Power Five offer numbers show that Pat Fitzgerald and his staff may be the most efficient recruiters in the country.
Story: Fitz gets bang for his buck in recruiting
Story: Fitz gets bang for his buck in recruiting
Fitz is The Closer in recruiting
- Thread starter lou v
- Start date
Lou, I'm curious....does the football staff have the same access to the private jet for recruiting as the basketball staff does?
Impressive. It does beg the question as to whether we shouldn't be aiming a bit higher. We certainly can afford to gamble a bit.
Interesting that Stanford has less offers out. Seems either like a massive reversal from the Harbaugh era or they aren't defining the offers that they send out as committable offers until they are admitted.
Sorry Lou but I cannot agree with the LOGIC of this article. PF makes fewer offers than most P5 HC's.... AND that 'proves' he is very efficient because a relatively high percentage of offerees commit???
Any P5 HC could have a nearly 100% 'efficiency rate' if he only offers recruits who aren't very good at the P5 level. The vast majority of such recruits would realize the odds they get any other P5 offer are dismal, and therefore they should take the offer from this coach......right????
Don't get me wrong...I am NOT saying that's what PF is doing...obviously some NU commits do have strong offer lists...my point is simply that the data you show does NOT lead to the conclusion you are pushing.
P.S. Assuming that Vandy's academic standards for athletes are similar to NU's (as it is commonly argued and can probably be verified at least through SAT scores) how are they hurting their program by offering about 300% as many athletes as NU's? Or rather, what exactly is NU "saving" by offering 1/3 as many as Vandy's?
You would have a point if NU didn't have any P5 caliber players. That's clearly not true.
Vanderbilt doesn't have the same academic requirements as NU. Nowhere close. Not sure who's "commonly" making that argument.
Every coach/program does things differently.
On one extreme (probably the schools with 300+ offers out), area recruiters are allowed to offer kids without another coach so much as even evaluating the kid's tape; the model is essentially "offer first and figure the rest out later."
On the other extreme, you've got places like NU where offers don't go out without extensive tape and academic evaluation. Under the NU process I was familiar with, a player didn't get an NU offer unless evaluated by both the area recruiter and position coach (and coordinator to the extent there was disagreement between the first two) before a final sign off from Fitz. We also had to have a "character evaluation" done as well as a transcript in hand.
Don't get me wrong. I think there could/should be a handful more "speculative offers" to top-notch prospects, and used to argue for it within the program, but Fitz put his process in place for good reasons. Namely, both that Fitz places a lot of emphasis on knowing the character of players he brings in and the academic restrictions mean that offers to guys who wouldn't ultimately be admitted would be pointless.
I would be curious to see this list from past years and especially the Harbaughh era.
A few people find fault in just about everything Fitz does. Comes with the territory.
Could someone thoroughly explain the steps preceding an offer at NU? I mean for athletic department approval and academic approval. Don't possible recruits have to qualify academically before they are offered?
If you look at the offer lists, they do gave other P5 offers. It shows Fitz and company target and close well. Could /some additional higher profile prospects be offered? Maybe But with the limited number of openings we have, how far down that rabbit hole do you go? We have gone after and gotten a lot of the top guys in the state. Many of the one we have not gone after would not get in here. There are always the exceptions that we the fan feel should have been recruited (such as Fleener and some of the OL that have gone to IA) but we do not know the whole story
Not necessarily. With very few exceptions, recruits wouldn't be formally admitted to school until after their junior year; the process required six semesters of grades and an SAT or ACT. Before then, it's basically the coaches' best guess as to whether recruits will qualify when the time comes. The staff is quite good at making those guesses, but there's some possibility that a kid could not be admitted after receiving an offer.
I get that, and basically I think we're in agreement. I'm just saying we could be more speculative with some top-notch prospects. Shoot for the moon a bit. Swing harder at the risk of missing. We can afford to a bit. I'm not at all suggesting we don't consider academic restrictions or character. But, generally speaking if a kid gets offered by and admitted to Stanford and then commits to them, that's probably a kid we should have been on.
Not much disagreement, but "copy cat" offers are seldom a good thing either. Just because a kid gets offered by or commits to Stanford doesn't necessarily mean he would be a solid fit at NU.
That's totally fair, and no one is suggesting we should offer a kid just because Stanford did - we need to do our homework. But, somehow Stanford is identifying and attracting players that get Heisman consideration, are drafted much more frequently, and win more regularly and accomplish more on the field. It's an indication that we are not doing all that we can or should in this department. It says our recruiting needs work - that or our player development, or both.
I said clearly that I know some NU commits do have strong offer lists. Some also have relatively modest ones, and including some with no other P5 offer (if any other at all). That's besides the point.
