So Much For That Excuse

[AppOrange]

To me, what is rarely talked about but is paramount in modern transfer portal football is the ability of a staff to quickly get a team to jell and play as a unit. You can have all the talent in the world (looking at you FSU, usually A&M, and others) but if you don't play together, you are going to loose a lot. Football is the ultimate team sport, and a cohesive unit can hide a lack of physical talent. I'll never forget what Lloyd Carr said about our O-line and how good they were as a team. Going out on a limb here, but I don't think we had the physical advantage that day . . .

[Mjohn1988]

I can’t say that any of our coaches are “lazy”. But I’ll ask this question, can you name a single position group that is better or even as good as the team Coach Clark took over? My answer to my own question is no and no. The reason isn’t important to me. For me recruiting needs to improve drastically.

The only groups that I think can even be argued to be better would be our WR group (I am sure there are plenty that would disagree) and our TEs are good and a very deep group as well. That is the best I can do, and even those two are stretches.

No doubt the receiver group is our absolute best position group. But all the contributors started with us in 2020, Robinson, Stroman, Horn and Maki. So while one could argue these are Clark’s guys they could also be Drink’s guys. That said I don’t think the current group is an upgrade from 2019, Virgil, Wells, Tucker, Sutton and Hennigan. I think 4 of those guys went to NFL camps. We are a steady down hill from 2019.

[AppStFan1]

To me, what is rarely talked about but is paramount in modern transfer portal football is the ability of a staff to quickly get a team to jell and play as a unit. You can have all the talent in the world (looking at you FSU, usually A&M, and others) but if you don't play together, you are going to loose a lot. Football is the ultimate team sport, and a cohesive unit can hide a lack of physical talent. I'll never forget what Lloyd Carr said about our O-line and how good they were as a team. Going out on a limb here, but I don't think we had the physical advantage that day . . .

This is 100% true and why it is harder to gel when you are having constant turnover every year in the starting unit. You need to develop players. Having the most money and most talent does not always equal the best team.

[JTApps1]

An issue is often due to something that started happening a few years prior. You were just being proactive and it was something I noticed as well because we were seeing all of those OL recruits leave or not pan out for some reason.

Just look at our OL recruiting since 2020. I won't include the 2024 class but so far it looks like Jayden Ramsey is the only HS OL recruit who has panned out at all in the last 5 years. Sweatt is still unknown due to injury. If we had hit on Presnell, Everett, Powers, Lindsay, Essek, Williams, Ramsey, and Reeves would Shawn have felt the need to go heavy in the portal? Probably not and that would have saved NIL money that could have been saved. Presnell was a huge gamble and the only OL we signed in that class. A coach I know told me that you should sign at least 2-3 OL in every class but for some reason Presnell was the only one we signed in that class.

This is example one in why you do not rely 90% on the HS or portal. Some years will be great....some will not... diversification in today's era is critical. Do I wish every single recruit was a high school recruited player...you betcha....but that perfect scenario never works out...

The same can be said for what is available in the portal. Look how many of them we have taken that have not ever played. When it comes to HS OL recruiting we have had just 1 pan out in 5 years and have had many misses from the portal. We are missing way too many with both. My comment about recruiting HS harder is that if we do a good job on hitting in that area then we won't need to go to the portal as heavily and that will save on NIL.

Our results in both tells me that we need to make changes in who is evaluating and picking the players we offer. There are a lot of good ones out there but we are missing on them. I can point to a lot of quality FCS OL that we did not even offer out of HS.

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

[AppStFan1]

I can’t say that any of our coaches are “lazy”. But I’ll ask this question, can you name a single position group that is better or even as good as the team Coach Clark took over? My answer to my own question is no and no. The reason isn’t important to me. For me recruiting needs to improve drastically.

The only groups that I think can even be argued to be better would be our WR group (I am sure there are plenty that would disagree) and our TEs are good and a very deep group as well. That is the best I can do, and even those two are stretches.

