The Folly Of Following Recruiting
4 comments so far
August 16, 2006 by
I do it. I love it. And I will continue to do it. Some people never learn, I guess.
Watching the recruiting process has become something of a year-round activity that can produce emotional highs and lows almost daily. Yet in the end, much of our excitement turns out to be for naught.
As the Blue Oyster Cult so eloquently put it in the song “Godzilla”:
History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of men
In this case, they could be referring to human nature. What college football fan wouldn’t be excited to see his team land the #3 quarterback prospect? Or the #2 and #4 running back prospects or the #8 offensive guard prospect? It’s only natural to be encouraged.
But that enthusiasm needs to be tempered or else reality will hit like a hammer between the eyes. Our top 3 quarterback (Harrison Beck), debuted with as many interceptions as completions and threw incomplete 90% of the time when he got on the field as a freshman. Would he have improved? Almost certainly, but there was no guarantee he would ever beat out other lower-rated quarterback prospects. Now he transfers away in frustration, leaving fans feeling deflated about all the hype.
How about those running backs? Well #2 (Lucky) and #4 (Leon Jackson) seemed to be getting beat out by #28 (Glenn). Lucky will play, but Jackson opted for a less competitive environment. No recruiting film I saw excited me more than Jackson’s. But in the end, it didn’t appear that he was going to crack the starting lineup. His high school highlight reel didn’t mean much once he hit the practice field.
The offensive guard in question was Rodney Picou. While his downfall may have been academics, he still leaves Husker fans wanting.
Now imagine if instead of blue chippers like Beck, Jackson, and Picou, the Huskers had brought in guys ranked lower by recruiting services. Just maybe, these guys would have been content to stay even if they weren’t going to start right away. Even if they were less talented, they would constitute a better use of scholarships because they would at least remain around to contribute.
I’m not suggesting that the staff should aim lower (the scholarships given to two-star prospects like Robert Rands and Jeff Souder turned out to be just as fruitless), but I do think we as fans need to be less obsessed with recruiting rankings and realize that just because a kid is hailed as the next big thing is a lot less important than his level of commitment to the program. If a guy is ready to leave the first time things don’t go his way, then he should not be the guy we want most.
That’s why you have to love what we hear from a recruit like Patrick Witt, “I am 100% committed”. Sure, it could just be smoke, but it’s a lot better than the hearing quotes like, “they say I could start right away”. If starting right away is what matters most, then that’s a big red flag.
I can’t say that I have the self-discipline to look past the rankings. I’m still excited to see that five-star wide receiver Ron Brooks is scheduled to visit Nebraska in October and that four-star linebacker prospect Austin Stafford is visiting in September. But if these guys commit, I need to remind myself that no matter how good these players have looked up to this point, they may never start a game at Nebraska.
Did you enjoy this article?
Send it to a friend
Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter
Related Stories: Recruiting
Post a comment
darren Aug 17 06
Well put, Steve.
As an additional example I offer Mark Leflore. I'm not knocking him. But he was "rated" as the same level of WR as Larry Fitzgerald in high school.
Maybe it is a function of coaching, or systems, or overestimating talents. But, Mark Leflore was not even in Larry's class in college. And now, Larry is a pro.
okgeye Aug 17 06
The bottom line is that ranking players is very subjective based on so many variables and 'apparent' tangibles on film; however, the intangibles are probably just as important if not more than what you see on film. I believe a kid's attitude and 'ego-balance' is just as important as their physical, raw talent potential.
These intangibles are rarely reflected in the recruiting rankings because these intangibles are usually not challenged until the kid hits the college level. That's why you can see huge differences in the outcome of a player once they leave highschool versus when they leave college (D1). At the college level, the intangibles make the difference.
Husker Mike Aug 17 06
Even the NFL gets it wrong. Look at all the draft picks that turn into busts. (Can you say "Ryan Leaf"?) Talent evaluation is difficult to do. College coaches spend hours pouring over films to evaluate these guys, and they know football. So why do people put so much weight on internet guys living in their parent's basement think about high school kids?
Jason Siffring Aug 18 06
Good points guys.
Husker Mike: I totally agree. That's why we, here at the BRN, prefer sitting in our parent's basement analyzing *college* kids. :)
There's a fine line we all have to walk between fanatical fan and creepy stalker guy.
To other readers: Husker Mike has a good site in his own right. It's on my reading list. Check it out.
http://huskermike.blogspot.com/