Which Comes First - Success or Recruits?

Mavric

Mavric

Yoda
Staff member
Michigan State is on a roll right now recruiting. Got me thinking again about whether you need better recruits to have more success or whether you need more success to get better recruits. My contention is that better recruiting is more likely to follow on-field success than the other way around.

It's only one set of data points but here are MSU's records under Dantonio:

2007 - 7-6

2008 - 9-4

2009 - 6-7

2010 - 11-2

2011 - 11-3

2012 - 7-6

2013 - 13-1

2014 - 11-2

Here are their class rankings using the 247 Composite:

2008 - 44

2009 - 26

2010 - 21

2011 - 32

2012 - 33

2013 - 36

2014 - 25

2015 - 9 (as of now)

So his first class was mediocre but the 2009 and 2010 classes were much better after the good record in 2008. They dropped back down for a few years but have been steadily climbing with their success recently. The only teams they've lost two in the last two years were the two teams that played for the National Championship this year and they did that on the backs of classes that were ranked in the 30s. But they're getting better classes now. We'll see how they end up this year.

 
Agree. If a program can manage even a little sustained success it opens the doors to recruits. Kids want to win. Tough to get better recruits without winning. Well, to get them legally, anyway.

 
Think is a mixture of things. How good is your staff as recruiters? Where are you located? I do think there is something to on the field results, correlating to recruiting results, but it isn't everything.

 
True. Every once in a while you find a program that seems to draw in better talent for no discernible reason. I attribute that to staff that can develop relationships. But those are the anomalies. As a general rule, I think you have to have some degree of success before better talent will look at a school.

 
AR Husker Fan said:
True. Every once in a while you find a program that seems to draw in better talent for no discernible reason. I attribute that to staff that can develop relationships.
Click to expand...
"Relationships."

freeze_here_ya_go__2_.gif


 
Treand3 said:
Think is a mixture of things. How good is your staff as recruiters? Where are you located? I do think there is something to on the field results, correlating to recruiting results, but it isn't everything.
Click to expand...
I agree - there are obviously a lot of factors.

Buit I've often seen "we can't compete for championships until we get better recruits" or something similar. I actually think it's quite possible that it's (somewhat) the other way around. You need to have good success and find a way to do a little better than you should and then "better" recruits will be more interested.

When I have some time, perhaps I'll research Wisconsin.

 
I don't know if this is something that relates that well. You also have teams like Michigan, USC, Florida, and Texass that have always gotten recruits and had a lot of success but in recent years have been on the down slope. I think it's more of a mix along with good coaching.

 
Dantonio is a good, possibly great head coach. However, he has capitalized on Michigan and Penn State being down here the last decade or so.

The ? I ask is how will MSU trend after he leaves?

 
I was talking to a coworker that used to play at MSU about their recruiting. I think Dantonio has a couple of good selling points. Compete against the current NC (same division) that appears will be a very good team for the foreseeable future. I noticed recruits in recent years wanted to go to SEC schools to compete with "the best". He's also got a good track record of developing lower ranked recruits into NFL caliber players.

I think MSUs success shows that the coaches know what they are doing. By successs I mean winning a lot of games but also being competitive and not getting blown out in their losses.

 
MSU's big comeback win over Baylor in the bowl game last year and Stanford the year before is impressive to fans and recruits.

 
I agree its complex. K-State has on average good records since the mid 90s, yet they can't get highly regarded recruits. Boise St, BYU, TCU and Baylor also benefited from easy schedules. So throw scheduling into the mix.

Texas and Mississippi have got and bought, respectively, good recruits with only one or two exceptional years each. If success means NC, the triplets were great, but lost to Miami. The '97 team had slightly less talent than the '84 team, IMO, yet won.

 
Mavric said:
Treand3 said:
Think is a mixture of things. How good is your staff as recruiters? Where are you located? I do think there is something to on the field results, correlating to recruiting results, but it isn't everything.
Click to expand...
I agree - there are obviously a lot of factors.

Buit I've often seen "we can't compete for championships until we get better recruits" or something similar. I actually think it's quite possible that it's (somewhat) the other way around. You need to have good success and find a way to do a little better than you should and then "better" recruits will be more interested.

When I have some time, perhaps I'll research Wisconsin.
Click to expand...
I big part of that is scheduling for sure. Our schedule last year, starting the season 5-0, was the perfect opportunity for Nebraska to get over the hump and gain some national attention...

You need to win the easy games and manage to claw your way to a big victory when the moment arrives. Unfortunately for Nebraska, the 'moment' has too often involved not only losses, but blowout losses on national TV. In my opinion, a team needs to capitalize on it's schedule and win an important game when it matters.

 
Clearly you don't need success to come first. However I'd point out many of those powerhouse recruiters tend to just stock the cupboards for the next guy.

Likewise, many coaches who find success don't magically become top recruiters afterwards.

We don't need to worry as long as we have coaches who embrace the challenge and go all out. Nebraska provides *enough* of a platform. And coaching is of course the first priority.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top