Is it the group or just 1 really good player? Christian Horn is a real good WR who should be a 800+ yard guy and All-Sun Belt but we have not seen him develop. I think we have 2-3 TEs beyond Wilson with a chance but we are not seeing anyone take that next step up fully.

I think it is the group. KRob has had 2 really good years, Horn is really good (agree that he could be used better), Stroman can be a beast, Jackson is really good and may be the best of the group. So yeah, I think the group as a whole is really good. Honestly, if Joey actually went through progressions and didn't just laser focus on his intended target, all of these guys could shine brightly. Watching games in person (and even on tv but it is harder to see the entire field on tv), some one is usually open but rarely does that person get the ball thrown to him, unless that was Joey's intent from the get go.

I agree in terms of talent but I was talking about production. Stroman is inconsistent and the others don't get targeted like they should. For some reason Joey is not reading progressions and that has caused his increase in turnovers. It is like he has decided to go to Robinson and if he is not open then he panics and makes bad decisions.

[AppStFan1]

This is example one in why you do not rely 90% on the HS or portal. Some years will be great....some will not... diversification in today's era is critical. Do I wish every single recruit was a high school recruited player...you betcha....but that perfect scenario never works out...

The same can be said for what is available in the portal. Look how many of them we have taken that have not ever played. When it comes to HS OL recruiting we have had just 1 pan out in 5 years and have had many misses from the portal. We are missing way too many with both. My comment about recruiting HS harder is that if we do a good job on hitting in that area then we won't need to go to the portal as heavily and that will save on NIL.

Our results in both tells me that we need to make changes in who is evaluating and picking the players we offer. There are a lot of good ones out there but we are missing on them. I can point to a lot of quality FCS OL that we did not even offer out of HS.

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

Nate Noel was among those Clark got late after Drink left. I was including players who have stayed and at least got on the field some.

I think you are forgetting some players because I got 16 off the top of my head in 2014 and in 2015 I have 10 of 18.

I am not counting JUCO transfers for Sat and not those who committed but never signed. I am also going by the 247 lists because I know 247 had all of our scholarship players listed.

[AppSt94]

I think that it’s important to put some context around those that didn’t see the field for injuries, not a good fit, discipline issues and daddy issues. Not everyone is a pure bust from a talent evaluation standpoint.

[Mjohn1988]

I think that it’s important to put some context around those that didn’t see the field for injuries, not a good fit, discipline issues and daddy issues. Not everyone is a pure bust from a talent evaluation standpoint.

These issue take place every year and in every class. I don’t care why the talent didn’t make it to the field, it didn’t make it to the field.

[Stonewall]

Every program , and every coach faces challenges, obstacles to success. Winners overcome them.

[311neers]

This is example one in why you do not rely 90% on the HS or portal. Some years will be great....some will not... diversification in today's era is critical. Do I wish every single recruit was a high school recruited player...you betcha....but that perfect scenario never works out...

The same can be said for what is available in the portal. Look how many of them we have taken that have not ever played. When it comes to HS OL recruiting we have had just 1 pan out in 5 years and have had many misses from the portal. We are missing way too many with both. My comment about recruiting HS harder is that if we do a good job on hitting in that area then we won't need to go to the portal as heavily and that will save on NIL.

Our results in both tells me that we need to make changes in who is evaluating and picking the players we offer. There are a lot of good ones out there but we are missing on them. I can point to a lot of quality FCS OL that we did not even offer out of HS.

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

We should also look at retainment. Are you able to keep the kids you recruit? Do they quit football? Do they get kicked off? Do they transfer? Were they just whiffs and mis-judgements? Where are those recruits today?
We aren't retaining kids from a few classes ago at a good clip in my opinion. 2020-2022 class numbers look pretty bad for retainment.

Let's dive into who is still on the team today from Clark's recruiting classes (portal and HS according to 247).
(on team/enrolles)
2020- 5/22- 23% (mostly Drink's class but still not good)
2021- 8/30- 26%
2022- 12/29- 41%
2023- 22/33- 67%
2024- 33/34- 97%

[BambooRdApp]

The same can be said for what is available in the portal. Look how many of them we have taken that have not ever played. When it comes to HS OL recruiting we have had just 1 pan out in 5 years and have had many misses from the portal. We are missing way too many with both. My comment about recruiting HS harder is that if we do a good job on hitting in that area then we won't need to go to the portal as heavily and that will save on NIL.

