New Commits
- Thread starter pittmeister
- Start date
Another commit from Texas? Do we officially have a new pipeline? Haven’t seen anything like this since we had close to a dozen commits from Florida in either 2017 or 2018.
That’s the big prize for this week’s visits
Pitt Lands Commitment from Four-Star OL Day’Jon Moore
Even with a smaller group of prospects in town this week for the second weekend of Pitt official visits, the Panthers are capitalizing on that momentum and it has led to a commitment from another four-star recruit. On Sunday, Pitt landed offensive lineman Day’Jon Moore out of Willis High School...
pittsburghsportsnow.com
UPDATE:
CB Isaiah McMillian – (3 Star) - 4 P4 offers - Pitt only official visit scheduled
QB Corey Dailey - (N/A) - 0 P4 offers - Pitt only official visit scheduled - PITT
WR Bryan Hamilton – (3 Star) - 3 P4 offers
OG Day’Jon Moore – (3 Star) - 13 P4 offers - PITT
TE Zachery Turner – (4 Star) - 15 P4 offers
CB Davis Kinney – (3 Star) – 4 P4 offers – Committed to Northwestern, but still visited
OT Landry Brede – (3 Star) – 16 P4 offers
LB Desmond Johnson – (3 Star) - 7 P4 offers - PITT
WR Ace Theus – (3 Star) – 8 P4 offers - Pitt only official visit scheduled
Scheduled, but no confirmation:
AT Nyqir Helton 14 P4 offers - Pitt only official visit scheduled
DE Bryson Castile – (N/A) – 2 P4 offers
CB Isaiah McMillian – (3 Star) - 4 P4 offers - Pitt only official visit scheduled
QB Corey Dailey - (N/A) - 0 P4 offers - Pitt only official visit scheduled - PITT
WR Bryan Hamilton – (3 Star) - 3 P4 offers
OG Day’Jon Moore – (3 Star) - 13 P4 offers - PITT
TE Zachery Turner – (4 Star) - 15 P4 offers
CB Davis Kinney – (3 Star) – 4 P4 offers – Committed to Northwestern, but still visited
OT Landry Brede – (3 Star) – 16 P4 offers
LB Desmond Johnson – (3 Star) - 7 P4 offers - PITT
WR Ace Theus – (3 Star) – 8 P4 offers - Pitt only official visit scheduled
Scheduled, but no confirmation:
AT Nyqir Helton 14 P4 offers - Pitt only official visit scheduled
DE Bryson Castile – (N/A) – 2 P4 offers
Last edited:
Based on the article, he already has good size and strength and that will only get better once he gets into Pitt's lifting program.That’s the big prize for this week’s visits
Pitt Lands Commitment from Four-Star OL Day’Jon Moore
Even with a smaller group of prospects in town this week for the second weekend of Pitt official visits, the Panthers are capitalizing on that momentum and it has led to a commitment from another four-star recruit. On Sunday, Pitt landed offensive lineman Day’Jon Moore out of Willis High School...pittsburghsportsnow.com
Another commitment has been revealed…
This is a good class, right? So, when the last 4 or whatever were underwhelming and I heard that it was in no way Narduzzi's fault because it's all about money now and there's nothing he could do... you see where I'm going with this.
Didn’t you hear? I decided to open my check book this year…
1. All of these players will not sign on LOI day.
2. Pitt lost three 4 star players. Two of them decommitted and the other to a tragic accident.
2. Outside of last year, the recruits have been about the same. The rating at the end LOU day will bare this out.
3. I know where you’re going…… Back on ignore…. You f*ckin’ depress me…..🤷
Please put me on ignore, you bipolar old schmuck. You're wrong, as per usual. And you're such an idiot that you don't even realize it's you who is being negative, by insinuating that we're going to experience decommitts (no shit) and are going to fall in the rankings (again, no shit, but not to as low as where we've been ranked, on average, in the last four years, which is a 55 composite ranking).
Last edited:
I suppose if someone is fixated on recruiting rankings, then it's better than in the recent past. But no, it's not a good class. It's not going to move the needle as for overall roster talent and the product we see on the field. Pitt's still going to be a 5 to 9 win program, depending on the results of their 50/50 type games.
