to identify under the radar guys and develop them. Jerry Kill might be the same kind of guy. But at this point, since he and all but one member of his staff, has never coaches or played at the BCS level, it is an unknown.

 

[GopherSOB]

Hey 3399, you are correct in saying that coach Kill has never coached at the BCS level but think about it this way. Coach kill has coached kids from lower levels, non BCS conferences, FCS teams and Division 11 teams in which some of his players went on to NFL carreers. So my question is, does this make him a better judge of tallent and a coach who is more apt to be able to "coach up" his players. Seems to me it should be even harder to find kids at these lower programs after every higher division/school has sifted through every recruit in the nation and to then be able to coach them up to a point where they get into the NFL. Not trying to start an argument here but it seems to me that coach Kill has already proven to some degree that; 1) He has a nack for identifying tallent and 2) He can coach up is recruites.
Just saying.

 

[50PoundHead]

When did novelty rating systems produced by guys who have minimal or even no coaching experience become the bible in college football recruiting.

If a coach offers a player a scholly after attending a camp, the kid can obviously play regardless of what a recruiting service says.

Coach Kill isn't building someone elses team. He's building his team.

We already saw how well it turns out when a coach tries to build someone elses team.

All great points. I think the 4- and 5-star kids are all pretty much no-brainers. They are the kids who have gotten a ton of buzz and have been on someone's radar since Pop Warner ball.

Below that, the beauty is going to be in the eye of the beholder and we can only hope that Kill's eyes are attuned to what it will take to succeed at the BCS level. My guess is they are.

I think the rating sites, while decent and providing a nice shorthand for fans, are great for creating arguments as much as anything else. I appreciate the work the people who run those sites do, as they do provide a ton of information, but I tend to trust coaches more in their assessment of talent.

 

[getthemall]

Another thing one should look at is where is that 4 or 5 star recruit coming from. Is he from TX, CA>, or Fla. I will put a 2 0r 3 star recruit from those states against any 5 star from any other part of the country. Example Bryce and Arthur Brown. Both 5star recruits . Arthur, #2 recruit in the nation and #1 at LB. Bryce #1 runnibg back in the nation. Have yet to see the field. Both from Kansas. Jeff Scott, 3 star from Miami, starting at OLE Miss.

What I am saying is this, character, strength, speed, athleticsm, all have a play. 5 stars are good, but keep in mind where are they from. It not the same being a 5 star DT going up against linemen that way 235-250 or a 3 star dt who goes up against linemen that weigh 280-305. Give me the 3 star anyday

 

[Mustang Mountain Man]

Caution: Most Moronic Poster Ever Comments

Judging football talent can be done by measurements that eliminate bias. All the recruiting websites use measures to compare players. These measurements can then be used to compare athletic performance. They are then force ranked... A star is then posted on the player. The psychology of decisions on how to implement a strategic recruitment of players is no different than that of any corporation or business. The same human bias is involved. The same tools are used to evaluate talent. From my seat, and my biases, I tend to believe that people and systems can be improved and nobody has reached their full potential and can be improved further, even if they are perceived to be at the top of their game. Jerry Kill can improve his recruiting. The most obvious indicator that he can improve his recruiting is that we are not getting the best recruits based on real measurements: speed, strength, agility, endurance, technique. I generalized the measurables simply to cluster them into conceptual groups. The information Scout/Rivals/ESPN or any other publicly available site generally have the same or very similar data on these players. Jerry Kill and staff do not have the time or the money to compare as many athletes as do the recruiting services. And, I don't think the U's recruiting coordinator is crunching unique measurements on the few players that go to Minnesota camps that are better than can be purchased.

The question is then did we market Kills recruiting camps to the right potential recruits and did we get the level of recruits to attend to help get the program to the next level in future years. Well, if we are getting Kill to offer athletes that are relatively unknown from these camps, well then this first year is a bust for the camps and the level of recruits needed. At least we have a baseline to improve upon.

Besides, what is wrong with the opinion that this year is a colossal bust? I certainly would not grade this an A class. Not even a B class. I think most on GH would say it is a C for filling needs. I would grade it an F based on long range considerations like time to develop (high cost and low probability of return), low probability of moving up the B1G standings based on the recruits 4 year potential, and I could not disagree more than I have that Jerry Kill is a superior coach to the other coaches in the conference. He most certainly is an upgrade from the very last coach, but it is highly uncertain that he is superior to the competition and can thus "coach up" the players to such a point as to overcome the game strategies, training, and play making of other schools.

