ADVERTISEMENT

A little Paddy Fisher love from Rivals

Good Lord. A 5.5 rating and "we were concerned about his speed from sideline to sideline?" They sure whiffed on Paddy. Did he really get THAT much quicker at NU? Good way of covering your ass when you miss a pick. Interesting that eight of these 10 are three-star recruits, and some of them, like Paddy, weren't even particularly highly rated three-stars.
 
In all fairness, Paddy was listed as 6-2 215 coming out of high school. I believe he is 6-4 245 now, so he not only grew but gained a lot of strength and speed, thanks to his genetics and the NU strength and conditioning program. He is probably our best pro LB prospect since Napolean Harris, who went in the first round.
 
In all fairness, Paddy was listed as 6-2 215 coming out of high school. I believe he is 6-4 245 now, so he not only grew but gained a lot of strength and speed, thanks to his genetics and the NU strength and conditioning program. He is probably our best pro LB prospect since Napolean Harris, who went in the first round.

You can certainly put on strength and an extra burst with a good conditioning program, but it's hard to believe he'd go from a "concern" to a sideline-to-sideline monster in one year. I could be wrong, but this is a classic example of why we should be concerned about rankings, but not TOO concerned about them.
 
You can certainly put on strength and an extra burst with a good conditioning program, but it's hard to believe he'd go from a "concern" to a sideline-to-sideline monster in one year. I could be wrong, but this is a classic example of why we should be concerned about rankings, but not TOO concerned about them.

That's why recruiting services are kind of a joke. Many kids are still growing and developing at 15-18 years old, when scouts and talent evaluators are trying to figure out rankings and assigning points, in some cases to four decimal points! Paddy Fisher as a high school senior was a lot different than Paddy Fisher after a full year of strength and conditioning, and in his case, growing 2 inches and putting on 30 pounds of muscle. That kind of growth and super-sizing is almost impossible to predict. Two opposite cases are Anthony Walker and Nate Fox, both who put on a lot of muscle mass only to find out that it actually worked against them, slowing them down and making them stiff, according to the accounts I've read. They eventually had to lose weight to regain their quickness and flexibility. Paddy Fisher was blessed with a frame and genetics that allows him to be 6-4 245. But again, almost impossible to predict.
 
That's why recruiting services are kind of a joke. Many kids are still growing and developing at 15-18 years old, when scouts and talent evaluators are trying to figure out rankings and assigning points, in some cases to four decimal points! Paddy Fisher as a high school senior was a lot different than Paddy Fisher after a full year of strength and conditioning, and in his case, growing 2 inches and putting on 30 pounds of muscle. That kind of growth and super-sizing is almost impossible to predict. Two opposite cases are Anthony Walker and Nate Fox, both who put on a lot of muscle mass only to find out that it actually worked against them, slowing them down and making them stiff, according to the accounts I've read. They eventually had to lose weight to regain their quickness and flexibility. Paddy Fisher was blessed with a frame and genetics that allows him to be 6-4 245. But again, almost impossible to predict.

Not at all impossible to predict. Doctors do it all the time. You just have to ask the right questions and do a few tests.
 
Not at all impossible to predict. Doctors do it all the time. You just have to ask the right questions and do a few tests.

OK, I needed to be a little clearer. Almost impossible for recruiting services to predict. That's why they're a joke most of the time.
 
That's why recruiting services are kind of a joke. Many kids are still growing and developing at 15-18 years old, when scouts and talent evaluators are trying to figure out rankings and assigning points, in some cases to four decimal points! Paddy Fisher as a high school senior was a lot different than Paddy Fisher after a full year of strength and conditioning, and in his case, growing 2 inches and putting on 30 pounds of muscle. That kind of growth and super-sizing is almost impossible to predict. Two opposite cases are Anthony Walker and Nate Fox, both who put on a lot of muscle mass only to find out that it actually worked against them, slowing them down and making them stiff, according to the accounts I've read. They eventually had to lose weight to regain their quickness and flexibility. Paddy Fisher was blessed with a frame and genetics that allows him to be 6-4 245. But again, almost impossible to predict.

It is what the recruiting services job is, predict success. Since the majority of 5 stars are excellent players and many 4 star become multi year starters, there is some correlation to ranking and performance. Of course, every year there are 2 stars and below that turn into studs.

