|
Post by danpatrick on Oct 9, 2015 10:26:39 GMT -8
There should be some level of a correlation between recruiting success and success on the field, so shouldn't be surprising. We've been one of the better G5 programs when it comes to recruiting. Unfortunately even the best G5 recruiting programs (BYU and BSU - the 2 with the most money) rarely get into the top 30-40 in the recruiting rankings these days. Agreed. But they have coaching which greatly improves that deficiency, and we do not. In fact, of late, we seem to have coaching which exacerbates that deficiency. Bingo!
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Oct 9, 2015 11:40:26 GMT -8
Our 2016 class appears to be pretty good. However, at least right now, it's inferior to what we have been getting relative to other MWC schools. Among the reasons is that now that Hauck has been replaced by Sanchez at UNLV, we aren't getting good HS kids out from under their nose. Further, UNLV has gotten a commit from this kid out from under our nose: 247sports.com/Player/Marquis-Wimberly-31845 . We desperately need quality wideouts and I bet Wimberly would have a great chance to join Holder as a starter for us next year. Smh that it appears we never even offered the kid and what with Rocky's aversion to MWC schools trying to get kids from other conference schools to decommit to them, you can bet the house we never will.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Oct 9, 2015 12:45:18 GMT -8
Agree or not. There is no disagreement possible about the continued listless meandering of our football program and the constancy of our inferiority to the programs you've mentioned. We've had more successes over the past 4-5 years than most G5 programs. That's not meandering nor listless. The gap is financial, and that's going to remain no matter who's in charge given BSU's TV contract. We aren't going to match BSU or BYU financially, nor any of the P5's.
In the MW, we're in that 2nd tier of teams w/ FSU, CSU, etc. That's reality. FSU has the fan base; CSU just got the facilities boost. Hopefully when this Chargers fiasco gets resolved we'll have both.
Once again back to reality: We recruit in the 60's and 70's and that has become roughly where where Rocky has taken us in the polls after 5 years of his stagnation.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 9, 2015 13:25:55 GMT -8
We've had more successes over the past 4-5 years than most G5 programs. That's not meandering nor listless. The gap is financial, and that's going to remain no matter who's in charge given BSU's TV contract. We aren't going to match BSU or BYU financially, nor any of the P5's.
In the MW, we're in that 2nd tier of teams w/ FSU, CSU, etc. That's reality. FSU has the fan base; CSU just got the facilities boost. Hopefully when this Chargers fiasco gets resolved we'll have both.
Once again back to reality: We recruit in the 60's and 70's and that has become roughly where where Rocky has taken us in the polls after 5 years of his stagnation. Maybe you've missed several previous posts already referencing this, but recruiting in the 60's & 70's overall is where the top 5-10 G5 schools are recruiting! Other than a BSU, BYU & a rare outlier, that's the TOP end of G5 recruiting PERIOD. There wasn't ONE SINGLE G5 school ranked in the top 50 last year per 24/7, including BSU & BYU, and our class was rated on par with BYU in 2015. ESPN did have BYU at #50, but no other G5 school higher than 65. It's reality. It has nothing to do with Rocky; it has everything to do with the disparity between P5 & G5 schools in recruiting these days, given the financial gap. It's about bells & whistles the PROGRAM offers. Our recruiting staff is pretty damn good. PS. Prior to Rocky, Hoke's last 2 classes were ranked in the mid to high 70s.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Oct 9, 2015 14:35:35 GMT -8
SDSU's 2015 ranking was the best in years at #67 nationally. Of course, had the WR Holmes not signed on at the eleventh hour, it wouldn't have looked quite that good. But although we weren't terribly far behind that number in Rocky's earlier classes, consider how many G5s had a higher ranked recruiting class.
2014 - SDSU #71 w/ the following schools ranked higher
USF UCF Marshall Temple Boise Cincinnati ODU Houston ECU BYU
2013 - SDSU #73
Pitt Louisville USF Boise Rutgers Houston Marshall Cincinnati UConn SMU BYU Fresno Tulane ECU
2012 - SDSU #71
Rutgers Pitt Louisville Cincinnati Arkansas St. Houston USF Boise Southern Miss SMU BYU
The 2011 class was really composed of Hoke recruits. 247Sports ranked that class at #71.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Oct 9, 2015 16:04:35 GMT -8
3/12 3* recruits from our 2011 class ended up finishing their career here. Munson was a 2*. Need I go on? Ok so three players in 6 recruiting classes that were two stars worked out.How is that going to get us a undefeated record. Thats 2 off the top of my head. So you say only shoot for 3* and 4* guys and end up with incomplete classes and academic dropouts?