Our results in both tells me that we need to make changes in who is evaluating and picking the players we offer. There are a lot of good ones out there but we are missing on them. I can point to a lot of quality FCS OL that we did not even offer out of HS.

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

We should also look at retainment. Are you able to keep the kids you recruit? Do they quit football? Do they get kicked off? Do they transfer? Were they just whiffs and mis-judgements? Where are those recruits today?
We aren't retaining kids from a few classes ago at a good clip in my opinion. 2020-2022 class numbers look pretty bad for retainment.

Let's dive into who is still on the team today from Clark's recruiting classes (portal and HS according to 247).
(on team/enrolles)
2020- 5/22- 23% (mostly Drink's class but still not good)
2021- 8/30- 26%
2022- 12/29- 41%
2023- 22/33- 67%
2024- 33/34- 97%

Personally, not sure any of these stats provide any value in a vacuum. I believe one needs to compare to competition....rest of SBC....other key G5 (Boise St., others).
If all others are better, then we have been below the competition. If the competition has lower rankings, we have outperformed the competition. Difficult to say that a stat, like this one, is good or bad viewing it from a singular lense (App. St. only)

[AppSt94]

The same can be said for what is available in the portal. Look how many of them we have taken that have not ever played. When it comes to HS OL recruiting we have had just 1 pan out in 5 years and have had many misses from the portal. We are missing way too many with both. My comment about recruiting HS harder is that if we do a good job on hitting in that area then we won't need to go to the portal as heavily and that will save on NIL.

Our results in both tells me that we need to make changes in who is evaluating and picking the players we offer. There are a lot of good ones out there but we are missing on them. I can point to a lot of quality FCS OL that we did not even offer out of HS.

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

We should also look at retainment. Are you able to keep the kids you recruit? Do they quit football? Do they get kicked off? Do they transfer? Were they just whiffs and mis-judgements? Where are those recruits today?
We aren't retaining kids from a few classes ago at a good clip in my opinion. 2020-2022 class numbers look pretty bad for retainment.

Let's dive into who is still on the team today from Clark's recruiting classes (portal and HS according to 247).
(on team/enrolles)
2020- 5/22- 23% (mostly Drink's class but still not good)
2021- 8/30- 26%
2022- 12/29- 41%
2023- 22/33- 67%
2024- 33/34- 97%

2023 - DJ Porter and Soloman (quit football), Ridolph (medically retired), Murphy (RIP), Jackson, Paul, Funderburke (graduated)

2022 - Presnell (quit football), Van Hook, Page, McBride, Williams (graduated)

2021 - Powers and White (medically retired), Everett (dad made him transfer), Moffit (graduated), McKnight (suspended due to violation of the University Code of Conduct and subsequently dismissed), Goodman (transferred for medical reasons), 6 of the 7 transfers graduated.

2024 - Wright was a mistake and we quickly replaced him. I’m sure that there will be more.

So that’s 24 players that are no longer on the roster for non football related reasons.

[JTApps1]

The same can be said for what is available in the portal. Look how many of them we have taken that have not ever played. When it comes to HS OL recruiting we have had just 1 pan out in 5 years and have had many misses from the portal. We are missing way too many with both. My comment about recruiting HS harder is that if we do a good job on hitting in that area then we won't need to go to the portal as heavily and that will save on NIL.

Our results in both tells me that we need to make changes in who is evaluating and picking the players we offer. There are a lot of good ones out there but we are missing on them. I can point to a lot of quality FCS OL that we did not even offer out of HS.

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

We should also look at retainment. Are you able to keep the kids you recruit? Do they quit football? Do they get kicked off? Do they transfer? Were they just whiffs and mis-judgements? Where are those recruits today?
We aren't retaining kids from a few classes ago at a good clip in my opinion. 2020-2022 class numbers look pretty bad for retainment.

