BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Topic: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Author

Message

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline

Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 10/9/2015 7:47:57 PM

As I see it, how a team does is a function of several factors:
1. The team location, history, conference affiliation, and facilities - Teams in recruiting hotbeds have a big advantage, as do teams in desirable locations. Team with a strong history also have a strong attraction to recruits. Similarly, teams in power conferences have a major recruiting advantage, as well as more money to work with. Teams with better facilities also have an advantage.
2. The staff's sales ability when it comes to recruiting - If you have a master salesman, he will be able to get the recruits he wants, and better players presumably mean more wins.
3. The coaching staff's ability to coach players up, to come up with strategies for attacking the other teams, and to call plays.

Factor #1 tends to change slowly. A coach can affect it a little by building new facilities, and he can slowly build a tradition of winning, but other than that, there isn't much he can do. Factor #2 we can evaluate by looking at the recruiting rankings. How about factor #3? It occurred to me today while posting on the recruiting thread that we can isolate factor #3 from the others by using the recruiting rankings for the last several years to predict the quality of athletes that each team has, and then compare that to the results on the field. If a coaching staff is good at the items in factor #3, they should do better than you'd expect from recruiting rankings. If they are poor at factor #3 they will do worse than you'd expect from recruiting rankings.

Sooo, I did exactly that. I predicted the rank of each team based solely on recruiting rankings, and then compared it to how they are actually doing. Here is the result. Positive numbers indicate coaches doing well at factor #3, and negative ones indicate coaches that may be better salesmen than coaches. From best to worst:

Navy +75
Ga. Southern +52
W. Kentucky +49
Utah St. +48
Boise St +47
Toledo +45
App. St +42
Kansas State 37
Louisiana Tech +37
Utah +37
Georgia Tech 36
Memphis +34
MTSU +32
Duke +31
Northwestern +31
BYU +28
NIU +28
TCU +27
Air Force +27
Ohio +27
Army +26
Iowa +25
Wisconsin +24
Baylor +24
Buffalo +23
BG +22
UNLV +21
Houston +20
Temple +19
San Jose St +18
W. Virginia +18
Stanford +16
Akron +15
NC State +15
Lousiana Monroe +15
E. Carolina +12
CMU +12
Old Miss +12
BC +11
Louisville +11
Oklahoma +9
Ball St +8
USC +8
California +7
Illinois +7
Clemson +6
Iowa St +4
Colorado St +4
Michigan +4
Oklahoma St +3
N. Carolina +3
Pitt +2
Texas San Antonio +1
U. Mass +1
Alabama 0
Idaho -2
Miss. St -2
Tulsa -3
Notre Dame -3
Georgia St -4
UTEP -4
Texas A&M -5
Michigan St -5
EMU -5
Kent St -5
Georgia -5
Tex Tech -6
Syracuse -6
WMU -6
Troy -7
Washington -7
Ohio St -8
Cincinnati -9
Tennessee -9
Arkansas St -9
Arizona St -10
Nevada -10
S. Miss -10
UCLA -10
Florida St -12
FIU -12
Old Dominion -12
Arkansas -12
Florida -12
Wyoming -13
LSU -13
Marshall -13
S. Alabama -13
Wk Forest -14
Arizona -14
Rice -14
Missouri -15
Minnesota -15
U. Conn -15
Charlotte -15
Texas St -16
Nebraska -16
New Mexico St -17
Indiana -18
Louisiana Lafayette -18
Fresno St -20
New Mexico -21
UCF -21
Hawaii -21
Oregon St -21
N. Texas St -21
Miami Ohio -22
Tulane -22
Virginia Tech -22
Colorado -22
Penn State -23
San Diego St -24
Washington St -25
Kentucky -26
Purdue -26
Vandy -27
FAU -29
Oregon -30
SMU -30
Miami Florida -37
Auburn -39
S. Carolina -40
USF -46
Rutgers -46
Maryland -49
Virginia -52
Kansas -55
Texas -63

How do I interpret this?
A. Teams from the middle down: If they are doing well, they are doing well primarily because of recruiting. If they are doing poorly, the coach may be looking for a new job.
B. Teams near the top: If they are doing well, it's because they coach well. If they also recruit well for their conference, they will be prime candidates to move up. If they are not doing that well, they coach well, but need to improve recruiting.