Pretty much every player should be much more developed after two years in a college program. Rivals missed the mark on Paddy. That’s ok, because when you rank a few thousand players a year you will make mistakes. What rankled me was the alibi and the typical NU comment implying he is good because of smarts not athletic ability.
 
It is what the recruiting services job is, predict success. Since the majority of 5 stars are excellent players and many 4 star become multi year starters, there is some correlation to ranking and performance. Of course, every year there are 2 stars and below that turn into studs.

Pretty much every player should be much more developed after two years in a college program. Rivals missed the mark on Paddy. That’s ok, because when you rank a few thousand players a year you will make mistakes. What rankled me was the alibi and the typical NU comment implying he is good because of smarts not athletic ability.

I agree to some extent, but even with a small sample size such as the article on the ten redshirt freshmen that stood out last year, the distribution was:

1) 3 star, 5.7
2) 3 star, 5.7
3) 3 star, 5.5 (Paddy)
4) 3 star, 5.7
5) 3 star, 5.7
6) 3 star, 5.6
7) 5 star, 6.1
8) 3 star, 5.5
9) 3 star, 5.6
10) 4 star, 5.8

So one 5 star, one 4 star, and eight 3 stars. I would call that a recruiting service FAIL.
 
I agree to some extent, but even with a small sample size such as the article on the ten redshirt freshmen that stood out last year, the distribution was:

1) 3 star, 5.7
2) 3 star, 5.7
3) 3 star, 5.5 (Paddy)
4) 3 star, 5.7
5) 3 star, 5.7
6) 3 star, 5.6
7) 5 star, 6.1
8) 3 star, 5.5
9) 3 star, 5.6
10) 4 star, 5.8

So one 5 star, one 4 star, and eight 3 stars. I would call that a recruiting service FAIL.
Yes it seems that way. What I find interesting each year Is where they compare the ranking to top round NFL draft picks.
 
That's why recruiting services are kind of a joke. Many kids are still growing and developing at 15-18 years old, when scouts and talent evaluators are trying to figure out rankings and assigning points, in some cases to four decimal points! Paddy Fisher as a high school senior was a lot different than Paddy Fisher after a full year of strength and conditioning, and in his case, growing 2 inches and putting on 30 pounds of muscle.
I had a friend who in sixth grade had a full beard and was the biggest guy in our class. He was about 5' 6". He was a really nice guy but never grew another inch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hungry Jack
I agree to some extent, but even with a small sample size such as the article on the ten redshirt freshmen that stood out last year, the distribution was:

1) 3 star, 5.7
2) 3 star, 5.7
3) 3 star, 5.5 (Paddy)
4) 3 star, 5.7
5) 3 star, 5.7
6) 3 star, 5.6
7) 5 star, 6.1
8) 3 star, 5.5
9) 3 star, 5.6
10) 4 star, 5.8

So one 5 star, one 4 star, and eight 3 stars. I would call that a recruiting service FAIL.


I think its a bit unfair to look at ranking of redshirt freshmen. That they get any playing time to evaluate is part a function of the teams they commit to and what the depth chart looks like. The more fair assessment is the NFL draft, which still probably leads to a similar conclusions, but just saying...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hungry Jack
Not to negate what has been said because I agree, but this is a list of redshirt freshman. If NU had a 4* or 5* kid come in, he'd likely play as a true freshman. Probably not the case at some of the super elite programs, but definitely something to consider.
 
I think its a bit unfair to look at ranking of redshirt freshmen. That they get any playing time to evaluate is part a function of the teams they commit to and what the depth chart looks like. The more fair assessment is the NFL draft, which still probably leads to a similar conclusions, but just saying...

True but if the star ratings are accurate then one would expect to see more 4 and 5 stars on this list. These are the standout performers among redshirt Freshmen, of which there are plenty of 4 and 5 stars. 80% of the standouts on this list were 3 stars. The recruiting services failed to rank them higher for whatever reason.
 
pawildcat wrote: You can certainly put on strength and an extra burst with a good conditioning program, but it's hard to believe he'd go from a "concern" to a sideline-to-sideline monster in one year.