I would hope anyone who follows college football knows that recruiting rankings matter. Time and time again, it has been proven to be true. Obviously not on a micro level, but from a big-picture standpoint it has.
This is a good class for Pitt. If everyone signs and a fee more pieces get added, it will probably finish 40th at worst, which is fine for the level we should yearn to compete at. I'm not saying I'd be content with this class if we were Ohio State.
Between 5 and 9 wins is a huge discrepancy. Recruiting in the 60s and 70s seems like a good way to achieve the low-end of that range, while recruiting in the top 40 is a good way to give yourself a chance to get closer to 9.
If a program's 4 year average is below 15, that program is basically irrelevant.
As for recruiting in the 40s as opposed to 60s & 79s, it's really not a big deal anymore. Thanks to the portal, a team with a 60 ranking on signing day can easily put as much talent on the field as a team in ranked between 30 & 40.
Regardless, average star ranking is a much better barometer than overall class ranking. Pitt is almost always going to be in a fairly tight range of 3.05 and 3.20, regardless of their team ranking.
Teams in the 40s last year:
Virginia Tech, BYU, Syracuse, Utah, Arizona State, UCLA, Illinois, Indiana, Texas Tech, Minnesota, Arizona.
Teams in the 60s and 70s last year:
Memphis, Cincinnati, Boise State, Wake Forest, Oregon State, USF, Northwestern, Georgia State, Tulane, Cal, UTEP, Washington State, Kansas, East Carolina, Arkansas State, Vanderbilt, San Diego State, Goergia Southern.
You don't see a difference?
Of course it matters. Maybe if you're Louisville and have a big wallet and choose to build largely through the transfer portal it doesn't matter. But I think we should all know by now that Pitt is not that.
Average stat ranking? That's insanely reductive. It assigns the same value to a 5.7 3-star (which could be like an Alabama-caliber player) as it does to a 5.5 3-star (which would be a Toledo-caliber player). There are how many 3 stars in each class - 1,300 or so?
Again, Pitt would never retain its better players if not for receiving a hometown discount. And, time and time again, recruiting rankings have been proven to be indicative barometers of success on a macro level. So, putting the two together, Pitt needs to recruit well, and then Pitt needs to hope to retain the better performers it has recruited.
Look at the level of players Pitt has brought in via the portal since NIL has gotten silly. No chance that is a reliable path to success.
Of the 31 players drafted since Narduzzi has gotten here:
27 have only player college football for Pitt
0 have been brought in via the portal since the NIL numbers have gotten silly.
Great insights, appreciate the effort that went into these stats. IMO, I think a program like ours can still be successful in today’s CFB world by prioritizing high school recruiting and player retention, with the portal being used to fill in any immediate holes in the two-deep.
I have always said that Pitt should strive to recruit guys in the top 1,000 of national composite rankings. The higher the better. And obviously they can't ALL be in the top 1,000.
But here are some of the main contributors I can think of off the top of my head for that 2021 team.
Pickett - 736
V. Davis - 854
Hammond - 583
Izzy - 425
Addison - 259
Mack - 1,263
Krull - #4 JUCO (couldn't find high school rating, but a 4* coming out of JUCO)
Drexel - 1,299
Minor - 223
Goncalves - 679
Houy - 1,138
Kradel - 682
Warren - 450
Zubovic - 491
Alexandre - 1,099
Morgan - 685
Hayes - 311
Baldonado - 885
Green - 962
Kancey - 837
Danielson - 687
Bright - 1,138
Campbell - 963
Dennis - 3,111
Kamara -579
George - 776
Petrishen - 968
Pine - 576
Devonshire - 494
Hallett - 991
Hill - 635
Mathis - 668
Camp - 265
I used composite rankings to remain consistent - otherwise, I could have really skewed this list to favor my argument, as 247 had a lot of them as 4-stars and using the composite knocked that down a good bit. I also didn't include guys like Barden, AJ Davis, and Shocky who would have helped my position (but I'm sure I'm forgetting/omitting some in the other direction as well).
Point being, these guys average out to a 785 composite ranking. I assigned a value of 200 to Krull (#4 JUCO). Without Dennis, who is the one wild outlier on this, the average rankings is 712.
