Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
How do we measure "better recruiting"?
Author Message
MemOwl Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,031
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 28
I Root For: Owls
Location: Houston
Post: #21
RE: How do we measure "better recruiting"?
(10-04-2013 02:49 PM)I45owl Wrote:  But how much of that depth is a consequence of recruiting. With Shahin, that depth would look better, and without looking, it seems like we're missing at least one more DL (Michael Sam) that is for reasons other than recruiting.

An as-yet unmentioned issue is graduation rate. That is unquestionably related to recruiting, and it appears that Bailiff and his staff have done well on that count.

Great point on graduation rates. If wins stay the same but graduation rates go up, that counts as better recruiting.

Michael Sam was lost to injury. Those happen and deplete rosters. But Michael Sam is a very high quality kid who will graduate from Rice.

I'll confess I had forgotten about him when I started this thread. My son played HS football with him, and he was the first commit in the 2011 class. I'm pretty sure he had an offer from Baylor, and TAMU put some late feelers in.

His family was exceptionally high on Coach Bailiff's character.
In fact, getting Michael Sam to start that class is--for me--prima facie evidence that DB is a solid, perhaps outstanding, recruiter.
10-04-2013 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gravy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,427
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 105
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #22
RE: How do we measure "better recruiting"?
(10-04-2013 02:49 PM)I45owl Wrote:  But how much of that depth is a consequence of recruiting. With Shahin, that depth would look better, and without looking, it seems like we're missing at least one more DL (Michael Sam) that is for reasons other than recruiting.

I would assume that M.Sam's injury factored into this year's signing class. We signed 4 DL though only 2 are on the current roster.

But, I was not comparing how the '08 roster was recruited to how the current roster was recruited. I was making the much simpler observation that '08 was a better team than '13 looks so far.

I think I should back out of this topic because it just isn't that interesting to me any more. Recruiting success is difficult to measure and is only relevant via its purported effect on on-field performance, which is relatively easy to measure. So I don't know why I should care that we got a bunch of recruits that were supposed to help us beat team X if we don't actually beat team X.
10-04-2013 09:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.