Interestingly, what impressed me about Fisher in the two high school games I saw him play was his lateral mobility. Shows what I know, if other more knowledgeable eyes saw him in any way lacking in that area. To me he also seemed a very disciplined player, getting to the right place to make plays against very good high school competition. Another poster is quite correct, though, in stating his size as considerably smaller two years ago. I think the most surprising thing is not that Paddy gained speed as a Cat, but that he has retained it while getting bigger.
 
pawildcat wrote: You can certainly put on strength and an extra burst with a good conditioning program, but it's hard to believe he'd go from a "concern" to a sideline-to-sideline monster in one year.

Interestingly, what impressed me about Fisher in the two high school games I saw him play was his lateral mobility. Shows what I know, if other more knowledgeable eyes saw him in any way lacking in that area. To me he also seemed a very disciplined player, getting to the right place to make plays against very good high school competition. Another poster is quite correct, though, in stating his size as considerably smaller two years ago. I think the most surprising thing is not that Paddy gained speed as a Cat, but that he has retained it while getting bigger.
I'd also add to this that he plays faster because of how smart he plays I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StreamCat
True but if the star ratings are accurate then one would expect to see more 4 and 5 stars on this list. These are the standout performers among redshirt Freshmen, of which there are plenty of 4 and 5 stars. 80% of the standouts on this list were 3 stars. The recruiting services failed to rank them higher for whatever reason.
There's not necessarily space to move them higher. It's a probability game, and you're trying to predict which have the highest ceilings as players (typically that translates to NFL).

Here's a good article on the 2017 NFL draft by 24/7:
https://247sports.com/Article/Do-recruiting-rankings-matter-The-2017-NFL-Draft-says-yes-52571897

If you look at it in terms of raw numbers:
5 star = 23
4 star = 76
3 star = 90
2 star = 26
unranked = 38

But you have to think of it in probabilities rather than raw numbers, there's only around 30 of the 5 star's in any graduating class and around 300 of the 4 star's. Then there's >3000 of the 2-3 star recruits.

So in probability terms, 75% of the 5 stars were drafted and 25% of the 4 stars were drafted. Both of those are excellent in terms of predictive probability. As for the remaining players, you're talking about 4% chance of a 2-3 star of being drafted.

To go to your example, the # of those recruits playing is going to depend on need of each team. Nobody has the time to look it up for every recruit, but let's just assume for now that 40% of the players redshirt (the trend is lower than 50% at a lot of programs at the moment but just using that).

That means there's only around 12 of the 5 stars playing as redshirt freshmen and 120 of the 4 stars. And then there's going to be somewhere north of 1200+ of the 2-3 stars. It depends on team needs and who shines where. And I'm skeptical that there's even that many 4-5 stars redshirting.

There'll definitely be some 3 stars that outperform 4 stars. That's the nature of how it works. But it's more reasonable an outcome than you think it should be. The reality is that a significant percentage of the 4 stars will never perform at that level, but it's predictive enough for just 25+% of the 4 stars to perform at that level.

The fact that this list is of mostly 3 star's doesn't appear to indicate a serious bias other than it's a mostly random selection of top redshirt freshmen.

Even if only a small percentage of the 2-3 stars outshoot their rankings, then you end up with a relatively larger number than the total number of 4-5 stars that are playing at their ratings level.

That's why these numbers are so weird. It's also why you don't really need that many 4-5 stars. You can do just fine with a handful of 4 stars and mostly well-identified 3 stars that you think include a handful that can outshoot their rating.
 
Recruiting services are right lots of the time, and give me insight and a general sense of recruit quality. I don't want to watch video, and I wouldn't know what I was seeing if I did.

Recruiting services distill hundreds (?) of thousands of high school football players and break them down to about 3,000 that I might care a little about, then into 20 that I'll actually care about.

Because it's pertinent to NU, I wish they published average star ranking and average *score* and not just the proprietary ranking but, other than that, I have little complaint.

Recruiting services not a joke because they don't hit 100% of the time. Their hit rate is almost certainly greater than 50%, depending on your definition of "hit".

I wish there were more analysis of "marginal wins per star point" or some such sabermetrics-style gobbledygook, but that's because I like lots of research into sports mundanities - I doubt that content would drive readership.

That's tremendous value - though not a value I, personally, am willing to pay for ... ;)
 
OK, I needed to be a little clearer. Almost impossible for recruiting services to predict. That's why they're a joke most of the time.

Most recruiting service people aren't doctors. Actually, I don't think any of them are.
 
