|
SURVEYING THE LANDSCAPE
-----
|
Pirate Notebook No. 297
Monday, February 19, 2007
By Denny O'Brien |
 |
Internet analysts missing mark
By Denny O'Brien
©2007 Bonesville.net
All Rights Reserved.
Internet recruiting analysts often claim
that their profession is an inexact science. They should disclaim it as a
deceptive one.
The latter more accurately depicts the
burgeoning business of evaluating the recruiting efforts of Division I-A
football programs. Otherwise we might witness a more direct correlation in
recruiting rankings and the end-of-season national polls.
But that lack of guarantee has done little
to curtail the enthusiasm displayed by fans annually on National Signing
Day. And it certainly hasn't reduced the supply of ammunition used in heated
message board fodder.
It's a clear sign of how the Internet has
altered not only recruiting, but also a program's overall perception. That
shift in thinking has also permeated into the philosophies of some coaches
who feel pressured to make a big splash on Signing Day.
"We don't recruit the (Internet) stars,"
East Carolina coach Skip Holtz said on National Signing Day. "We don't go
chase the Internet recruits. We sit down and do our evaluating on our own.
"I think too many people recruit to win in
February. I think too many people recruit to win on (Signing Day), they
don't try to recruit to win in the fall. I think too many people try to
recruit names, instead of necessarily people who are going to fit into their
program or fit into their system."
Perhaps more than anyone in the Southeast,
former N.C. State coach Chuck Amato was guilty of that.
Throughout his tenure with the Wolfpack,
Amato stockpiled three and four-star athletes who were coveted by
higher-profile programs. As a result, his recruiting hauls regularly ranked
among the national Top 25.
Just why Amato's win total fell far short
of his recruiting victories isn't hard to figure. A simple understanding of
the evaluation methods used by popular recruiting sites like Scout.com and
Rivals.com reveals the major flaws involved with ranking classes.
Both sites use a ranking system that is
heavily weighted in the average number of stars of a school's recruits. By
that measure, Amato deserved every snippet of praise he received from both
fans and the media.
However a closer examination of his
recruiting trends reveals that most of his harvests were heavily
concentrated in skill personnel. That investment resulted in a major hole
along the offensive front, which many coaches will attest is the foundation
of a healthy program.
Where recruiting sites badly misrepresent
team rankings is with their failure to factor in the specific needs of a
program. Simply rubber stamping a school's class ranking by averaging stars
is both misleading and incomplete if a coach isn't filling holes, or if the
more talented players are concentrated in one or two areas.
A more thorough evaluation would factor
that information, in addition to how well a player fits into a coach's
system. It also would address character and academic issues, both of which
can determine an athlete's fate once he arrives on campus.
Perhaps that is too difficult to capture on
VHS. Just as difficult as it is to accurately predict how an athlete will
perform at the next level, and how successful a program will be four years
into the future.
Even so, the widespread popularity of
football recruiting "analysis" is far greater than the hardwood version,
despite the fact that hoops talent scouts are more reliable.
It's a strong sign that coaching and player
development have a greater impact on the gridiron. And the growing emphasis
fans place on Signing Day rankings suggests their tendency to reside in a
virtual reality.
Early bird deserves reward
Unlike hoops, college football lacks an
early signing period in recruiting. But some coaches would like to see that
change.
Count Holtz among the curious.
"It's something that needs to be looked
at," Holtz said. "How early do you make it? Do you go right after the
season?
"But I think that there needs to be
something, yes. I think for the young men who are making their decision that
early... I think that something needs to be done."
He's right. Because an early signing period
in football benefits both players and schools.
Players win because it prevents coaches
from rescinding offers late in the game when more desirable prospects switch
allegiances. Schools win because it eliminates much of the last-minute
looting that often occurs.
And it rewards coaches who mine
undiscovered gems early in the recruiting process.
Send
an e-mail message to Denny O'Brien.
Click here to dig into Denny
O'Brien's Bonesville archives.
02/23/2007 02:05:29 AM |
