- Sep 8, 2014
- 25,419
- 59,314
Interesting read on the effects of the new early signing period:
Luginbill: ‘Best available’ becoming a luxury in college football recruiting, but only for some
https://theathletic.com/217999/2018...ollege-football-recruiting-but-only-for-some/
We are entering an entirely new world of college football recruiting, one in which a select group of programs are beginning to use the phrase “Best Available” to round out their classes and put a bow on the 2018 recruiting cycle come Feb. 7. This is an NFL draft term, not a recruiting term, right? Nope, now it is both, but unlike with the NFL draft where this phrase applies to all 32 teams, in college football this will likely only apply to a select few and not just at the Power Five conference level, but the Group of Five as well.
Generally, college recruiting philosophy revolves around identifying and filling holes within your roster. You have formulated your numbers by position, by need, as a result of attrition or early departures to the NFL draft. You have analyzed your 85 scholarships and know exactly what you need and are targeting those positions.
However, from this point forward, given that the player pool has shrunk from a lake to a puddle, the few teams that may only need a few prospects and feel good about the prospects they have already signed are focusing their efforts on landing the best available players on the board.
I’ve spoken with a few coaches and personnel directors across college football who have stated they need a (insert position), a (insert position) and then may just take the best available. This is not language you usually come across in recruiting. Everyone wants the best player for them, but in years past everyone’s focus was on signing an entire class in February. Now, a small group of programs has an entire month to focus on just a handful of kids while devoting resources to the future.
In December, when nobody really knew what to expect from the early signing period, I wrote about some possible unintended consequences such as assistant coaching changes after the early signing period, conflicts with bowl preparation and making sure a player has qualified academically before signing him so a team avoids having an ineligible player count in its class. Those are just a few examples.
However, possibly one of the biggest unintended byproducts of the early signing period could be a greater separation between college football’s elite programs and everyone else. Some of the strongest programs are using the month of January in a different way than the majority, and that is to their advantage.
Roughly 2,800 prospects will sign in a given class, and 2,003 prospects in the class of 2018 signed an FBS letter of intent during the early signing period. A handful of the top 25 ranked recruiting classes according to ESPN.comrecruiting signed 20 or more prospects (many have more in their class now with added commitments since December). It is an exclusive club. Ohio State, Notre Dame, LSU, Georgia and Penn State all signed more than 20, to name a few.
Let's look at scenarios involving two Power 5 teams with classes ranked in the top 50: Georgia and Syracuse.
Georgia has signed 22 prospects and needs three more, so it has streamlined its board to an exclusive group of players. It is now spending the majority of January identifying and evaluating the 2019 and 2020 classes and hosting junior days. The Bulldogs are bringing in a small group of the best available players to round out the class. They are getting a head start on spring recruiting and have more time to devote to the next classes.
Syracuse signed 17 prospects but expects to sign a full complement, so its player pool is larger with more focus, time and manpower dedicated to filling needs in the current class. The Orange are in competition with more programs for the remaining players on their board and likely will go down to the last day before they know exactly who they are getting in the 2018 class.
Another challenge facing Power 5 teams in Syracuse’s peer group is that the “poachable” player who was high on the boards of Group of Five teams is likely no longer available. Unlike years past, that “tweener” prospect whom a Power 5 team might choose to go after if it lost out of a certain player in late January is gone. Teams like Appalachian State, Florida International, Boise State, South Florida and Houston to name a few all signed 20 or more players, and good players at that. In fact, the “best available” luxury may make an even bigger impact on top-level Group of 5 programs and their ability to separate themselves from the pack.
The point is that there are a very select few that are able to use their January recruiting time to and target a player they may not necessarily need to fill a specific position need, but who happens to be the best player available. And the fact that player may serve a significant need for a competitor on the recruiting landscape only makes that player more valuable.
Having the luxury of signing the best player on your board and stealing him from someone else is an advantage. Having your workload diminished with the current class, manpower devoted the next class and mapping out your calendar for the spring gives you a leg up.
We may not know the effects of the advent of the early signing period until after two or three recruiting cycles, but to be able to say on Feb. 7 that you just signed the best player on your board regardless of position sure would sound good to me.