Brady Hoke was very popular as a candidate for Minnesota. He has taken the helm with a school with loads of talent, tradition, and top line potential. Iowa has had very solid recruiting classes and top notch coaching. Wisconsin has had years of very good recruiting which is only getting better right now. Nebraska is a super power in talent and coaching. I have my eyes wide open and the reason I grade Minnesota with an F in recruiting is for the simple measure against the competition we are falling further back than ever. Our competitors are getting stronger in recruiting and we are measurably falling back. When I said we hare recruited the worst class in decades was not to judge the effort solely against previous Minnesota classes, but to also compare this team to its direct competition. Wisconsin is recruiting at close to its all time peak right now. Michigan is doing traditionally well. Nebraska is doing traditionally well. Iowa has been rising in the ranks over the last two decades and is not letting up. Michigan State has been on a roll the last 3 years. When we come in last in the legends division in ranking, and then see how many none ranked players we have right now (immaterial that they will later on be given stars).

Kill needs to do more than have a few hundred camp kids come in who have little chance of getting scholarships elsewhere compete for scholarships. That is not sufficient to compete in the Legends division over the long haul and win. The quality of our efforts to recruit top talent into Kills camps can be dramatically improved. We need to line up all star reasons for going the the Minnesota camps that we don't have right now. I don't doubt that Kill can get it done. He just hasn't shown me that he is willing to adjust to the big time to get it done.

 

[GoAUpher]

I see you are trying to rival Wren for length and silliness.

Besides, what is wrong with the opinion that this year is a colossal bust?

Let's see...the primary reason would be that this class isn't A) done and B) signed. But let's not let the fact that it's July keep you from jumping the gun or anything. After all, you are the superior intellect that declared a verbally committed U recruit as an average tackle compared to all Gophers ever when he hasn't even signed an LOI and isn't even a tackle.

Brady Hoke was very popular as a candidate for Minnesota.

Um, popular with who again? He wasn't even a popular choice for Michigan. And here you go implying that he'd be pulling in a stellar class here even though the reason he is doing so now is most likely due to the fact that he is at Michigan.

Our competitors are getting stronger in recruiting and we are measurably falling back. When I said we hare recruited the worst class in decades was not to judge the effort solely against previous Minnesota classes, but to also compare this team to its direct competition.

Again with comparisons using a class that isn't even finished. Logic isn't your strong suit is it?

Wisconsin is recruiting at close to its all time peak right now. Michigan is doing traditionally well. Nebraska is doing traditionally well. Iowa has been rising in the ranks over the last two decades and is not letting up. Michigan State has been on a roll the last 3 years. When we come in last in the legends division in ranking, and then see how many none ranked players we have right now (immaterial that they will later on be given stars).

You know what I think of when I see this? Wisconsin's all time high still isn't cracking the Top 25. Same for Iowa (whose Top 10 class was several years ago and in many ways a bust). Both of these schools are maximizing opportunities to sign big time kids and developing the less heralded ones well. And neither got the big time kids right away. Hmmm...so if MN were to try and emulate them Kill's start could look...just like it does now.

Kill needs to do more than have a few hundred camp kids come in who have little chance of getting scholarships elsewhere compete for scholarships. That is not sufficient to compete in the Legends division over the long haul and win. The quality of our efforts to recruit top talent into Kills camps can be dramatically improved. We need to line up all star reasons for going the the Minnesota camps that we don't have right now. I don't doubt that Kill can get it done. He just hasn't shown me that he is willing to adjust to the big time to get it done.

And you would do what differently? Or is all this recruiting knowledge based solely on your business experience?

 

[Unregistered User]

He just hasn't shown me that he is willing to adjust to the big time to get it done.

Yup...he's pretty much just been sitting on his hands since his arrival.

Since you seem to have the propensity to equate every move Kill makes to a quantifiable business metric, could you please give me the ticker symbol to the company for which you are the CEO? I would love to short that company until nothing remains but decimal dust.

 

[RodentRampage]

The Gophers only won three games last year. The Gophers haven't won 8 games in a season since 2003. That's a hard sell. You can't make a straight-up comparison in the recuiting between a team that only won 3 games with teams that have been winning for years. You can only judge Kill's recruiting based on what reasonable expectations are, given how the team has performed in the past. Even if Kill does turn it around, it might not happen in the 4 years that the players will be here. By any reasonable measure, Kill is doing OK.

 

[getthemall]

Mountainman, read and look at these please,


http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1722229903247
http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1236908

Look at our new DT recruit. Ranked Top 15 in the state of Fl. Look at how much he lifts at 17.

You mean to tell me because he has no stars, hes no good. Like him there are thousands.

Brian Nicholson ranked the number 11 recruit in MiamiDade County. these boys will be 4 and five star recruits by the end of the season.

Don't kill Coach Miller and Coach Kill yet. But by these signings, the are on the right track.