There's not necessarily space to move them higher. It's a probability game, and you're trying to predict which have the highest ceilings as players (typically that translates to NFL).

Here's a good article on the 2017 NFL draft by 24/7:
https://247sports.com/Article/Do-recruiting-rankings-matter-The-2017-NFL-Draft-says-yes-52571897

If you look at it in terms of raw numbers:
5 star = 23
4 star = 76
3 star = 90
2 star = 26
unranked = 38

But you have to think of it in probabilities rather than raw numbers, there's only around 30 of the 5 star's in any graduating class and around 300 of the 4 star's. Then there's >3000 of the 2-3 star recruits.

So in probability terms, 75% of the 5 stars were drafted and 25% of the 4 stars were drafted. Both of those are excellent in terms of predictive probability. As for the remaining players, you're talking about 4% chance of a 2-3 star of being drafted.

Been saying the same thing here for ages - not sure why this is still puzzling.

Looking at it another way, it's the same reason why the same schools keep winning the national championships.

Schools like 'Bama, dOSU, FSU, etc. get loads of 4* recruits (and basically share the relatively few 5* recruits among themselves).

While not every 4* (or even 5*) will pan out, those programs have plenty more 4* recruits who do end up panning out.

What always drove me to roll my eyes was the argument that recruiting rankings were total bunk when a 4* recruit here didn't pan out, but a 2* recruit ending up being an all B1G caliber player.

It's all about the odds - NU doesn't get enough 4* recruits to see the odds play out and there have been way more 2* recruits who didn't end up being all B1G caliber players, much less starters.

Why is Stanford, after decades of seeing some success followed by years of being at/near the bottom of the PAC, now perennially a contender for the PAC title?

Improved recruiting.

They are now consistently getting classes with a good # of 4* recruits and even get some 5* recruits (got 3 for the 2017 class).
 
Last edited:
Been saying the same thing here for ages - not sure why this is still puzzling.

Looking at it another way, it's the same reason why the same schools keep winning the national championships.

Schools like 'Bama, dOSU, FSU, etc. get loads of 4* recruits (and basically share the relatively few 5* recruits among themselves).

While not every 4* (or even 5*) will pan out, those programs have plenty more 4* recruits who do end up panning out.

What always drove me to roll my eyes was the argument that recruiting rankings were total bunk when a 4* recruit here didn't pan out, but a 2* recruit ending up being an all B1G caliber player.

It's all about the odds - NU doesn't get enough 4* recruits to see the odds play out and there have been way more 2* recruits who didn't end up being all B1G caliber players, much less starters.

Why is Stanford, after decades of seeing some success followed by years of being at/near the bottom of the PAC, now perennially a contender for the PAC title?

Improved recruiting.

They are now consistently getting classes with a good # of 4* recruits and even get some 5* recruits (got 3 for the 2017 class).
Yeah, if we just extrapolate the NFL draft numbers into a "top 300 ranking" of any college football class, you basically end up with something like this:

5 star rated recruits are 80% likely to end up in the top 300 of their class as players.

4 star rated recruits are 40% likely to end up in the top 300 of their class as players.

That leaves a little more than half of the top 300 slots for the remaining 3000 2-3 star players.

If we dissect the numbers further, I'd suspect they look something like this (based on my estimates of just looking at lots of recruiting ratings):

5 star recruit probabilities: 80% chance of being top 300, 15% chance of being in next 700 (#300-1000 ranked as players)

4 star recruit probabilities: 40% chance of being top 300, 40% chance of being in next 700 (#300-1000 ranked as players)

2-3 star recruit probabilities: 5% chance of being top 300, 20% chance of being in next 700 (#300-1000 ranked as players)


This gets to the general point: Recruiting services will miss on players in both directions (upside or downside), but they generally assign the right odds on a players overshooting or undershooting their rating.
 
I don't believe that NU will ever pull in a top-ranked class, at least not in the foreseeable future, regardless of facilities.

Let's be serious. A significant portion of high school players are either not academically qualified to be admitted to or unwilling to fulfill the high academic standards of Northwestern. There are a lot of dumb kids out there.

And those kids who have the opportunity to attend a school like Northwestern, especially the top recruits, would the vast majority of times choose other schools for one reason or another - Stanford, Notre Dame, Michigan, Vanderbilt, etc. - all offer something different that NU might not offer. Could be as simple as weather or program history.