Note that this is a one time picture, and a mid-season snap-shot only. To get a better picture, I will do this again at the end of the year, and then track it for a few years, and then I can compute a multi-year average, and identify coaches that do well over a number of years.

Last Edited: 10/9/2015 7:51:16 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,912

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 10/9/2015 8:58:35 PM

Great stuff. People can dispute posts, data, etc. But NO ONE puts more interesting information into this site than you. Looking forward to chewing on this.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 10/9/2015 10:39:44 PM

As I said, I think you'd need a few years of data for this to be reliable, but even in this quick snapshot seems to make a lot of sense. Coaches that I think of when I think of sound coaching and fundamentals come out significantly on the positive side. For example, I would have expected positive numbers for Solich, Snyder at K-State, Fitzgerald at Northwestern, and Johnson at Georgia Tech, and I got those. If Grobe was still coaching, I'd have expected positive numbers for him as well. As far as new coaches, I did expect positive numbers for Leipold at Buffalo and Bonemego at CMU, and got those as well.

The flip side is coaches who I think of as better recruiters than coaches. That might include Martin at Miami, Fleck at WMU, Golden at Miami, even Martin at New Mexico State (The guy that brought talent like Dri Archer and Roosevelt Nix to the MAC, but never won, and whose successor used that talent to win the MACC and a job at Purdue). I expected negatives for all those coaches, and wasn't surprised.

On the other hand, there were a few coaches who didn't end up where I would have expected. I wasn't particularly expecting positive numbers for Ferentz at Iowa, and I suspect that if I used a sample over more years his numbers wouldn't look this good, and he'd be about a 0. Similarly, Jerry Kill at Minnesota shows as a minus number, and I'd have expected him to be neutral or slightly positive, and I think on a longer sample he wouldn't be minus.

Just to be clear, a "0" doesn't mean someone isn't a good coach. It means that their coaching and recruiting ability are equal. Positive or negative numbers don't make someone "good" or "bad", they simply show where they are stronger, in recruiting, or in coaching. Someone like Saban, who has had the #1 recruiting class every year, can't show up as a positive number; the best he can do is a zero, if he takes all those #1 classes and has a #1 team.

Last Edited: 10/9/2015 10:46:06 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 10/15/2015 7:39:23 PM

I updated for another week of results. These numbers don't change a lot from week to week, so I probably won't update it again for a couple more weeks. I'd expect the numbers for most teams to drift back towards zero. Again, positive numbers means the coach is a better coach/strategist, and a negative number means that a coach is a better recruiter.
Navy +75
W. Kentucky +61
App. St +57
Utah St. +55
Ga. Southern +55
Boise St +54
Toledo +45
Utah +37
Memphis +37
Louisiana Tech +36
Duke +36
Kansas State +36
Ohio +34
Temple +33
Georgia Tech +30
BYU +30
TCU +28
BG +28
NIU +27
Buffalo +26
Baylor +26
UNLV +24
Air Force +24
MTSU +23
Army +22
Akron +21
Wisconsin +20
Iowa +20
Northwestern +20
San Jose St +19
Houston +16
E. Carolina +15
California +15
Lousiana Monroe +15
W. Virginia +14
Oklahoma St +12
Stanford +12
NC State +11
Texas San Antonio +11
Old Miss +11
CMU +10
Louisville +10
Washington +9
Clemson +8
BC +8
Illinois +7
Michigan +7
Tex Tech +6
USC +6
U. Mass +4
Ball St +3
Colorado St +1
Oklahoma +0
N. Carolina -1
Idaho -1
Alabama -1
Notre Dame -1
Troy -2
Kent St -2
Texas A&M -3
Arizona -3
Tulsa -3
Iowa St -4
Georgia St -4
UCLA -4
U. Conn -5
Pitt -5
EMU -6
FIU -6
Florida -6
Minnesota -7
Nevada -7
Tennessee -7
WMU -7
UTEP -7
Miss. St -8
Wyoming -10
S. Alabama -10
Old Dominion -12
Georgia -12
Wk Forest -13
Ohio St -13
Marshall -13
Arkansas -13
Arizona St -14
Cincinnati -14
Florida St -14
New Mexico St -14
Louisiana Lafayette -14
Arkansas St -14
Charlotte -14
Syracuse -15
LSU -15
Washington St -15
New Mexico -16
Rice -17
Texas St -18
Michigan St -19
San Diego St -20
Penn State -20
S. Miss -20
Virginia Tech -20
Nebraska -20
Missouri -21
Miami Ohio -22
Tulane -25
Hawaii -25
FAU -25
N. Texas St -25
Kentucky -26
Indiana -27
SMU -29
Vandy -29
Colorado -29
Fresno St -30
USF -31
Miami Florida -33
UCF -33
Oregon St -34
Purdue -39
Oregon -42
Auburn -46
Rutgers -47
Maryland -48
S. Carolina -50
Virginia -50
Texas -51
Kansas -59