My point is simply that the "metric" that the article considers (raw number of offers) is not a very good one to measure "efficiency". As I explained, by this measure, any coach can have an extremely high "efficiency" if he targets players who aren't very good (relative to the level of this coach's program). Obviously, either of Rutgers or Indy could easily fill its roster with very few offers if they mostly offer players with MAC-level (or lower) offers...but what would that 'prove'? They probably won't win a lot of conference games with those players, right?
If @lou v wants to look at "efficiency" he could use a measure that is at least slightly more sophisticated...for example average "stars" per offer...say if a coach fills his roster with 4-5 star-rated players after making very few offers then he can claim some type of high efficiency...but if he fills his rosters with players no one else (at his level) wants he won't have a high "efficiency" even if he makes very few offers to get those players....that'd be a bit better.
But even then, at the end of the day, what matters is the overall strength of the roster (satisfying applicable rules and standards)...If a coach fills his roster with 4-5 star-rated players (without breaking any rule), who really cares if he did it with relatively many offers? And why should anyone care?
You just talked yourself to the only conclusion after one of your posts: why should anyone care?
No, Gary could do wrong. As many have pointed out, he did not stay. I think it was a mistake for him to go to CU. He put too many of his eggs in on Lloyd Abrahamson.
Overall, though, it's hard to criticize what he did for NU and accomplished here, but by all means go ahead.
There's a lot of ways of doing things. Sometimes for the same reason, sometimes for different ones. Tressel at OSU was known for offering ane focusing on a limited number of players compared to programs of equal status. It worked at the time. Meyer offers many more of the top prospects. Both were good recruiters but given the stature of Meyer and OSU, I prefer Meyer's style.
I think Fitz does a good job and it's a good strategy for NU.
I think Fitz does a good job and it's a good strategy for NU.
yes, you keep saying that but you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims that Vandy recruits morons. Not saying you are lying but without any references why should we believe you? But if you can show a link that backs up what you say then that begs the question, i.e., should NU make considerations for football players that fit our mold but may not necessarily have the scores? Sounds as if NU is harsh and lacks the compassion of other schools for kids who might not have had all of the bells and whistles at the ole home infrastructure. NU ought to accept the challenge and try to reach out to peeps like that and try to build a better person.
I mean, it doesn't appear like a good thing to leave the academic standards unbending in a forum where an academic institution ought to be more sensitive and compassionate and recognize that it might ought to lower the bar for the underprivileged.
Last edited:
^^^This^^^
I don't think Fitz is lazy but the article suggest he is intimidated and sets the bar low. The star ratings also confirm that. The results of the article are the exact sorta thing I would expect with a low bar. In fact, it confirms it. And the results confirm it.
I'm ready for Fitz finally to at least win a division or challenge for the division in late November but we simply don't have the talent to do that. Fitz needs to start planting an upgraded seed
I don't need a link. I used my eyes. It was literally my job to screen transcripts for prospective recruits. Many of Vanderbilt's players (including some of their more marquee recruits) were nowhere close to passing muster with NU admissions. We're talking 2.6 GPAs with 16 or 17 on the ACT. Just barely enough to qualify with the NCAA's sliding scale: https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2011-12_Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf
NU's requirements really aren't that stringent, especially if a kid has "a story." The staff played a huge role in developing a lot of kids who recognized and took advantage of the opportunity afforded by the NU degree. Best example is, somewhat ironically, Venric Mark; he was one of the best we had in articulating just how much NU and the coaches had done for him. It makes sense that he's currently working in recruiting so he can tell his story.
Conversely, I haven't seen much evidence that NU losses out on recruits they really want due to academics. The standard is already significantly lowered for admissions of student athletes. You want to create opportunities, but you also want the athletes to succeed off the field. There can be a fine line to that and it's not a science.
Following recruiting like I do, I would now argue that the education NU offers is the TOP differentiator between our offers and most. We now get kids because of the higher standards and character of their classmates. It is more of an asset than a liability. There is a smaller pool of players, but there are enough to put quality contending teams on the field.
Your experience may not be typical. I have not yet found recent admission data to compare NU and Vandy. However, a study done by USA Today back in GB years puts Vandy among the top 10, closely behind Stanford, NU and Duke.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...2_1_kansas-state-colorado-state-texas-el-paso
While I would prefer to see updated data, I doubt the RELATIVE ranking between schools have changed much over the past couple of decades.
Most view Stanford, Northwestern and Vandy as "peers" in major athletics...Rice doesn't make the cut athletically...Many also put Duke and to a lesser extend ND in the same group...it doesn't mean that every single athlete admitted by one school would also be admitted by the others...it just means they (the first 3 at least) are in the same ball park concerning admission standards for athletes.