Yet I continue to hear that rankings mean nothing. 25th... 60th... it's all the same. #400 player in the nation... # 1,400... they're both the same.
The dismissal of recruiting rankings as mattering is a prime example of Inflation of Conflict, whereby they're not exactly perfect so people erroneously disregard them altogether. Scientist 1: The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Scientist 2: The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Casual observer: Welp, I guess no one has any idea how old the Earth is then! That is what people sound like when they deny recruiting rankings as having any significance.
No percentages on some of them. Anyone know if it’s 100, 1000 or even 100,000 like last week?
I was told all are exactly 882% committed. It's believed to be the first haul of its kind.
we currently have 19 verbals, and yes 2 or 3 of them will renig and commit elsewhere while the large majority of them remain committed to pitt and end up signing on the dotted line (if they still sign a LOI, i dont even know anymore).
Just like every year going back years and decades. All these early verbals, a small few will go elsewhere, most of them will come to pitt and the few that leave, we'll poach those players who verballed to another school. And the 2027 verbals, will be the same and on and on.
What's changed is that well over 50% of these kids that do come to pitt as freshman, will be playing for another program in 3 years. That's what sucks. of course we'll fill those spots with players who left their school after 3 years.. This is what needs fixed.
I’m not entirely sure it’s a money issue with the portal. I just don’t think it’s an emphasis for the staff.
According to On3’s portal breakdown, Pitt didn’t sign a single transfer with a 4* rating by any service. There’s only a couple of P4 teams you can say that about.
Some teams that brought in at least one 4* college player:
Kansas
UCF
Houston
Arizona
Arizona State
Maryland
Duke
UVA
Cinn
Rutgers
Do these teams really have that much more money to spend on football, and are actually spending it?
Rankings for one year. What exactly am I supposed to make of that?
Average star ranking is the most important thing. A 4 year average should be 3.75 or better to compete at the highest level. Pitt's going to consistently pull in a roster of 3.05-3.20
Pitt has no reliable path to success unless they want to spend and recruit like elite programs do.
I don't claim to know anything about this but as you move down the list, in terms of how schools prioritize football, coaches may be more reluctant to spend on outside talent and choose to reward the kids that are succeeding in their own program.
Tough to say, because it really only takes one donor.
Four years ago, there were probably SEC fans saying, "Some dude from Pitt just gave them $20M. Does Pitt honestly have more money than us?!?!"
In reality, every school has multiple Chris Bickells. Whether or not they want to write a big check in a given year probably depends on a myriad of things. Plus, some 4-star positions are no doubt cheaper than others. I know Duke shelled out big bucks for that QB, but I'm not going to drool too hard over a 4-star safety someone brought in or something.
At the end of the day, Pitt probably had a finite amount of money and chose to allocate it how they saw fit. I'm sure Louis, Biles, Johnson, Brewu, Holstein, etc. weren't cheap.
Respectable P4 teams do not regularly recruit in the 60s and 70s. They just don't. They might have an occasional one-off where they end up that low (usually due to a coaching change), but they're not going to be annual fixtures there. And by respectable, I'm not talking about playoff contenders; I'm talking about teams that aren't annual basement-dwellers.
Average star ranking doesn't mean as much as average overall rating, which Rivals doesn't calculate. Their rankings are known to suck anyway, which is why I use Composite. Like I said, 5.7 3-stars can be big-time SEC recruits, while 5.5 three stars are often G5 players. It's way too generic to just call them all 3-stars and lump them into the same category. But that's where these misnomers such as Aaron Donald come about. In reality, he was a 5.7 3-star. 5.8 is a 4-star, so he was that close. Pitt fans will have you believe he was much lower than he actually was (which is not to say there aren't outliers in both directions; of course those also exist).
And I think we're defining success much differently for Pitt. I agree we're not going to be nationally relevant any time soon. I've always said we should finish in the top 25 40% of the time. I might knock that down to 33% now. But that should be an attainable goal, right? So far, Narduzzi is at 20%. To me, that's too low.
i dont think the star rankings is as shocking with Aaron Donald as the lack of offers. i think rutgers and akron and maybe toledo were the only D1 schools to offer him.
That's where the shock value is. Winning and making the playoffs makes you relevant.