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

TWT
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,112

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 10/16/2015 12:47:33 AM

With your data last week 9 of 13 MAC schools have positive values. The glaring negative value is Miami. Miami thinks they can recruit their way back to glory and they are doing a good job. The problem lies in that other MAC schools are doing better at that strategy. If a program is making progress it starts with a huge improvement on side of the ball. Akron is doing it with defense. I don't think you can deny that Bowden has shown some improvement there. BG started with defense about 5 years ago and then brought in the offensive pieces. Fleck's case with Western Michigan is interesting. Western Michigan always had no worse than average talent for the MAC. Fleck may have tipped the scales enough in recruiting to have a winning season by year 2. Can those WMU classes develop into experienced talent in the two deep? Fleck's turnaround at WMU may be more like Holiday's at Marshall where there is yearly competitiveness but only 1 big year to be had in the tenure.

Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended
2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round
2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl
2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 10/16/2015 7:23:18 AM

Things that will tend to give a coach a positive number:
1. Consistently identifying recruits that are talented, but under the radar
2. Working with the players to make them better
3. Motivating the players
4. Ability to come up with strategies to win specific games
5. Play calling and in game tactical changes
6. Believing that the key to winning is getting more out of the athletes you have
7. Adding extra talent into the pool with a strong walk on program.

Things that will tend to give a coach a negative number:
1. Recruiting players that never qualify, so that they boost recruiting numbers, but never help on the field
2. Having a great ability to recruit
3. Having morale issues on a team
4. Having an unusual amount of injuries
5. Recruiting players that look good on paper, but who don't have a good work ethic, and who therefore don't improve.
6. Believing that the key to winning is having better athletes

I suspect that these numbers vary somewhat from year to year, but not a lot. For example, some coaches may vary from +10 one year to -10 the next, while a different coach might vary from +40 one year to +20 the next. I'm going to start tracking these going forward, and after I have a few year's data I'll have a better idea how much variation there is. Having followed Solich awhile, and recognizing that his strengths are in the first group, I'm not surprised to see him with a big positive number, and I'd guess that's pretty consistent from year to year. From recollection, I think he was usually about +30 at Nebraska as well (#40 recruiting classes, #10 teams).

I do agree with you regarding both Fleck and Martin, that they are both outstanding recruiters, and that their focus is on improving their teams by improving the quality of players. The same is also true of Holliday at Marshall. So far, at least, Martin hasn't done a very good job of transferring the improvement in players into improvement on the field, while Fleck and Holliday have done better at it. Note however, that if Martin is followed by a coach whose strength is the opposite, getting better performance on the field, the stage is set for a turnaround.

It's interesting that so many coaches in the MAC have positive numbers because the sum total of all coaches can't be positive. I think it's a positive sign for the MAC. The MAC coach that scares me is Leipold, since he seems to be not only a great recruiter, he also gets a lot out of the players on the field. I guess that's why he has a career record of something like 100-8. I doubt he'll be at Buffalo more than 3 years.

