Question: ? about recruiting, parity, and play time

[VolFan1]

Share
 

Tell me your thoughts on this.

I was thinking about recruiting and how schools cycle through how good they are over years.

Many people talk about parity in college football and many say it is the scholarship limit. Is it really due to scholarship limits or is it due to other factors?

Right now Bama is stacked depth wise. My Vols aren't quiet so fortunate. I am thinking that the parity and cycles of being at the top are as much related to players getting immediate playing time as much as it does to scholarships or the chance to win a championship.

I think when a good coach comes in he can sell playing time early to nearly any player in the country. These recruits are all stars at the high school level and many of them just want to play and not stand on the sidelines. If this goes on for 3-4 years, then you have a nice depth chart. At this point, the coach should have to start selling "come to my school for a chance to win championships". They must start convincing the kids that if they have sit for a couple of seasons that it is a good thing, because there is a chance of a championship for their entire college career.

I am thinking that this is what causes "power cycles" in college football.

What thoughts do you guys have on the VolFan Theory of College Football Parity?... Cheesy name for my idea, I know

[CapstoneGrad06]

A select few coaches in the country can continue to bring in top five classes every year. Coach Saban, Brown, Carrol, Meyer, Stoops, and Miles certainly the best. We will see if Kiffin joins them. As for Alabama, we're also very fortunate to have such talented prep ranks in the state of Alabama. Most of those kids only have one choice of school they want to attend right away.
Posted via Mobile Device

[VolFan1]

	Quote:	CapstoneGrad06
	A select few coaches in the country can continue to bring in top five classes every year. Coach Saban, Brown, Carrol, Meyer, Stoops, and Miles certainly the best. We will see if Kiffin joins them. As for Alabama, we're also very fortunate to have such talented prep ranks in the state of Alabama. Most of those kids only have one choice of school they want to attend right away. Posted via Mobile Device

I agree with you. Even these coaches are going to have years that aren't great. That may have as much to do with players not panning out as much as anything.

Of the coaches you list, each of their states has tremendous in-state talent.

[Padreruf]

The last time I looked the states that produced the most NCAA D-1 football athletes were:
California, Ohio, Florida, Texas and Georgia. Each has a tremendous population advantage. Bobby Bowden said that he should have a top ten class every year with all the athletes in Florida. Alabama does usually produce enough athletes for one dominant team...not two. Traditionally Bama has gone to Mississippi and Auburn to Georgia and Florida to add players. Now we see Bama going all over as times have changed. Tennessee has always had to recruit nationally as there are not enough players in Tennessee proper to keep them stocked.

The kicker in this is: guess which state leads the nation in NFL players per capita? Mississippi. I trust we can get those we need and hold off Mullen and Nutt -- but it won't be easy.

[LCN]

	Quote:	Padreruf
	The last time I looked the states that produced the most NCAA D-1 football athletes were: California, Ohio, Florida, Texas and Georgia. Each has a tremendous population advantage. Bobby Bowden said that he should have a top ten class every year with all the athletes in Florida. Alabama does usually produce enough athletes for one dominant team...not two. Traditionally Bama has gone to Mississippi and Auburn to Georgia and Florida to add players. Now we see Bama going all over as times have changed. Tennessee has always had to recruit nationally as there are not enough players in Tennessee proper to keep them stocked. The kicker in this is: guess which state leads the nation in NFL players per capita? Mississippi. I trust we can get those we need and hold off Mullen and Nutt -- but it won't be easy.

Yes and no . Per capita , California sucks . Always in the bottom 5

Ohio cycles up and down in much the same manner as AL , Ms and La .

2008 #'s (in '07 , AL was #1)
BCS signees on a per capita basis .
10.0 FL +
9.79 GA -
9.66 MS +
8.89 SC +
7.82 TX +
7.66 AL -
7.27 LA +
6.78 OH +
------------
46th CA 3.01 ... and that is up a fair amount .

For decades GA had been far the leader but 1.7 million new residents have heavily dented their ratio during this decade . Obviously many of their newer residents do not play football . At least not very well if they do

By the # of total BCS conference signees ....
TX 190 +
FL 183 +
CA 114 +
GA 95 -

[BEATtutorsee]

The scholarship limits are the reason we have such parity in the game today, there's little doubt about that. As far as programs cycling up and down as far as talent level goes the biggest reasons for that to me are performance on the field and coaching turnover. The reason you see the USC's, Texas's, Florida's, and now Alabama's of the game continuing to reel in top classes despite loaded rosters is because programs like this are having great success on the field and they have top notch coaches who are entrenched at their locations. Sure some players who want immediate playing time may head elsewhere, but success breeds success, and more often than not the top players want to go and play where other top players are going to play.

[HITIDE]

Since the freshman eligibility rule has changed and so many good players leaving after 3 years to the NFL, the offer of EPT (opportunity) is there even for the teams stacked with depth. Talented kids willing to work hard and compete for EPT will get it at Bama, OU, USC, Texas, etc. Kids that want to go where they are assured EPT will shy away from those schools but the top recruits that cherish competition, which breeds champions, will not.

Those teams will be competitive every year (in recruiting and on the field) so long as they have coaching stability and no one meddling to get them in trouble with the ncaa.

[time_4_the_TIDE]

	Quote:	HITIDE
	Those teams will be competitive every year (in recruiting and on the field) so long as they have coaching stability and no one meddling to get them in trouble with the ncaa.

I think you are correct here. I think once you reach the level of FL or where BAMA is getting to. The power cycle has more to do with coaching stability than anything(if you have good assistants that is). Good assistants are hard to keep and if a school is successful in keeping the good ones around longer than I think you in turn have more stability. I mean it has to be hard on some these kids to be recruited all year by a coach then him leave before the next season starts like Steele when he left. Not to mention the wasted time having to learn a new coach's system and habits. You can have the #1 recruiting class in the nation but if their whole career they go through 2 or 3 different coaches or coordinators they will never be as good as if they had that continuity.

[NYBamaFan]

To add a few thoughts:

Coaches like Saban do not promise playing time. They only promise open competition for playing time. Saban continues to show that he will play the best player at any position, not the player with tenure.

Elite players are not afraid of competition. Just ask Trent or Nico.

The ability to develop talent for the NFL is also a HUGE draw. These kids want to play on Sundays.

Finally, elite players like to win. They see themselves as winners. Winning programs always have an edge in recruiting.