Duke has presented some evidence that strongly backs their claim that they are near the top of academics/athletics success...in comparison to Stanford, Northwestern, Vandy and ND (whom they chose as "peers").
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209638021
I get what you are saying here but I don't think it translates into good recruiting or competent research.
1) We have no idea how much effort has gone into evaluating 4 and 5 stars not offered.
2) There is a negative impact to losing recruiting wars as well. How many times in the last few years have we had posts or entire threads thumping our chests about our head to head, in state recruiting victories agains Illinois (or Northern for tat matter). We know that success in this arena looks good for NU's reputation and that future recruits and out of state recruits will compare and see that local guys who are familiar with and offered by both programs almost always pick NU. If our staff is confident that they have no shot at a certain player, it is only a negative statistic to offer and be rejected. A statistic that can be used against NU. According to this article, NU can spin the statistic into a positive message.
The message is, "We offer an elite profile students who are gifted athletes, academically superior, and of high character." "You are one of those few we have chosen."
1) The ratings are not sacrosanct. But, they are indicative. No one is suggesting we offer any recruit just because of how they are ranked. The coaches have to do the work. But, at the end of the day, what does it tell you when we don't pull in the quality of recruit ranking wise vs. Stanford, AND Stanford is performing better than us on the field and winning championships while we are not?
2) Really? The argument is that we should give up on kids before even trying? That we should focus on just maintaining a high success rate on our conversion? Wow, just wow.
Sorry but you are not looking at this matter clearly...NU could win each and every "recruiting war" simply by going after players that most P5 schools won't be interested in. It may have a "perfect" record winning recruiting wars, and yet hardly win any B1G game...what good would that do?
I very much doubt that people out there are ranking programs based on rejected scholarship offers...what people do care is about the strength of the class...if it's a strong class few, if any, would worry about how many unsuccessful scholarship offers were made.
That said, the coaches should be smart about how they allocate their limited recruiting time, money and other resources...obviously spending a lot of time and money on an "out of region" "5 star" recruit (say in California) may not be smart if the coaches have little reasons to expect success. Making the offer itself (if the athlete does qualify) takes little resources, though.
For fear of taking the bait... you're arguing a different thing by pointing to academic outcomes rather than admissions criteria. And I'm not exactly swayed by an article/study from 1993.
And it isn't "my experience." I reviewed literally thousands of transcripts for the recruiting office to the point that it was a running joke both amongst the office and my family that I could recite the academic profile of almost every starter in the B1G for a couple years.
#1... You argue over and over that we need more "four-star" guys.
#2... it isn't "giving up" to put in legwork to identify academic fits who are likely to reciprocate NU recruiting interest. Deering goes a little far, but isn't completely off base.
That's not what the coaches do/are doing. They're identifying prospects who fit academically and are likely to reciprocate interest. They could blast out hundreds of offers based exclusively on transcripts (this is what Harbaugh used to do), but that would be pretty pointless.
#1 - Yes I do, but more to the point, I argue over and over that we need to get better players. The ones we have been getting haven't been good enough to win B1G titles. The rankings (for the umpteenth time) are INDICATIVE. No one is suggesting we just offer kids based on what they are ranked. But, at the end of the day, our class rankings are indicative of strength and if we continually rank in the 40-50 range, that is an indication that we are not recruiting sufficiently well. What does it tell you when Stanford's classes continually are ranked higher and continues to perform better on the field? What does it tell you that all of our B1G championship teams had top 30 ranked classes making up the core of our starters, and none of our non-championship teams have had top 30 ranked classes making up the core?
#2 NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT WE SHOULD GO AFTER KIDS WHO DO NOT FIT ACADEMICALLY (please stop it with it strawmen). There are a bunch of kids at fit academically who we don't go after (again, just look at Stanford's commitment lists since Harbaugh took over). You can't begin to argue that we are going after the absolute best pool of talent that is academically qualified. We aren't. If we were, we wouldn't have such a high conversion rate while pulling in classes consistently ranked lower than Stanford's and Barnett's. We should not be giving up on 4 or 5 star recruits to go after kids who are less pursued simply to maintain high conversion rate (which was purely Deering's argument - had nothing to do with academic fit). The high conversion rate to me is an indication that we aren't stretching far enough. We SHOULD spend more time reaching a bit more.
a) I don't think that is what Harbaugh did
b) whatever he did was not at all pointless, if you look at the talent as able to bring in and the championships he won.
Hell, this is like recruiting in any profession. You go after the best possible talent period, even if they wouldn't give you the time of day. And you do the work to tell your story and sell them so that they will reciprocate interest. Of course, if you sniff around and they aren't interested, you don't spend your time banging your head on a wall, you move on. But, at least fricking try and don't assume you can't win just because they are highly sought after.