Last Edited: 10/16/2015 10:23:36 AM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,405

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 10/16/2015 10:54:16 AM

Uncle Wes wrote:

. . . BG started with defense about 5 years ago . . . .

Well, after five years you'd think they'd have a better handle on that "side of the ball." ;-)

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 10/16/2015 11:17:22 AM

Another thing you might take away from these numbers is where a school might look to improve. A coach with good recruiting, but a minus number, and who isn't getting the results might need to get better at fundamentals. A coach with a positive number wanting to get better may need to improve recruiting. That's where Casper71 has been pushing for Ohio to improve, and I largely agree with him. Recruiting the last few years has improved, and I hope it continues to improve.

Last Edited: 10/16/2015 11:18:06 AM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 10/17/2015 3:12:24 PM

Whatever.

Try watching the games.

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/29/2015 5:55:04 PM

Now that we're to the end of the regular season for most teams, here are some updated numbers. Again, these numbers are the difference between how you would expect them to rank based solely on recruiting rankings, and how the teams actually ranked. A positive number means the actual team ranking was better than expected from their recruiting, while a minus number indicates that they did worse than you would expect from recruiting:

Navy +86
Georgia Southern +62
Appalachian State +60
Bowling Green +56 <------------ Coach moved up to UCF
W. Kentucky +54
Memphis +53 <---------Coach moved up to Virginia Tech
Utah State +40
Toledo +36 <----------Coach moved up to Iowa State
Air Force +36
Houston +32 <---------Coach got a huge raise
Iowa +31
NIU +30
WMU +29
Temple +29
TCU +25
BYU +25
Boise State +23
Utah 23
Baylor 22
Wisconsin +21
Central Michigan +21
Akron +20
N. Carolina +20
Georgia Tech +17
Army +17
W. Virginia +17
S. Diego State 16
Michigan State +16
Buffalo +16
Ohio +15
N. Carolina St +15
Louisiana Tech +13
Old Miss +13
Oklahoma +13
Oklahoma St +12
California +12
Stanford +12
San Jose St +11
Clemson +11
S. Mississippi +11
Duke +11
MTSU 11
Troy +8
Idaho +8
Washington +8
U. Mass +8
Northwestern +6
Arkansas +5
Kansas State +4
UNLV +4
Washington State +4
Tennessee +3
Colorado St +3
Mississippi St +3
Louisville +3
Pittsburgh +2
Iowa St +1 <-------------- Coach Fired
Texas San Antonio +1
U. South Florida +1
Ohio State 0
Notre Dame 0
Boston College 0
Florida State -1
Alabama -1
USC -1 <---------------Fired for Off-the-field problems
Wyoming -2
E. Carolina -3
Michigan -3
Louisiana-Monroe -3 <---------- Coach fired
New Mexico -4
Texas Tech -4
Arkansas State -4
UTEP -4
Ball State -5
Illinois -6 <-------Coach fired for non-performance related issues
Minnesota -7 <-------Coach resigned for health issues
Tulsa -7
Kent State -7
U. Cincinnati -9
U. Conn. -9
Nevada -11
Marshall -11
Texas State -11
Eastern Michigan -12
Old Dominion -12
UCLA -12
S. Alabama -12
Florida International -12
LSU -13 <-------Coach was on the hot seat
Lousiana-Lafayette -13
Oregon -14
New Mexico State -14
Syracuse -15 <---------------Coach fired
Florida Atlantic -15
Charlotte -15
Arizona State -16
Virginia Tech -17 <-----------Coach retired
Georgia -18 <-----------------Coach fired
Miami (Ohio) -19
Nebraska -19
Arizona -20
Florida -20
Wake Forest -21
Penn State -21
Fresno State -21
Texas A&M -22
Rice -24
N. Texas State -24 <--------Coach fired
Colorado -25
Indiana -26
Tulane -28 <-----------Coach fired
SMU -30
Purdue -32
Hawaii -33 <-----------Coach fired
Missouri -36 <--------Coach resigned for health issues
Maryland -40 <--------Coach fired
Auburn -41
Miami (Florida) -41 <--------Coach fired
U. Central Florida -45 <------- Coach resigned
Virginia -45 <--------------Coach resigned
Vanderbilt -46
Kentucky -47
Oregon State -48
S. Carolina -51 <-----------Coach resigned
Texas -53
Rutgers -54 <-------------Coach fired
Kansas -58

There are two ways to succeed as a coach. One is bringing in better players. the other is to get more out of the players you have. To be a really top coach you have to be good at both. Thus, you find the very top teams all near 0.