Let's dive into who is still on the team today from Clark's recruiting classes (portal and HS according to 247).
(on team/enrolles)
2020- 5/22- 23% (mostly Drink's class but still not good)
2021- 8/30- 26%
2022- 12/29- 41%
2023- 22/33- 67%
2024- 33/34- 97%

I would personally look at everyone that saw meaningful action from each class and go with that. The portal and unlimited transfer rule make it harder to compare today's signing classes to previous years in terms of graduation. My earlier numbers came from 247 classes and looked at HS recruits that started since that's what the previously posted numbers from Clark looked at. My reason for posting was to simply point out that we've had a ton of guys washout from all three FBS HC's.

[AppSt94]

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

We should also look at retainment. Are you able to keep the kids you recruit? Do they quit football? Do they get kicked off? Do they transfer? Were they just whiffs and mis-judgements? Where are those recruits today?
We aren't retaining kids from a few classes ago at a good clip in my opinion. 2020-2022 class numbers look pretty bad for retainment.

Let's dive into who is still on the team today from Clark's recruiting classes (portal and HS according to 247).
(on team/enrolles)
2020- 5/22- 23% (mostly Drink's class but still not good)
2021- 8/30- 26%
2022- 12/29- 41%
2023- 22/33- 67%
2024- 33/34- 97%

I would personally look at everyone that saw meaningful action from each class and go with that. The portal and unlimited transfer rule make it harder to compare today's signing classes to previous years in terms of graduation. My earlier numbers came from 247 classes and looked at HS recruits that started since that's what the previously posted numbers from Clark looked at. My reason for posting was to simply point out that we've had a ton of guys washout from all three FBS HC's.

Does meaningful snaps include ST’s? Looking at the participation chart would be the best indicator.

[Mjohn1988]

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

We should also look at retainment. Are you able to keep the kids you recruit? Do they quit football? Do they get kicked off? Do they transfer? Were they just whiffs and mis-judgements? Where are those recruits today?
We aren't retaining kids from a few classes ago at a good clip in my opinion. 2020-2022 class numbers look pretty bad for retainment.

Let's dive into who is still on the team today from Clark's recruiting classes (portal and HS according to 247).
(on team/enrolles)
2020- 5/22- 23% (mostly Drink's class but still not good)
2021- 8/30- 26%
2022- 12/29- 41%
2023- 22/33- 67%
2024- 33/34- 97%

I would personally look at everyone that saw meaningful action from each class and go with that. The portal and unlimited transfer rule make it harder to compare today's signing classes to previous years in terms of graduation. My earlier numbers came from 247 classes and looked at HS recruits that started since that's what the previously posted numbers from Clark looked at. My reason for posting was to simply point out that we've had a ton of guys washout from all three FBS HC's.

So if all 3 had about the same “wash out” rate but 2 of the 3 had success on the field that tells me that 2 of the 3 are better overall coaches. 2 of the 3 either did more with the talent they had or they recruited enough talent to replace the guys who washed out.

[AppStFan1]

I think that it’s important to put some context around those that didn’t see the field for injuries, not a good fit, discipline issues and daddy issues. Not everyone is a pure bust from a talent evaluation standpoint.

Yes we know that but it does not matter why. The reasons are just an excuse. The end result is what matters and whether they transfer and stand out elsewhere does not matter because the bottom line is what they did for us.

[AppStFan1]

The same can be said for what is available in the portal. Look how many of them we have taken that have not ever played. When it comes to HS OL recruiting we have had just 1 pan out in 5 years and have had many misses from the portal. We are missing way too many with both. My comment about recruiting HS harder is that if we do a good job on hitting in that area then we won't need to go to the portal as heavily and that will save on NIL.

Our results in both tells me that we need to make changes in who is evaluating and picking the players we offer. There are a lot of good ones out there but we are missing on them. I can point to a lot of quality FCS OL that we did not even offer out of HS.