If you want a team that finishes in the top 25 in recruiting, pitt isnt it. not Narduzzi, or walt, or Dave, or chryst, or that dude who punched his girlfriend. not Graham and i hate to break it to you, but our next coach wont either.
I'm talking about finishing top 25 on the field. Pitt doesn't need to recruit in the top 25 to do it on the field, because the teams in the main two conferences just cannibalize each other. Like, Mississippi State just had the #28 class in the country last year. That's great and all, but it meant they were 13th in their conference.
Whether or not fans like to admit it, there are teams who finish pretty low in the SEC and BIG that would be players in the ACC (well, in a hypothetical world where they're still recruiting using their SEC clout yet playing in the ACC... I get that their recruiting would decline if they actually joined the ACC). But it absolutely works the other way also. Boise State just made the playoff last year. If they were in the ACC, they'd have been like 8-4 and a complete afterthought.
I should add: every once in a blue moon there might be a team like Indiana who plays a Sunbelt schedule and manages to finish 3rd in the Big Ten. I wouldn't bet on that happening often.
I agree. It’s got to be something like that.
You can’t tell me that Pitt just doesn’t have the same resources as some of those teams, so this isn’t a deliberate approach by the staff.
Pitt doesn’t even get visits from 4* transfer players. So it’s not like they visit and then Kansas comes along with an offer that blows Pitt out of the water.
yeah, SEC is light years ahead of the acc, as is the big 10. no one argues that.
to be relevant, we need to make the playoffs. that in today's world, is being relevant. We are in the ACC, the ACC SHOULD have at least 2 and possibly even 3 teams make it. It's not impossible to be the 2nd or 3rd best team in the acc. In reality, with how poor this conference is, it's quite possible IF you dont screw up..
SMU was in the playoffs last year. a good but far from great team. we can easily be at smu level if we figure some things out. The only thing holding us back from being in playoffs is us, not NIL, not transfer portal, not lack of rich alumni, it's our performance on the field.
I think you'd also have to look at what all of those teams lost, though. Like Cal brought in the 23rd rated player in the portal - a quarterback. That's great, but they also lost the 22nd rated player in the portal - a quarterback. And they lost multiple other 4-star transfer players on top of that. So did they do better than Pitt in the portal simply because they brought in a 4* transfer and we didn't? I'd say keeping Louis, Biles, Brewu and company from entering was equally as important (and I realize we did lose Edwards, which sucks).
I don’t think you have to look at that.
Are the players you listed so good that the next team over doesn’t have a comparable list of players?
So how are they keeping theirs *and* having money for a more highly rated transfer group, and Pitt doesn’t? I just think it’s a different approach to the portal, not necessarily a money issue.
I don't understand why any approach would be different other than trying to accumulate as much talent as possible, regardless of whether that comes from inside the program or outside of it.
I'm sure Pitt absolutely does focus on retaining the players they'd like to bring back. But my question is why any school wouldn't do that. Additionally, I think those other schools absolutely do try to bring in the best players from the portal they can. But why would Pitt not do that?
If we're saying it's an approach thing and not a money thing, then wouldn't the implication be that Pitt is overpaying its own players? I don't think that's the case, either, though. They've already let Kamara, DeShields, and Hayes walk to chase more money. By some accounts, guys like George, and I think Bartholomew as well, were in line to get more money elsewhere before deciding to return to Pitt for less.
I only suggested that Pitt tries to take care of its own, first, because I think it's in Duzz's blood to reward loyalty. Maybe he's still stinging from what happened in the past? I also think they thought they hit a couple of HR's with transfers who ended up flopping. Once bit, twice shy? I don't know. I won't try to argue that Pitt probably doesn't have the resources that some of those other schools have. I think Pitt just doesn't do well with NIL donors.
My guess is you nailed it at the end. Pitt doesn't have a lot of NIL money, so they retain who they deem is worthy of keeping - often at discounted prices - and then use the rest to do what they can in the portal.
I get what Cash is saying as well, but who's to say Pitt didn't have more in-house guys to pay, as a % of their total NIL, than those other teams this year? Maybe next year it'll be the opposite. I think they're probably doing the best they can on a limited budget, regardless of how they get them.