Coaches with high positive numbers excel at getting a lot out of their players, which could include coaching the players up, game planning, play calling, etc. They may also be good at evaluating talent, and thus actually getting better recruits than the recruiting services give them credit for. They may or may not also be decent recruiters. I note that on the above list coaches that get job offers to move up tend to have high positive numbers, and that coaches with any kind of positive number rarely get fired.

Coaches with high negative numbers are better at recruiting than getting performance from their players. They could just be having an unusually bad year, but if they stay negative, that seems to be a recipe for a new coach. I notice that nearly all the coaches fired have ratings of -15 or lower.

Last Edited: 11/29/2015 9:11:45 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,405

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/29/2015 7:09:11 PM

Why is WMU so high on the plus side? Reading comments on this board I had the impression that PJ had more 3-star recruits than any other MAC program as well as a few 4-star guys. Given their performance this year I would have expected a positive number, but one much lower than what was actually calculated. What am I missing?

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/29/2015 8:53:39 PM

OhioCatFan wrote:

The expected performance is based on four years of recruiting classes, and more heavily weighted to the Juniors and Seniors. Fleck is only responsible for two of the four classes that are included, and his classes are just Freshmen and Sophomores. Put another way, Fleck has improved the performance of the team faster than you'd expect from recruiting alone, which normally takes 3 or 4 years.

Since Fleck has shown both an ability to recruit well, and an ability to get a lot out of his recruits, I will be very shocked if he doesn't get an offer to row his boat elsewhere this year.

Last Edited: 11/29/2015 8:56:37 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,405

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 1:04:50 AM

L.C. wrote:

OK. That makes sense. I hadn't taken into account the shortness of Fleck's tenure at WMU.

L.C. wrote:

Since Fleck has shown both an ability to recruit well, and an ability to get a lot out of his recruits, I will be very shocked if he doesn't get an offer to row his boat elsewhere this year.

You are probably right that he'll take his oars to another river for next fall. I'll go out on a limb and predict that the fans on that river bank will have buyers remorse before many moons have passed. Kind of like those in Austin, Texas, are having now.

allen
General User

Member Since: 1/24/2006
Post Count: 4,635

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 1:32:55 AM

Coaching and recruiting go together. If your recruiting is lacking, you are responsible as a coach. If you can't recruit, you can't coach. There is no GM in the college game to blame.

Nobody despises to lose more than I do. That's got me into trouble over the years, but it also made a man of mediocre ability into a pretty good coach. Woody Hayes

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 2:49:27 AM

Yes, allen, but no two coaches have identical skill sets. Some are better at one than the other. This is a measurement that allows you to separate them. This is the first year I have made this calculation, but I expect the numbers to be relatively stable from year to year. In a few years I'll have a better idea just how stable they are from year to year. As coaches move from job to job, I'll also get some idea of whether they take their pluses and minuses with them. The more stable they are, the more useful these numbers are, and the less stable, the less useful.

I do find it interesting the strong correlation between the numbers produced by this measurement and the coaches that have been fired, and the coaches that have moved up. I wasn't expecting that, but it certainly seems to be a better predictor of who is likely to get fired than W-L records alone. The coaches with high negatives who have not been fired for the most part seem to be first or second year coaches, and even then they are all listed high on "Coaches Hot Seat" lists.

