Are we recruiting well enough?
- Thread starter sappycrease
- Start date
That is completely wrong. He was redshirted (because he was the 3rd string QB behind Cody Kessler) in the only season Kiffin was around. Kiffin was around for 5 games of Browne's career. Browne just couldn't ever beat out Cody Kessler, no matter who the coach happened to be. Then he got beat out by a FR. Yes, that FR is very talented and Browne may play well for us, but lack of production and playing time is why he came to Pitt.
The difference for those kids is negligible in travel. The difference is the program.
BTW, who really cares if we "do fine in the Pittsburgh market against PSU"? What matters is how we do overall. I don't give a crap where the kids come from that make it happen.
So, how are you evaluating that nationally and reincorporating it to put us at a higher level than the Juco/FR recruiting service rankings?
I am not sure how you missed my point, but the point was it does not matter where and how the players get here as long as they are good.
You posted this:
Did you not mean that our recruiting/transfer ranking would be significantly better if transfers were incorporated in the evaluation?
All I asked was how you would evaluate that and include it for all the other schools and transfers. If your contention is people aren't giving them the right credit for transfers and if they did, it would be a different perception, then you must have idea of what that would look like and how we would then stack up.
Okay I have one question to all the, Franklin is killing Duzz and he cant recruit. Who one the damn game last year? That really is all that matters when comparing the 2 teams. If you all cant truely see the difference in the types of players that Duzz is bringing in, then shame on you. I mean some of you are just posting to be comedic.
Who said Duzz can't recruit? Who said we didn't "one the damn game last year"?
What is the "difference in the types of players" we are bringing in?
BTW, "truely" weird screenname.
Go root for for psu then Mr factual. Oh wait you already do Mauti
All players (Transfers) should be factored into the equation to get a more accurate ranking.
Ripper, there are a lot of posts that he cant recruit. Isnt recruiting the jest of this topic? And most are saying he cant or isnt recruiting no better than Chryst, and Franklin is showing him up. Also, like I said. If you cant see the difference in the type of players he has recruited thats on you.
Oh I forgot Ripper. My wierd screenname? Im black and I'm a lover not a hater. Lol
LOL. Adding those two in as recruits would bump Pitt's class up to about # 27 from #38.
Top 10? Pitt would have to substitute most of the 3 stars with 4 stars.
Idiot? I resemble that remark.
Hopefully you meant the death- deserving cultist ass rapists with that.
But anyway, i agreed with others above that stated grad transfers or other special cases like this are important and should be considered.
However one caveat is that securing a grad transfer or other such transfer who might have been a 5 star guy originally but really didn't end up contributing much can't truly be weighed the same as gaining such recruits from scratch. For one, once they stepped onto a college field the high school stars are out the window. And, you don't have them for more than two years at the most.
These types of additions are valuable if not critical at times but can't be looked at the same as when they were high school recruits.
Btw that works both ways though: the Cam Johnson that UNC just shanghaied from Pitt is a far greater prize than the dubious afterthought he was when Dixon got him in high school.
lololol this is now obviously a troll account.
Ok. So how do you incorporate that and where would it put us? You can't criticize for folks being short sighted by using one ranking/rating and not have a counter point as to why your position is better and what it would change.
I don't see those posts. I think posts are saying we have to recruit at a far better level in order to compete for (ACC) championships on a consistent basis and that, right now, Franklin is doin a far better job in recruiting. It isn't even close.
Ok, so if it is clear to see, what is the difference?
The whole service Rankings is flawed to begin with. The system gives a bump to recruits going to bigger schools for 2 reasons. 1) They are trying to make money. 2) They are playing the odds.
If Pitt recruits in the 30-40 range now, the players stay in the system and develop, and we maintain continuity. Then we will gradually recruit better and finally have a stable Top 20 program down the line. That is all we can realistically hope for in our position.
1. No, not really. Alabama was not getting top classes before Saban. Texas wasn't getting top classes with Charlie Strong.
2. Why? I don't agree at all. There is no reason we can't consistently recruit in the top 20-25. We just have to have the right coach and staff. Hopefully HCPN can get there.
3. Neither of these things merry with your contention it is foolish to look at recruiting rankings because of the transfers we get. Ironically, I think your estimation of those transfers is based entirely on their rankings by...get this...recruiting services.
And right on cue the Peds add another 4 star out of Ohio. Looking at their class I see a number of guys from our region that didn't even give us a sniff. It wouldn't surprise me if Narduzzi makes some changes to his staff after this season to add some stud recruiters. Question is - where and who are they?
Pitt runs it's football program like the Nutting's run the Pirates, that's all you need to know.
1) Notre Dame always gets an automatic bump because of their name. Tennessee is another one. There are a lot that fall into this category. On the flip side, Boise St had a lot of good players over the years but almost none of them were 4 or 5 stars because of who they are.
2) PN could get there if he wins on the field.
3) I place more value on the offers.
1. No, they definitely don't.
2. He has to get the recruits first, to win enough games to spur attention. No high end prospect gives a crap about winning 9 games and finishing 2nd or worse in your division.
3. Ok, but then where do we stack up after you account for that across college football? We are much higher? What does that have to do with transfers? Just their offers after they are leaving a school? How do you get that information?
I don't agree most Pitt fans did not like the Canada hire. Yes, the ones who only follow Pitt and do not follow the rest of the country. Which made their comments foolish.