Luginbill: ‘Best available’ becoming a luxury in college football recruiting, but only for some
https://theathletic.com/217999/2018...ollege-football-recruiting-but-only-for-some/
We are entering an entirely new world of college football recruiting, one in which a select group of programs are beginning to use the phrase “Best Available” to round out their classes and put a bow on the 2018 recruiting cycle come Feb. 7. This is an NFL draft term, not a recruiting term, right? Nope, now it is both, but unlike with the NFL draft where this phrase applies to all 32 teams, in college football this will likely only apply to a select few and not just at the Power Five conference level, but the Group of Five as well.
Generally, college recruiting philosophy revolves around identifying and filling holes within your roster. You have formulated your numbers by position, by need, as a result of attrition or early departures to the NFL draft. You have analyzed your 85 scholarships and know exactly what you need and are targeting those positions.
However, from this point forward, given that the player pool has shrunk from a lake to a puddle, the few teams that may only need a few prospects and feel good about the prospects they have already signed are focusing their efforts on landing the best available players on the board.
I’ve spoken with a few coaches and personnel directors across college football who have stated they need a (insert position), a (insert position) and then may just take the best available. This is not language you usually come across in recruiting. Everyone wants the best player for them, but in years past everyone’s focus was on signing an entire class in February. Now, a small group of programs has an entire month to focus on just a handful of kids while devoting resources to the future.
In December, when nobody really knew what to expect from the early signing period, I wrote about some possible unintended consequences such as assistant coaching changes after the early signing period, conflicts with bowl preparation and making sure a player has qualified academically before signing him so a team avoids having an ineligible player count in its class. Those are just a few examples.
However, possibly one of the biggest unintended byproducts of the early signing period could be a greater separation between college football’s elite programs and everyone else. Some of the strongest programs are using the month of January in a different way than the majority, and that is to their advantage.
Roughly 2,800 prospects will sign in a given class, and 2,003 prospects in the class of 2018 signed an FBS letter of intent during the early signing period. A handful of the top 25 ranked recruiting classes according to ESPN.comrecruiting signed 20 or more prospects (many have more in their class now with added commitments since December). It is an exclusive club. Ohio State, Notre Dame, LSU, Georgia and Penn State all signed more than 20, to name a few.
Let's look at scenarios involving two Power 5 teams with classes ranked in the top 50: Georgia and Syracuse.
Georgia has signed 22 prospects and needs three more, so it has streamlined its board to an exclusive group of players. It is now spending the majority of January identifying and evaluating the 2019 and 2020 classes and hosting junior days. The Bulldogs are bringing in a small group of the best available players to round out the class. They are getting a head start on spring recruiting and have more time to devote to the next classes.
Syracuse signed 17 prospects but expects to sign a full complement, so its player pool is larger with more focus, time and manpower dedicated to filling needs in the current class. The Orange are in competition with more programs for the remaining players on their board and likely will go down to the last day before they know exactly who they are getting in the 2018 class.
Another challenge facing Power 5 teams in Syracuse’s peer group is that the “poachable” player who was high on the boards of Group of Five teams is likely no longer available. Unlike years past, that “tweener” prospect whom a Power 5 team might choose to go after if it lost out of a certain player in late January is gone. Teams like Appalachian State, Florida International, Boise State, South Florida and Houston to name a few all signed 20 or more players, and good players at that. In fact, the “best available” luxury may make an even bigger impact on top-level Group of 5 programs and their ability to separate themselves from the pack.
The point is that there are a very select few that are able to use their January recruiting time to and target a player they may not necessarily need to fill a specific position need, but who happens to be the best player available. And the fact that player may serve a significant need for a competitor on the recruiting landscape only makes that player more valuable.
Having the luxury of signing the best player on your board and stealing him from someone else is an advantage. Having your workload diminished with the current class, manpower devoted the next class and mapping out your calendar for the spring gives you a leg up.
We may not know the effects of the advent of the early signing period until after two or three recruiting cycles, but to be able to say on Feb. 7 that you just signed the best player on your board regardless of position sure would sound good to me.