As an example, the firing of Richt surprised me, but he is -18 on this list, so maybe it isn't surprising after all. Similarly the discussion of firing Miles was surprising, but on this list he comes in at -13, barely better than what appears to the the break point, about -15. The rumor is that with another loss he'd have been fired, but, with another loss, he'd have also been lower than -15.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 2:59:01 AM

Again, we get lost in quite meaningless this and that, refusing to acknowledge or discuss the real problem of season record/game scores over the last four years and no MACC in 11.

I'm sure that someone can come up with analysis/stats which prove that OHIO FOOTBALL is POTUS.

But that still will miss the problem.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 3:00:25 AM

Great question: Say, one way or another, we're hiring a new coach.

Do we want the guy who's had the last four years that the current guy has had? Will that satisfy?

allen
General User

Member Since: 1/24/2006
Post Count: 4,635

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 5:03:09 AM

Ohio has great plusses and one plus that is a minus for recruiting purposes. We recruited a kid from Bedford, who ended up transferring to Toledo because he did not get admitted to our university. This guy is going to be a monster. His first name is Najee.
The coaches have to know how to sell the program, they have to be able to relate to the kids. That's what make Urban Meyer such a great recruiter. He is transformational and inspirational.
Our biggest problem is the optics. We get receivers drafted better than anyone in the MAC, but we don't recruit high profile quarterback. If I am a receiver, even though you have one of the best receivers coach in the nation I am not coming here because I don't believe I will get the ball and if the coaches tell me Maxwell will throw me the ball and I look at his profile and see he threw for 100 yards per game and had no offers I would not be convinced. If I looked at the play calling down the stretch, I would think the program is too conservative. We should have a top tier quarterback and receivers but we don't sell the program good enough. If someone came in my living room and bragged about TT and the programs accomplishments, I would look and see that he was third team All MAC one time and we won the MAC East once, I would think that that is they sky and that is not good enough.
If I were a coach, I would brag about our workouts. I would tell them, we recruited a guy name Lavon Brazill who only played one year of high school football, ran a 4.7, he was so unknown that our fans thought we signed a guy name Pete Brazill. Lavon left here running a low 4.4 and was drafted. Now we are in your home and you already run a 4.4 we have the coaches and quarterbacks to get you the opportunity to play in the NFL. We also have a great school with great alumni that can help you prosper in corporate America as well. If we can take someone that is no stars four stars think about what we can do with you. We have to believe and be relentless in recruiting. We can't just out recruit Hocking, we have to out recruit the MAC. We should have stud corners coming in, we recently had three defensive backs in the league. We have Wells going to the league and four leaving the program, but we don't believe we can get them. You tell them you can go to Illinois or Iowa to compete or come here and shine, a position is available if you can win it, you are more highly touted than the other db's we sent to the league, if you listen and work hard you should go higher. Instead, we sign two CB's that have to red shirt due to size. We have to get better at recruiting. We have a coach that coached in a National championship was on the cover of sports illustrated as a player, he should be the King of MAC. He has to think that way. I know some will be offended but I am telling the truth. We also need to get younger fans on board, we have some of the nerdiest post. If I were a recruit, I would go to the fan board and if I saw TOS to TOLEDO and TOS to etc and all the nerdy jokes I might be a little taken back. If I saw us bragging about being 3-2 against winning teams and 2-12 against teams with winning records in conference. I would not pick us over NIU, or Toledo. Kids want to win, period. We need to get more energized on this site about football. This is my opinion. I think we do an ok job recruiting, I think we need to do better.

Last Edited: 11/30/2015 11:30:17 AM by allen

Nobody despises to lose more than I do. That's got me into trouble over the years, but it also made a man of mediocre ability into a pretty good coach. Woody Hayes

Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 8:25:23 AM

allen wrote:

Ohio has great plusses and one plus that is a minus for recruiting purposes. We recruited a kid from Bedford, who ended up transferring to Toledo because he did not get admitted to our university. This guy is going to be a monster. His first name is Najee.
The coaches have to know how to sell the program, they have to be able to relate to the kids. That's what make Urban Meyer such a great recruiter. He is transformational and inspirational.
Our biggest problem is the optics. We get receivers drafted better than anyone in the MAC, but we don't recruit high profile quarterback. If I am a receiver, even though you have one of the best receivers coach in the nation I am not coming here because I don't believe I will get the ball and if the coaches tell me Maxwell will throw me the ball and I look at his profile and see he threw for 100 yards per game and had no offers I would not be convinced. If I looked at the play calling down the stretch, I would think the program is too conservative. We should have a top tier quarterback and receivers but we don't sell the program good enough. If someone came in my living room and bragged about TT and the programs accomplishments, I would look and see that he was third team All MAC one time and we won the MAC East once, I would think that that is they sky and that is not good enough.
If I were a coach, I would brag about our workouts. I would tell them, we recruited a guy name Lavon Brazill who only played one year of high school football, ran a 4.7, he was so unknown that our fans thought we signed a guy name Pete Brazill. Lavon left here running a low 4.4 and was drafted. Now we are in your home and you already run a 4.4 we have the coaches and quarterbacks to get you the opportunity to play in the NFL. We also have a great school with great alumni that can help you prosper in corporate America as well. If we can take someone that is no stars four stars think about what we can do with you. We have to believe and be relentless in recruiting. We can't just out recruit Hocking, we have to out recruit the MAC. We should have stud corners coming in we recently had three defensive backs in the league. We have Wells going to the league and four leaving the program, but we don't believe we can get them. You tell them you can go to Illinois or Iowa to compete or come here and shine a position is available if you can win it, you are more highly touted than the other db's we sent to the league, if you listen and work hard you should go higher. We sign two CB's that have to red shirt due to size. We have to get better at recruiting. We have a coach that coached in a National championship was on the cover of sports illustrated as a player, he should be the King of MAC. He has to think that way. I know some will be offended but I am telling the truth. We also need to get younger fans on board, we have some of the nerdiest post. If I were a recruit, I would go to the fan board and if I saw TOS to TOLEDO and TOS to etc and all the nerdy jokes I might be a little taken back. If I saw us bragging about being 3-2 against winning teams and 2-12 against teams with winning records in conference. I would not pick us over NIU, or Toledo. Kids want to win, period. We need to get more energized on this site about football. This is my opinion. I think we do an ok job recruiting, I think we need to do better.

Why do you suppose the really good coaches at Ohio, like the WR coach you refer to, who have coached in the "football factories" decided to settle "in" not "for" Athens? I have little doubt it is because they have had their fill of "every" fan "knowing" "we need to do better." These good coaches at Ohio get to recruit beyond the 4.4. They get to recruit young men like Crutch, Carpenter, Kristoff, Brazill, Carrie, Wells, Sayles, Laseak that they themselves determine are men they wish to work with over four/five years. You think "we" need to do better. A lot of us are just fine, thank you. I think "the coaches" not "we" need to continue finding their Smiths, Reids, Balls, Belacks, Copes if they are the most likely to bust their butts for years as an athlete and not be a waste of time as a student. Again, it is about who "they" feel is the best fit and want to work with for those many years. Remember, these coaches are not trying to be one and done. The Crutch, Jovon, A.J., Provitt, Poling, Patterson and Carpenter types are fine. Thank you.

Last Edited: 11/30/2015 11:15:56 AM by Bcat2

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

allen
General User

Member Since: 1/24/2006
Post Count: 4,635

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 8:46:56 AM

That is not fine if we are winning. You have to win in recruiting, you can't lose Roger Lewis to Bowling Green or else he will come back to haunt you. The student athletes you named are great and I am glad to have watched them. They have laid the ground for us to get better recruits, but when you are so emotional it is hard to see the truth. Every year we recruit and players like the you mentioned host them. They want to see bigger and faster guys. Life is about progression and not stagnation. Bobcat2, you are stuck in a holding pattern. The referee needs to throw a flag and call holding on the things that are holding you back from believing in more. If you can't recruit, you can't win championships and this is about winning championships. The players don't aim to win 7 or 8 games. You need to believe and be relentless. They deserve to be champions.