Canada had a proven track record of success. Especially, once he had total control of his offense. There were a few times where he had his hands tied by a couple of his head coaches. Thus, the reason for some of his offenses put up average numbers.
But as soon as he gained total control of the offfense. They were a well oiled machine
There were a lot of people complaining about the hire initially, and then people were going off the deep end after the Nova game. Heck, there were people still trashing him after the UNC game.
Everything is about money. It's what makes the world go round, and recruiting services are no different. However the most successful programs are also at the top of the recruiting service rankings every year (Bama, OSU, Fsu etc.) so their rankings are pretty accurate.
If you average ND's recruiting classes over the past 10 years they are Top 10 in recruiting according to the rankings. Do you think they have been a Top 10 program over that time?
If Clark, Hendrix, Browne, Hodges, etc. all or some of them become starters do you think Narduzzi does or does not deserve credit for bringing them in?
Nope. How about the rest of the top 10? There is no way you picked the outlier, right? I wonder who would be #1 over the past 10 years in recruiting...I wonder who would be the #1 program over that time...
1. Who else is going to start?
2. Who said he shouldn't get credit?
You found fault with people using recruiting rankings as a basis for judging HCPN's recruiting/team building because it didn't give him credit for transfers. I would like to know two things:
1. How/what are you rating those players? Obviously it would be ridiculous to do it by recruiting ranking for players who went to schools where prospects "obviously get a bump" or after they couldn't produce (or in a Cam Johnson situation, just the opposite) anything for a number of years.
2. If you incorporate that into your evaluation, where would Pitt end up against the competition? You must think it would move us up significantly and thus you must have evaluated the competition and their transfers, as well.
You ask a lot of questions, but don't directly answer the ones that you are asked. You must be a lawyer.
Tennessee is another large school with a big following that has not performed close to their rankings. Why were Boise St, Utah, and TCU ranked so low, but yet performed very well over a period of time? I am not saying the Ranking system is useless, but there are imperfections in it. You seem to think it is almost flawless, and I disagree.
In the case of Cam Johnson, he deserves a bump in ranking. These sites should do a before and after Rankings. That is where you could factor in Transfers, and get a more accurate picture of these recruits and Ranking system.
These Transfers would give Pitt a bump in the Rankings. I would say PN has recruited around 25-30 if you factor in all of the players he has brought in. I am starting with his first full recruiting cycle to the present. The current recruiting class is not done, so I would not factor it in until it was done.
Pitt simply doesn't put the emphasis on recruiting the way they need to in order to become a top flight program. That goes for money, resources, booster & community support etc. Pitt parted ways with that culture back in 89 & we've half-assed it ever since when it comes to recruiting.
Game day atmosphere & location, size of the stadium, yellow seats etc are just excuses. Big city schools don't need all that to win. They just need a determined coach who can lead, organize, and galvanize a staff and moneyed boosters who share the same vision with the support of the administration (both athletic & academic) Its a tried and true method that works and yet we sit back and do this groundhog day thing year after year after year.
Game day atmosphere & location, size of the stadium, yellow seats etc are just excuses. Big city schools don't need all that to win. They just need a determined coach who can lead, organize, and galvanize a staff and moneyed boosters who share the same vision with the support of the administration (both athletic & academic) Its a tried and true method that works and yet we sit back and do this groundhog day thing year after year after year.
Do you believe Minnesota, BC, GT, and Vandy could be Top 10 by simply doing the things you suggested?
I answered both of your questions. I answered the question about getting credit several posts ago. I never the coaches shouldn't get credit. I am just not naïve enough to only consider our in and not our opponents transfers in.
Tennessee doesn't have high very high recruiting rankings relative to their competition. Last year they were 7th in the SEC. Since 2010 (using the composite rankings) against the SEC: 7, 3, 5, 11, 8, 6, 4. An average of 6+. They also had 3 coaches over that time and thus rapid roster turnover. Are you saying Hendrix shouldn't be considered as highly?
Why did those schools perform well? Because they were mid major schools playing crap competition, save one game a year. Boise State also had eligibility and admissions advantages to take high risk kids.
I don't think the system is flawless, but it sure gets it right far more than it gets it wrong.
You factored in the transfer additions for all the other schools? Who are the schools Pitt jumped? Who did they bring in as transfers?
I gave an average ranking. You are the Rankings Guru, so u should know. Nobody around us in the Rankings brought in as many quality Transfers as us. Therefore, we get a boost. Once again, you are the Rankings Guru so u already should know this.
Shoddy recruiting is a big part of Tennessee's downturn. The Vols were once legit title contenders, but Fulmer's last six years, the Vols average ranking in Rivals was 16. That doesn't cut it in the SEC.
Boise, Utah, & TCU didn't exactly play the toughest schedule over that period of time. What has Utah done since joining the PAC 12?
Boise, Utah, & TCU didn't exactly play the toughest schedule over that period of time. What has Utah done since joining the PAC 12?
So, it is on me to prove your completely unsubstantiated opinion?
I never claimed to be a "rankings guru". If anyone did, it was you because you made it clear you found fault with the people who used recruiting rankings as an evaluation tool and they should be including transfers. Obviously you have done that.
So, again: You factored in the transfer additions for all the other schools? Who are the schools Pitt jumped? Who did they bring in as transfers?
TN has had a bunch of Top 10 classes over the past 10 years.
Utah won 9, 10, and 9 games the last 3 seasons.