There's a lot of reasons not to go to Northwestern. I'd be happy if we could land 3 to 5 four-star guys every year. Beyond that? I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that NU will ever pull in a top-ranked class, at least not in the foreseeable future, regardless of facilities.

Let's be serious. A significant portion of high school players are either not academically qualified to be admitted to or willing to fulfill the high academic standards of Northwestern. There are a lot of dumb kids out there.

And those kids who have the opportunity to attend a school like Northwestern, especially the top recruits, would the vast majority of times choose other schools for one reason or another - Stanford, Notre Dame, Michigan, Vanderbilt, etc. - all offer something different that NU might not offer. Could be as simple as weather or program history.

There's a lot of reasons not to go to Northwestern. I'd be happy if we could land 3 to 5 four-star guys every year? Beyond that? I wouldn't hold my breath.

That's BS. We offer a ton that those other schools don't offer as well. None of those schools has the academics that NU does aside from Stanford of course. We have Coach Fitz and unparalleled coaching stability. We have the players, who are our best recruiting tools. We have Chicago. You can now add world-class facilities to the list.

The smaller pool works in our favour. Because many of those who are qualified will be attracted by what we have to offer. We can target more effectively. If Duke can have the best recruiting in all of basketball (yeah, yeah, I know they lower their standards, but they still have them), then we certainly don't need to use academics as an excuse for poor recruiting.

I'm not saying we're going to have recruiting classes like Alabama or Ohio State. But, having Stanford caliber classes and recruiting is absolutely possible, and Gary Barnett's already proven it with a lot less to offer. Top 20 classes perennially, maybe a top 10 class every now and then. Perhaps, a third of our recruits with four stars and a 5 star or two a year is not out of the question at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeek55
There's a lot of reasons not to go to Northwestern. I'd be happy if we could land 3 to 5 four-star guys every year? Beyond that? I wouldn't hold my breath.
It really depends on level of success for us now with the main facility in place. I think we have a higher recruiting ceiling than anybody in the Big Ten West other than Nebraska and even Nebraska we can probably match if we're really hitting our ceiling.

But to hit that kind of ceiling probably requires the type of run that Stanford has had: a number of top 10 finishes combined with appearances and wins in the NY6 bowls over a relatively short period of time: basically around 4 or 5 of those 11-12 win finishes in a 10 year period. That's obviously very tough to do for a non-football factory. But we haven't been that far off either with 3 10 win finishes in the past 6 years.

If/when it happens, you'd probably see us reach our ceiling in terms of recruiting in terms of connecting on quite a number of those first-tier offers.
 
I love Northwestern. I am deeply passionate about our athletic programs. I worked with our basketball team for years.

I have no doubt we can get to the top of the West, but to expect an abundance of five or four star prospects to be the right fit at Northwestern is an unlikely proposition, in my view. A school like Stanford - who we compete most directly with - has every advantage over Northwestern: weather, academics, prestige, football program history, recent success, NFL pipeline, and proximity to a global city (you are kidding yourself if you think, right now, Chicago is a culturally, socially, and politically "hotter" city than San Francisco).

Maybe I'm just being unimaginative or cynical, as the university is certainly undergoing many changes right now with the coaching staff and facilities, but I just can't see that kind of (top twenty, top ten) recruiting expectations being met in the near future, nor can I understand having those kinds of recruiting expectations.
 
Last edited:
That's BS. We offer a ton that those other schools don't offer as well. None of those schools has the academics that NU does aside from Stanford of course. We have Coach Fitz and unparalleled coaching stability. We have the players, who are our best recruiting tools. We have Chicago. You can now add world-class facilities to the list.

The smaller pool works in our favour. Because many of those who are qualified will be attracted by what we have to offer. We can target more effectively. If Duke can have the best recruiting in all of basketball (yeah, yeah, I know they lower their standards, but they still have them), then we certainly don't need to use academics as an excuse for poor recruiting.

I'm not saying we're going to have recruiting classes like Alabama or Ohio State. But, having Stanford caliber classes and recruiting is absolutely possible, and Gary Barnett's already proven it with a lot less to offer. Top 20 classes perennially, maybe a top 10 class every now and then. Perhaps, a third of our recruits with four stars and a 5 star or two a year is not out of the question at all.

The smaller pool in no way works in our favor, at least insofar as the “top-ranked” prospects go.