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 9, 2015 16:44:51 GMT -8
Ok so three players in 6 recruiting classes that were two stars worked out.How is that going to get us a undefeated record. Thats 2 off the top of my head. So you say only shoot for 3* and 4* guys and end up with incomplete classes and academic dropouts? I would go with mostly 3 stars about 20 of them 3 two stars and two 4 stars.We only had one 4 star drop out Desean Holmes.The coaches need to step it up we should not be stuck at the 2010 level of recruiting.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Oct 9, 2015 16:52:57 GMT -8
Thats 2 off the top of my head. So you say only shoot for 3* and 4* guys and end up with incomplete classes and academic dropouts? I would go with mostly 3 stars about 20 of them 3 two stars and two 4 stars.We only had one 4 star drop out Desean Holmes. So how do we "just go with" these recruits? You do realize recruits don't just grow on trees, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Oct 9, 2015 16:58:25 GMT -8
Only 3 teams in our conference currently have higher rated classes, and last I checked its 4 months until signing day. Chill. the foundation of every team team in our conference is 2 and 3 star talent. Welcome to the real world where $ rules. if you think we are ever going to go undefeated, especially playing the UCLAs and ASUs of the world, you definitely do need to put the crack pipe down and come back to reality. We should only be targeting 3 and 4 star players at this point.Do you think our basketball program would have made it this far with redshirted two star players?Of course not,Look at the league our basketball program plays in.It is not the league it is the prestige of the coach and how he recruits. Cluelessnes, personified.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 9, 2015 17:00:17 GMT -8
I would go with mostly 3 stars about 20 of them 3 two stars and two 4 stars.We only had one 4 star drop out Desean Holmes. So how do we "just go with" these recruits? You do realize recruits don't just grow on trees, don't you? I would not be talking to two stars I would be talking to 3 stars and at least a hundred of them so I could get my 20.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 9, 2015 17:16:25 GMT -8
Let's stop worrying about play calling and get to the root of the problem here.Success starts with recruiting.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 9, 2015 18:18:36 GMT -8
SDSU's 2015 ranking was the best in years at #67 nationally. Of course, had the WR Holmes not signed on at the eleventh hour, it wouldn't have looked quite that good. But although we weren't terribly far behind that number in Rocky's earlier classes, consider how many G5s had a higher ranked recruiting class. 2014 - SDSU #71 w/ the following schools ranked higher USF UCF Marshall Temple Boise Cincinnati ODU Houston ECU BYU 2013 - SDSU #73 Pitt Louisville USF Boise Rutgers Houston Marshall Cincinnati UConn SMU BYU Fresno Tulane ECU 2012 - SDSU #71 Rutgers Pitt Louisville Cincinnati Arkansas St. Houston USF Boise Southern Miss SMU BYU The 2011 class was really composed of Hoke recruits. 247Sports ranked that class at #71. Pitt, Rutgers & Louisville had all accepted bids to P5 conferences by 2012, so their classes were greatly influenced by that. They all said they got immediate upticks with the bids to the P5 conferences since their recruits knew they'd be P5. So basically, either in or right around the top 10 G5s nationally, and within the top 2-3 in our conference every year. Like you said, trended up slightly up in 2015.
As you know, most of the 4-stars who go to G5's usually end up being last minute guys who either change their minds at the last minute for immediate PT, or have the P5's pull back from them. Holmes is no different than what you'd see at many schools.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 9, 2015 18:24:27 GMT -8
SDSU's 2015 ranking was the best in years at #67 nationally. Of course, had the WR Holmes not signed on at the eleventh hour, it wouldn't have looked quite that good. But although we weren't terribly far behind that number in Rocky's earlier classes, consider how many G5s had a higher ranked recruiting class. 2014 - SDSU #71 w/ the following schools ranked higher USF UCF Marshall Temple Boise Cincinnati ODU Houston ECU BYU 2013 - SDSU #73 Pitt Louisville USF Boise Rutgers Houston Marshall Cincinnati UConn SMU BYU Fresno Tulane ECU 2012 - SDSU #71 Rutgers Pitt Louisville Cincinnati Arkansas St. Houston USF Boise Southern Miss SMU BYU The 2011 class was really composed of Hoke recruits. 247Sports ranked that class at #71. Pitt, Rutgers & Louisville had all accepted bids to P5 conferences by 2012, so their classes were greatly influenced by that. They all said they got immediate upticks with the bids to the P5 conferences since their recruits knew they'd be P5. So basically, either in or right around the top 10 G5s nationally, and within the top 2-3 in our conference every year. Like you said, trended up slightly up in 2015.