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

We should also look at retainment. Are you able to keep the kids you recruit? Do they quit football? Do they get kicked off? Do they transfer? Were they just whiffs and mis-judgements? Where are those recruits today?
We aren't retaining kids from a few classes ago at a good clip in my opinion. 2020-2022 class numbers look pretty bad for retainment.

Let's dive into who is still on the team today from Clark's recruiting classes (portal and HS according to 247).
(on team/enrolles)
2020- 5/22- 23% (mostly Drink's class but still not good)
2021- 8/30- 26%
2022- 12/29- 41%
2023- 22/33- 67%
2024- 33/34- 97%

I was looking at just high school recruiting and not the portal. Numbers are going to be higher with portal players as they should. I would not worry about how 2023 and 2024 look because it is too soon. Got to give classes a few years to shake out.

[AppSt94]

I think that it’s important to put some context around those that didn’t see the field for injuries, not a good fit, discipline issues and daddy issues. Not everyone is a pure bust from a talent evaluation standpoint.

Yes we know that but it does not matter why. The reasons are just an excuse. The end result is what matters and whether they transfer and stand out elsewhere does not matter because the bottom line is what they did for us.

Everything affects everything. If you are going to base all conclusions on the W/L record then I understand why it looks like an excuse. Thankfully, those in charge are not as obtuse.

[311neers]

Hmm. Doesn't my response State HS or portal...

I missed where it says or portal. We are missing heavily in both so that tells me that it is not the supply of talent but rather who is picking the players or else we have talent and it is just not being developed.

The reality is we are missing at a lot higher rate with HS players than we use to. When we are hitting on 30% or less that is a bad sign.

Here are the numbers for his first 3 classes out of HS:
2020- 6 of 19 (31.5%)- 2 have left though so if you take those still here then 4 of 19 (21.0%)
2021- 6 of 22 (27.2%)
2022- 5 of 15 (33.3%)

Hit rate is roughly 30.3% for those 3 classes. We really need to be 50-60%. This is why I say just taking 12 in this 2025 class is not a good move because we are likely to just have 3-4 pan out based on past recruiting history and that would leave us with a badly depleted class.

Class of 2020 was actually Drink's since nearly all were recruited by him.

Using your metric, here are the numbers under Satterfield. Three are on par with Clark, and only one ever hit the 50-60% range.

2019: 5-18 (28%)
2018: 7-24 (29%)
2017: 10-19 (53%)
2016: 10-23 (43%)
2015: 8-17 (47%)
2014: 12-27 (37%)

Note: I don't think we should limit to just starters considering many positions rotate so much.

We should also look at retainment. Are you able to keep the kids you recruit? Do they quit football? Do they get kicked off? Do they transfer? Were they just whiffs and mis-judgements? Where are those recruits today?
We aren't retaining kids from a few classes ago at a good clip in my opinion. 2020-2022 class numbers look pretty bad for retainment.

Let's dive into who is still on the team today from Clark's recruiting classes (portal and HS according to 247).
(on team/enrolles)
2020- 5/22- 23% (mostly Drink's class but still not good)
2021- 8/30- 26%
2022- 12/29- 41%
2023- 22/33- 67%
2024- 33/34- 97%

I was looking at just high school recruiting and not the portal. Numbers are going to be higher with portal players as they should. I would not worry about how 2023 and 2024 look because it is too soon. Got to give classes a few years to shake out.

Correct. Portal kids graduate or only have 1 year left sometimes so that skews the numbers. But even just looking at the HS enrollees, the retainment is low. We’ve had a lot of kids quit or transfer down. Are we doing our due diligence? Are we recruiting the correct talent? Doesn’t appear so.

[Saint3333]

Some of you are so adept at how to recruit….. why have you not gone into coaching? I mean, you have all the answers!

Translation: I can’t refute what you are saying with evidence from results so I will attack your credibility to have an opinion.

I recruit and development various teams at my place of employment. I am measured in part by their success.

Coaching is that on steroids with a KPI that everyone can see.