The Annual Misconceptions About Recruiting Post

I haven't done this in several years. At least I don't recall doing it in several years. Every year, when I read the boards, there's always about 10 cats jumping to wild assumptions based on their preconceived notions about how college football recruiting works. Here's a primer list of misconceptions:

1. Recruiting is just like they show it in the movies.

- Not even close. For one, they have no way to show the endless hours coaches spend watching film, talking to coaches, talking to parents, and especially talking to players. Furthermore, recruiting is not about SALESMANSHIP it's about RELATIONSHIP. I don't want to get into a chicken vs. the egg issue, but Mack Brown did not suddenly become a superstar recruiter at Texas. He was hauling similar classes at North Carolina, too. This leads to my next point, and probably the most important:

2. Winning always means great recruiting.

- Way off. Great recruiters recruit greatly regardless of the program. Never, ever forget that. Pete Carroll isn't a great recruiter because he's at USC. The man could have recruited almost as well at Washington State, he just wouldn't have had the added benefit of being in the heart of one of the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country. Winning does not recruit. Winning opens doors to recruits you did not previously have access to. This is always what trips up fans. Putting three or four successful years can definitely have an impact on getting recruits, but in the end it's about the people you have recruiting, not really about the product you've previously put on the field. There's also a side misconception that the offensive line coach recruits the offensive linemen, the secondary coach recruits defensive backs, etc. Not true. Staff members are given a geographic region and direction towards which recruits to focus on. They're also responsible for attending games in that region and spotting previously unknown talent. So it's more common, for example, to have your secondary coach recruiting Fresno to be working with a wide receiver, a tight end, and a linebacker. Those kids may not even know the names of their position coaches until they come in for an official visit.

3. Head coaches must be great recruiters to have a great recruiting class.

- Not entirely true. What is true is the best recruiting staffs start with a great recruiter at the top, but it's not entirely necessary. What's most important is each staff has two or three people whose most special talent is developing trusting relationships with teenagers, preferably starting at, say, 16-years-old. Then it's important that the head coach can close, or at least come off genuine enough with the parents to not damage the work the star staff recruiters have done. At most programs, the staff does 80 percent or more of the hard work in recruiting. Head coaches tend to focus on the impact players, but if it comes down to the wire on any player the staff wants, the head coach will almost always get involved there.

4. Recruiting rankings aren't important.

- This is going too far, IMO. The bulk of people involved in ranking recruits: (a) have no playing or coaching experience at any level; (b) know much less about football than they think they do; (c) are almost entirely reliant on the opinions of their peers to justify their rankings. That said, all of those people can't be that far off about the overall group of players. They may whiff hard on a top-rated quarterback or running back. That makes sense. There's too many variables there (type of offense, stability of staff, surrounding talent) to expect them to accurately project every skill player. They'll usually puff up a few players that are workout warriors but have shown real football ability. But the overall rankings ... if a school lands three jumbo athletes with skill-type speed, what are the chances those kids won't produce in big ways? If USC recruits 10 Top 100 players, that's a high-ranking class that deserves the props, because it will be a success if 5 or more of those players have big impacts on the field. What's the difference between the No. 5 class and the No. 20 class? It could be a huge chasm or nothing at all depending on attrition, injuries, and how many kids from the No. 20 class stick around for four or more years. Also, if a program has one No. 5 class surrounded by three classes in the 40s, the program that regularly recruits in the Top 20 is likely to out perform the other every year. Or at least it's fairly safe to say the the team the recruits the most consistently has more available talent.

5. If my coaching staff can't land high rated classes, they should be canned

- I will never understand the hostility from fans regarding recruiting classes. Most of them never seem to see the bigger picture. Recruiting is always, in the end, about performance. If you have a program that is stuck on 6 wins and the coach elevates you to an 8+ win plateau, is there a reason to gripe? Ten years of 8+ wins puts you in a very elite class -- the annual Top 20 -- and a program that has the respect of other coaches, if not national worship. It also puts the program in the position to take another step up with luck and pluck. College football is an endurance sport. Keep your winning coach on the sidelines for a long time and make a financial committment. It's not how a coach recruits in ONE SPECIFIC YEAR. It's how a coach (and his staff) recruit for the duration of their stay at a program. That defines a coach's recruiting. Always. If a coach lands, say, a No. 30 class for four straight years, there's plenty of talent there to be successful and possibly exceed the ranking of the classes with a little luck and a few players who improve. It's even better if the attrition rates mean keeping those playres in school. Solid attrition almost always = winning football; never underestimate a team with a consistently stable second team.

Uniform madness

Nothing seems to generate more discussion that suggestions to change the football uniforms. One thing we can all agree on is that the banana uniforms from the Marmie era were awful.