As you know, most of the 4-stars who go to G5's usually end up being last minute guys who either change their minds at the last minute for immediate PT, or have the P5's pull back from them. Holmes is no different than what you'd see at many schools.
I am not saying we can get many 4 stars I am saying 3 star players.Leave the two stars for UNLV,NEW MEXICO,SAN JOSE ST,NEVADA ETC.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 9, 2015 18:36:57 GMT -8
So how do we "just go with" these recruits? You do realize recruits don't just grow on trees, don't you? I would not be talking to two stars I would be talking to 3 stars and at least a hundred of them so I could get my 20.I'm curious, what if anything do you know about recruiting? To begin with, you realize most coaches nationally never refer to the recruiting stars or services? Also, our staff & most every staff recruit WELL over 100 kids per class; some offer well over 150 if not more by signing day.
Second, since you start recruiting when they're FR & SO's, and since most players aren't rated until their junior years (if then) there wouldn't be guys to recruit if you only focused on 3-stars.
Finally, most kids are initially defaulted to a 2-star & most also get re-rated either the summer before their senior year or during their senior year. So some if not many of the kids we've recruited may be 2-stars now but either a) haven't been rated at all, or b) may be re-rated to a 3. This is very common, especially if a kid doesn't go to one of the major camps.
So to summarize, if you were in charge you a) would be only recruiting a small proportion of the 3-4 stars that are even out there (since many don't get 3-star status until senior year), and you'd be starting the recruiting process a year or two after all the other coaches. Plus, you'd only be adding a class of 20 when most schools are recruiting 25.
I'd think we'd be in a lot of trouble if you were our recruiting coordinator. In fact, it'd be a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 9, 2015 18:40:38 GMT -8
Pitt, Rutgers & Louisville had all accepted bids to P5 conferences by 2012, so their classes were greatly influenced by that. They all said they got immediate upticks with the bids to the P5 conferences since their recruits knew they'd be P5. So basically, either in or right around the top 10 G5s nationally, and within the top 2-3 in our conference every year. Like you said, trended up slightly up in 2015.
As you know, most of the 4-stars who go to G5's usually end up being last minute guys who either change their minds at the last minute for immediate PT, or have the P5's pull back from them. Holmes is no different than what you'd see at many schools.
I am not saying 4 stars I am saying 3 star players.Leave the two stars for UNLV,NEW MEXICO,SAN JOSE ST,NEVADA ETC. The "4 star" comment was to the post I quoted, who referenced Holmes. Not you.
And again, Boise St and even many P5 programs have 2-star recruits on their roster. There isn't a roster in our conference which doesn't have several 2-stars. Others have mentioned several greats in SDSU history who were 2-stars. AJ Watt was a 2-star walk on - would you have passed on him as well?
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 9, 2015 18:45:57 GMT -8
I know for a fact we could get 3 star players.You have to remember one thing that Rocky is not a prestigious coach.Three stars are accompleshable in the mountain west and we all know that and I am only asking for 20 not 25.Did you see what Utah did a few years ago?I am talking about doing the same thing they did.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 9, 2015 18:53:00 GMT -8
Two star players are usually not playing Varsity the freshman or sophmore year of high school.Watt and players like this would be in my 3 two star formula.20 three star 3 two star and two four star per recruiting class.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Oct 10, 2015 8:21:16 GMT -8
someone call Rocky, this guy has recruiting all figured out.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 10, 2015 9:16:25 GMT -8
someone call Rocky, this guy has recruiting all figured out. Exactly,This is what needs to be done.
|
|
|
Post by gentlesaztec on Oct 10, 2015 9:18:03 GMT -8
I am surprised we can get any 3's or better as negative this board is at times
|
|