Nobody despises to lose more than I do. That's got me into trouble over the years, but it also made a man of mediocre ability into a pretty good coach. Woody Hayes

Mike Johnson
General User

Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,730

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 8:56:28 AM

L.C. wrote:

Richt's firing didn't surprise me as it has been rumored for several seasons. Still, his having won 75% of his games reminded me of two similar firings that didn't pan out as the ADs had hoped. One of course was Solich at Nebraska. His winning pct at Nebraska was .753. As I recall, it didn't take long for his successor to turn in a losing season.

The other such firing that comes to mind was Earle Bruce at OSU. He had won 75% of his games - and had winning records against Michigan and in bowl games - something that his successor, John Cooper, could achieve neither.

Whether it's hiring head football coaches or corporate senior execs or heads of non-profits, you can carefully study track records and scrutinize personalities, but hiring decisions remain a bit of a crapshoot.

http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author

allen
General User

Member Since: 1/24/2006
Post Count: 4,635

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 9:12:44 AM

Mike Johnson wrote:

L.C. wrote:

True, there are no guarantee's in hiring. Coaches have to be innovative and adapt to changes, because the landscape always changes. I hope our coaches are able to get us over the hump. Joe Paterno was a great coach that could not adapt. He stayed with the power running game and moved to the middle of the pack. John Cooper was unable to adapt as well. Solich has got better in the pass game, he needs to continue to get better. The passing game and recruiting got him fired at Nebraska, I don't believe the rumors about a cheerleader as one of my Nebraska friends told me. I thought they should have gave him more time. Afterwards, he went around the country and studied different programs and came to Ohio as the new and improved Solich. He turned down some programs to come here. I am glad he came here, he now has to figure out what Ohio needs to get over the hump.

Last Edited: 11/30/2015 9:19:15 AM by allen

Nobody despises to lose more than I do. That's got me into trouble over the years, but it also made a man of mediocre ability into a pretty good coach. Woody Hayes

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 11:23:07 AM

Mike Johnson wrote:

I don't know what the method would have produced for Richt for prior years, but it appears from my numbers above that Richt was an excellent recruiter, but not able to get the most out of his players. If that is true, then I would say that Georgia has a very reasonable possibility of doing well with the coaching change. All they need to do is find someone that can get a lot out of the players, and who can still recruit reasonably well.

The Nebraska situation was very different. It's a difficult place to recruit to. There is not a large quantity of 5-star local talent, and the cold winters and corn are a tough sell to kids from Texas, Florida, and California. They can change coaches as often as they like, but those problems are not going to go away.

As for Ohio State, while Cooper wasn't better than Bruce, some of their later coaches have been. Like Georgia, there is a large pool of local talent, which makes it a lot easier.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

allen
General User

Member Since: 1/24/2006
Post Count: 4,635

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 11:33:48 AM

Nebraska was getting the top recruits and winning championships under Osborne. Solich did not get enough time. Players were like celebrities in Lincoln, they could do anything they wanted. Oklahoma recruits well. It is about the coaches. Players will come, you have to sell the program. Here is an article on Nebraska's recruiting history. http://hailvarsity.com/news/college-football-recruiting/a... /

Last Edited: 11/30/2015 11:43:43 AM by allen

Nobody despises to lose more than I do. That's got me into trouble over the years, but it also made a man of mediocre ability into a pretty good coach. Woody Hayes

MedinaCat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Lakewood, OH
Post Count: 742

Status: Offline

RE: Coaching performance versus Recruiting

Posted: 11/30/2015 2:40:57 PM

allen wrote:

Joe Paterno was a great coach that could not adapt. He stayed with the power running game and moved to the middle of the pack.

FWIW, Paterno's 1982 team was the first national championship team ever that passed for more yards than it rushed.

That said, Paterno, was loyal to his assistants, almost to a to a fault. He also was hesitant to play talented Freshman and Sophomores over Seniors. Many PSU fans believe highly touted recruits like Michael Robinson and Larry Johnson would have been difference makers had they been inserted in their early years. Sound familiar?

Showing Replies:	1 - 25 of 51 Posts
Jump to Page:	1 \| 2 \| 3 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 187 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

187 Guests
0 Registered Users

There are no other users looking at this page.