I see lots of requests for pictures of these atrocities, including today's Uni Watch, so for your viewing pleasure...


Note that the back of the Woodson card indicates that these uniforms were worn versus USC. They were also used in at least one game versus CGU. If anyone can provide the exact dates when these were worn, please post to the comments.

Updated 1/10/08: Today's Uni Watch follows up with some additional pictures provided by the ASU SID here, here (an especially ugly close-up) and here. Also, confirmation of the comment left here yesterday that these monstrosities were used for two games: CGU in 1989 and USC in 1990.

Merry Christmas

Thanks to SI for an early Christmas present to all Sun Devil fans (well, the guys at least!).

Holiday Bowl announcement

Don't bother watching Fox with baited breath at 6pm AZ time tonight. I looks as though the Devils are headed to the Holiday Bowl in San Diego, meaning they have not been selected to a BCS Bowl. UW's failure to hold on to a 21-point lead over Hawaii ultimately doomed ASU.

So it's ASU and Texas in the Holiday Bowl, to be played Thursday, December 27th at 5pm (PST) at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego. The game will be televised nationally on ESPN.

Champions!

I must admit, when Dennis Erickson was hired I was optimistic, but never thought he would deliver a conference championship in his first season in Tempe. On Saturday night, ASU won a share of its third conference title by beating the Rats 20-17. The catch by Chris McGaha may be one of the best 5 in ASU history -- just a pity that he did not fall into the end zone to score his first TD of the year.

This team will not receive the same accolades in future years as the '86 or '96 championship teams, but they deserve a special place in our hearts. Just remember all those games in recent years where a win meant a trip to Hawaii for a meaningless bowl.

The Save Mike Stoops' Job Fund

Mike Stoops has now lost 3 straight to ASU and has gone four straight years without a bowl game. He continues to weed out Arizona recruits by hyping the future flops, allowing ASU to step in and pick up future success stories.

UA administration has said Stoops will be back for another year. We here at the Save Mike Stoops' Job Fund feel there are few people more important to ASU's success than Mike Stoops and feel it necessary to let the Arizona president and athletic director know ASU fans are in full support of UA keeping Mike Stoops on the payroll. We feel he is due at least a five-year extension.

Please, if you have spare change in your pocket, stick in an envelope and send it to this great cause:

Univ. of No Rose Bowls
1401 E University
Tucson, AZ 85721

Beat the Rats

And so it all comes down to this. Yet again, the game against CGU ("Closing the Gap Univ") will define the season. With a win over the Rats, we can declare this season an unqualified success. Lose, and there will always be a bitter aftertaste to an otherwise good season.

What's impossible to know right now is whether the beating we took from the Trojans will impact this game. Hopefully the 9 day gap will give the kids time to recover.

Bummer

There is little need for an in-depth analysis of the Thanksgiving day loss to USC. When the team with the superior talent plays its "A" game, it usually wins. As much as people like to criticize the "star" ratings of the recruiting services, USC demonstrated what a team full of 4-star and 5-star recruits looks like. Could ASU have played better or done some things differently to pull of the upset? Sure. But if we played that game 10 times, USC would win at least 8 of the games.

The main thing that this game proved is how insane USC's loss to Stanford was. If they had won that game, they would be right at the top of the National Championship conversation.

I don't see this game as a setback for the program. "Reality check" would be a better term. We can't get to the next level until we get more studs on the roster. What happens next February on signing day will have far more impact on the program than what happened on Thanksgiving.

Beauty and the Beast

I cannot recall a more bipolar display by a unit than the performance of the Devils' special teams in the win over UCLA.

First, the good. Thomas Weber was nearly perfect: his long field goal at the end of the first half changed the momentum of the game, and
he pinned the Bruins deep on several punts. Normally I would never say this about a kicker, but Weber deserves serious consideration as ASU's MVP this season.

However, the game was kept close by two lapses: a punt return all the way back to the 1 yards line, and a kickoff return for a TD. Hard to tell from the TV coverage exactly what caused the meltdown -- you can't really blame poor tackling when the returners weren't even getting hit!

Never apologize for winning ugly

Some will be upset with the manner of the win, but a win is a win, especially when it's a conference road game. Take away the two long Bruin kick returns, and the score would not have been close, thanks to another outstanding effort by the D. Let's review: The Devils are 9-1, 3-0 versus teams from California, 3-1 in conference road games, in control of our own destiny for the conference championship. You couldn't really ask for more from a first-year head coach, could you?


We now get 12 days to heal before the Thanksgiving night game versus the Trojans. Ohio State's loss gives Oregon a good chance of finishing in the top 2 of the BCS standings should they win out, giving the Devils a clear path back to the Rose Bowl should we finish 11-1.