And, for the umpteenth time, Duke basketball has zero academic restrictions besides NCAA minimums. None. Zilch. Nada.
 
And, for the umpteenth time, Duke basketball has zero academic restrictions besides NCAA minimums. None. Zilch. Nada.
Why bother with academic restrictions when your strategy has moved to recruiting players who have zero intention of ever getting a degree? I remember when back in the day Coach K wouldn't have a players jersey in the Cameron rafters if he didn't graduate from Duke. Now he is recruiting players who obviously are only playing at Duke because the NBA won't let them be drafted for their one year of college. These aren't the Mike Gminski/Gene Banks/Johnny Dawkins/Chris Collins Dookies, Dickie V......
 
I love Northwestern. I am deeply passionate about our athletic programs. I worked with our basketball team for years.

I have no doubt we can get to the top of the West, but to expect an abundance of five or four star prospects to be the right fit at Northwestern is an unlikely proposition, in my view. A school like Stanford - who we compete most directly with - has every advantage over Northwestern: weather, academics, prestige, football program history, recent success, NFL pipeline, and proximity to a global city (you are kidding yourself if you think, right now, Chicago is a culturally, socially, and politically "hotter" city than San Francisco).

Maybe I'm just being unimaginative or cynical, as the university is certainly undergoing many changes right now with the coaching staff and facilities, but I just can't see that kind of (top twenty, top ten) recruiting expectations being met in the near future, nor can I understand having those kinds of recruiting expectations.
The only thing I'd say is to look at where Stanford was before Harbaugh: their recruiting classes were basically the same as ours pre-2009.

A big part of why their recruiting shot up is because of winning; they already had all that other stuff and yet recruits weren't exactly banging down the door in the years before Harbaugh started their big run that Shaw continued.

At the end of the day, we're talking about high schoolers without institutional memory.

GB's entire tenure occurred before the current recruiting class was born.

Soon Fitz's tenure will be the entire lifetime of incoming recruiting classes.

That's why short-term wins, 11-12 win seasons in the past 2-4 years, are typically the best selling point for recruits. After that, the facilities and gameday experience make a big difference. And obviously for the recruits we target, academics are a large part of the offering.

It really just comes down to needing a 2 year run like GB's to put it all together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaCat and corbi296
The only thing I'd say is to look at where Stanford was before Harbaugh: their recruiting classes were basically the same as ours pre-2009.

A big part of why their recruiting shot up is because of winning; they already had all that other stuff and yet recruits weren't exactly banging down the door in the years before Harbaugh started their big run that Shaw continued.

At the end of the day, we're talking about high schoolers without institutional memory.

GB's entire tenure occurred before the current recruiting class was born.

Soon Fitz's tenure will be the entire lifetime of incoming recruiting classes.

That's why short-term wins, 11-12 win seasons in the past 2-4 years, are typically the best selling point for recruits. After that, the facilities and gameday experience make a big difference. And obviously for the recruits we target, academics are a large part of the offering.

It really just comes down to needing a 2 year run like GB's to put it all together.

And, much as I dislike his recruiting tactics and general persona, Jim Harbaugh just knows how to win football games.

He’s won everywhere he’s been, but has an extremely grating personality that eventually wears thin. There’s a reason he’s never lasted more than four seasons at a program/team despite going 86-38 as a college coach and 44-19-1 in the NFL.
 
The only thing I'd say is to look at where Stanford was before Harbaugh: their recruiting classes were basically the same as ours pre-2009.

A big part of why their recruiting shot up is because of winning; they already had all that other stuff and yet recruits weren't exactly banging down the door in the years before Harbaugh started their big run that Shaw continued.

At the end of the day, we're talking about high schoolers without institutional memory.

GB's entire tenure occurred before the current recruiting class was born.

Soon Fitz's tenure will be the entire lifetime of incoming recruiting classes.

That's why short-term wins, 11-12 win seasons in the past 2-4 years, are typically the best selling point for recruits. After that, the facilities and gameday experience make a big difference. And obviously for the recruits we target, academics are a large part of the offering.

It really just comes down to needing a 2 year run like GB's to put it all together.

Good post. A lot of it boils down to excitement and perception.

The fact that Fitz doesn't hesitate to play true freshman probably is an overall plus for recruiting, as most kids, especially the heavily recruited ones, want to play from Day One.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT