Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

Recruiting for Speed

Posted on: June 24, 2009 11:01 am
Edited on: June 24, 2009 11:02 am
 
PREFACE:

This piece was originally posted on the Spartan Message board as Lest we forget (part 3).

For the past several weeks, I have been engaged in a large research project (NCAA football). As often happens during research, interesting things are uncovered that are not directly related to the thesis being investigated. Such curiosities are often worth a digression, so I spent a little time looking at what follows.

First, a little background.

In the Forcier vs. Paulus, who cares ? Gotta Love It!!! on May 3, 2009 10:59 pm, Michwolverines1 posted:

So once again I have proven that you do ABSOLUTELY NO research before you post. Dont throw a hissy fit because RR is going after top talent in speed states like FL and TX. Dont get mad that Dantonioioioio cant compete with the Floridas and LSUs of the nation for recruits.Given the above comment, Florida, Louisiana St., Michigan, and Michigan St. are assessed.

Note 1: The "Interest" column in the Rivals and Scout pages is not clearly defined. Interest could be the school has expressed interest in the player. Likewise, it could be the player expressed interest in the school. Then again, it could be a combination of both, which is likely given that anyone can submit data on a player.
Note 2: There are anomalies and discrepancies between the data in the Rivals database and the Scout database. Scout is the primary source since its database search engine is much more user friendly.

First, a look at the recent 2009 recruits. All of these recruits have signed Letters Of Intent (LOI).

Florida signed 15 players.
Louisiana St. signed 23 players.
Michigan signed 22 players.
Michigan St. signed 23 players.

Of the 15 recruits picked up by Florida in 2009, MSU was interested in and made offers to none.
Of the 23 recruits picked up by MSU in 2009, Florida was interested in and made an offer to Edwin Baker. Baker signed with MSU.
MSU beat Florida 1 to 0 in the recruiting arena.

Of the 23 recruits picked up by LSU in 2009, MSU was interested in and made offers to none.
Of the 23 recruits picked up by MSU in 2009, LSU was interested in and made offers to none.
MSU tied LSU 0 to 0 in the recruiting arena.

Of the 23 recruits picked up by LSU in 2009, UM was interested in and made offers to Barkevious Mingo, Bennie Logan and Chris Faulk. All 3 signed with LSU.
Of the 22 recruits picked up by UM in 2009, LSU was interested in and made an offer to William Campbell. Campbell signed with UM.
LSU beat UM 3 to 1 in the recruiting arena.

Of the 22 recruits picked up by UM in 2009, Florida was interested in Adrian Witty and Brendan Gibbons (no offers) and made an offer to William Campbell. All 3 signed with UM.
Of the 15 recuirts picked up by Florida in 2009, UM was interested in and made offers to none.
UM beat UF 1 to 0 in the recruiting arena.

The poster above later clarified that he was talking about the 2010 class.

The 2010 recruits.

This data is a snapshot for 6/23/09. The data is evolving, changing hourly.

According to Scout:
Florida has 310 recruits listed as "Interest," has made 113 offers and received 15 verbal commitments.
Of the verbal commitments, UF beat out MSU for 0 recruits; UF beat out UM for 0 recruits; UF beat out LSU for 3 recruits.
Of the recruits receiving offers from UF, 23 have committed to other schools leaving 75 still open.

Louisiana St.has 324 recruits listed as "Interest," has made 110 offers and received 15 verbal commitments.
Of the verbal commitments, LSU beat out MSU for 0 recruits; LSU beat out UM for 2 recruits; LSU beat out UF for 2 recruits.
Of the recruits receiving offers from LSU, 30 have committed to other schools leaving 65 still open.

Michigan has 175 recruits listed as "Interest", has made 91 offers and received 15 verbal commitments.
Of the verbal commitments, UM beat out MSU for 2 recruits; UM beat out UF for 3 recruits; UM beat out LSU for 3 recruits.
Of the recruits receiving offers from UM, 19 have committed to other schools leaving 57 still open.

Michigan St. has 190 recruits listed as "Interest", has made 65 offers and received 5 verbal commitments.
Of the verbal commitments, MSU beat out UM for 2 recruits; MSU beat out UF for 1 recruits; MSU beat out LSU for 0 recruits.
Of the recruits receiving offers from MSU, 12 have committed to other schools leaving 40 still open.

Verbal commits:
20 players received offers by both MSU and UM, 4 players have committed: 2 for MSU, 2 for UM
2 players received offers by both MSU and LSU, 0 players have committed: 0 for MSU, 0 for LSU
2 players received offers by both MSU and UF, 1 player has committed: 1 for MSU, 0 for UF
7 players received offers by both UM and LSU; 5 players have committed: 3 for UM, 2 for LSU
19 players received offers by both UM and UF; 3 players have committed: 3 for UM, 0 for UF
27 players received offers by both LSU and UF; 5 players have committed: 2 for LSU, 3 for UF

The data is insufficient to substantiate the claim that MSU can not compete with LSU or UF. What the data does suggest is that MSU is not competing with LSU or UF in a substantial manner.

Now, a look at the verbal commitments. Note: verbal commitments are not iron clad. The 8 Michigan recruits who decommitted is from the 2009 class is, by itself, sufficient proof. Many recruits decommit every year and there is still lots of time before the LOIs are signed in early 2010. Also note that a school that makes an offer and receives a verbal commitment is not required to offer a LOI. A school is only allowed sign 25 new scholarships each year.

MSU 2010 commits include 5 from Michigan
UM 2010 commits include 2 from Florida, 1 from Louisiana, 2 from Michigan, 5 from Ohio, 2 from Pennsylvania, 1 from S.Carolina, 2 from Texas
UF 2010 commits include 1 from Alabama, 10 from Florida, 1 from Maryland, 1 from N.Carolina, 1 from New Hampshire, 1 from New York
LSU 2010 commits include 1 from Alabama, 2 from Florida, 2 from Georgia, 1 from Kansas, 6 from Louisiana, 1 from Tennessee, 3 from Texas, 1 from Virginia

The above data set is too small and, hence, no meaningful conclusions can be reached. However, preliminary results show:
MSU 100% from its/UM home turf (MI, OH, IN), 0% from UF home turf, and 0% from LSU home turf.
UM 33% from its/MSU home turf (MI, OH, IN), 13% from UF home turf, and 20% from LSU home turf.
UF 67% from its home turf (FL, GA, AL), 0% from UM/MSU home turf, and 0% from LSU home turf.
LSU 60% from its home turf (LA, TX, MS), 30% from UF home turf, and 0% from UM/MSU home turf.
From this, one might conclude that UM is hunting on the UF and LSU home turfs, LSU is hunting on the UF home turf, and MSU is staying home. The recruiting year is still quite young. Does this support the allegation that "Dantonioioioio cant compete with the Floridas and LSUs of the nation for recruits?" That allegation certainly is one possibility. Another is that Rodriguez is highly interested in earning frequent flier miles.

The reality is that Dantonio does roughly 60% of his recruiting within a 5 hour radius around E. Lansing (approximately 300 miles).

Take a look at the offers made:
MSU 2010 offers: OH 16, MI 15, FL 6, NJ 5, GA 4, IL 4, IN 4, PA 4, SC 3, DC 1, MD 1, MN 1, NC 1
13 States, 9 States with more than one offer; 54% from home turf (MI, OH, IN); top 3 hunting grounds (OH, MI, FL) account for 57% of offers tendered.

UM 2010 offers: FL 21, OH 16, MI 8, PA 8, MD 5, TX 5, GA 4, CA 3, LA 3, SC 3, IL 2, NC 2, NJ 2, AZ 1, DC 1, DE 1, IN 1, MN 1, MS 1, NY 1, VA 1, WA 1
22 States, 13 States with more than one offer; 27% from home turf (MI, OH, IN); top 3 hunting grounds (FL, OH, MI) account for 49% of the offers tendered.

UF 2010 offers: FL 46, GA 15, TX 11, CA 8, AL 6, SC 4, MI 3, MD 2, NY 2, OH 2, DC 1, KS 1, LA 1, MA 1, MO 1, NC 1, NH 1, NV 1, OK 1, OR 1, PA 1, TN 1, VA 1, WI 1
24 States, 10 States with more than one offer; 59% from home turf (FL, GA, AL); top 3 hunting grounds (FL, GA, TX) account for 64% of the offers tendered.

LSU 2010 offers: TX 18, GA 15, LA 13, FL 12, AL 9, CA 9, MS 5, MI 4, VA 4, NC 3, TN 3, AR 2, MD 2, OH 2, UT 2, IL 1, KS 1, NV 1, OK 1, OR 1, SC 1, WA 1
22 States, 15 States with more than one offer; 33% from home turf (LA, TX, MS); top 3 hunting grounds (TX, GA, LA) account for 42% of the offeres tendered.

This is very interesting. UM's so-called "national" approach to recruiting has made offers to more than 1 recruit in 13 States as opposed to MSU making offers to more than 1 recruit in 9 States. That UM has made 91 offers while MSU has made 65 offers may certainly be a normalizing factor in that statistic.
What is fascinating is that 64% of the UM offers are for recruits in 3 States: FL, OH, and MI and 57% of the MSU offers are for recruits in those same 3 States: OH, MI, and FL.

This data suggests that UM and MSU have similar targets, turf-wise, and are in similar competitions with other schools, like LSU and UF. Still, it is too early to claim a debunking of the allegation.

Actually, the allegation can not be debunked until all of the LOIs are signed.

Irrespective of the claim that FL and TX are "speed states," the data suggests that Florida recruits primarily close to home as does Michigan St. Michigan St.'s recruiting efforts, according to Dantonio (Dantonio adapts to May's recruiting rule changes [http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/te

ams/mml]), focus on high schools within a five hour radius of E. Lansing.
Louisiana St. seems to have a more "national" flavor to the distribution of scholarship offers tendered. UM seems to be halfway between a regional focus and a national focus.

Speed:

UM has one commit with 40 yd speed of 4.40 or better -- Tony Drake (TX), RB, unranked by Rivals. Fast, but not a "top talent" recruit (not ranked, 1 star). At 5' 8" and 160 lb., he is going to have a rough time in the Big Ten.

UM has offers to the following uncommitted recruits who have speed at or better than 4.40 for the 40 yd dash:

Brandon Ifill (PA), S, 5-11/180/4.40, nat. rank: 18, rating: 4 stars
Josh Furman (MD), S, 6-2/187/4.36, nat. rank: 12, rating: 4 stars
Eduardo Clements (FL), RB, 5-11/185/4.40, nat. rank: 10, rating: 4 stars
Johnavon Fulton (SC), CB, 6-0/175/4.39, nat. rank: 6, rating: 4 stars
O.J. Ross (FL), WR, 5-10/176/4.36, nat. rank: 62, rating: 3 stars
Dior Mathis (MI), CB, 5-9/171/4.28, nat. rank: 21, rating: 3 stars
Latwan Anderson (OH), S, 5-11/190/4.29, nat. rank: NR, rating: 1 star
Chad Hagan (PA), RB, 6-0/207/4.29, nat. rank: NR, rating: 1 star
Corvin Lamb (FL), WR, 5-9/190/4.30, nat. rank: NR, rating: 1 star

MSU has no commits with 40 yd speed of 4.40 or better.

MSU has offers to the following uncommitted recruits who have speed at or better than 4.40 for the 40 yd dash:

Ibraheim Campbell (PA), RB, 5-11.5/190/4.39, nat. rank: 77, rating: 3 stars
Dior Mathis (MI), CB, 5-9/171/4.28, nat. rank: 21, rating: 3 stars

Funny. The fastest recruit by either school is a local kid (Mathis).

The next update will set the bar for the 40 yd dash at 4.50 seconds.


ENDNOTES:

Dantonio adapts to May's recruiting rule changes

That is a membership link that can be accessed via Yahoo Sports.

The revelant passages:

Other programs get a lot of mileage out of their camps, too. But its crucial at Michigan State, where recruiting within a five-hour radius is paramount. In the past two years, 39 of the 44 players who have signed with Michigan State lived within five hours of East Lansing.

Dantonio said he wants to branch out more to Florida. He signed two from the sunshine state in February. He had five assistants scouting Florida in May. Hence, May film evaluation isn't limited to just inner-radius prospects. But the first obligation and responsibility for Dantonio and his staff is to know as much as possible about all of the prospects within the five-hour radius, where the Spartans have a better chance to get commitments.

 

An interesting, related article: Programs must go national to find system-fitting players

Comments

Since: Nov 17, 2007
Posted on: July 5, 2009 12:21 pm
 

Recruiting for Speed

The 2010 recruits - an update.

This data is a snapshot for 7/4/09. The data is evolving, changing hourly.

According to Scout:
Florida has 303 recruits listed as "Interest," has made 116 offers, received 15 verbal commitments and had 32 commit to other schools, leaving 69 offers outstanding.
Of the 303, MSU is "interested" in 8, has made 2 offers (2 MI) and netted 1 verbal commitment (MI).
Of the 303, UM is "interested" in 28, has made 15 offers (DC, GA, NY, SC, WI, 3 MI, 7 FL) and netted 3 verbal commitments (2 FL, MI).
Of the 303, LSU is "interested" in 64, has made 31 offers (LA, MD, MI, NC, NV, OH, OK, OR, SC, TN, VA, 2xAL, 2xCA, 4xGA, 4xTX, 8xFL) and netted 2 verbal commitments (VA, TN).

Louisiana St. has 309 recruits listed as "Interest," has made 112 offers, received 15 verbal commitments and had 39 commit to other schools, leaving 58 offers outstanding.
Of the 309, MSU is "interested" in 6, has made 3 offers (3 MI) and netted 0 verbal commitments.
Of the 309, UM is "interested" in 17, has made 7 offers (FL, LA, SC, TX, 3 MI) and netted 3 verbal commitments (FL, 2 MI).
Of the 309, UF is "interested" in 64, has made 31 offers (LA, MD, MI, NC, NV, OH, OK, OR, SC, TN, VA, 2 AL, 2 CA, 4 GA, 4 TX, 8 FL) and netted 3 verbal commitments (AL, FL, MD).

Michigan has 173 recruits listed as "Interest", has made 88 offers, received 15 verbal commitments and had 22 commit to other schools, leaving 51 offers outstanding.
Of the 173, MSU is "interested" in 51, has made 19 offers (FL, IN, MD, 7 MI, 9 OH) and netted 2 verbal commitments (2 MI).
Of the 173, UF is "interested" in 28, has made 15 offers (DC, GA, NY, SC, WI, 3 MI, 7 FL) and netted 0 verbal commitments.
Of the 173, LSU is "interested" in 17, has made 7 offers (FL, LA, SC, TX, 3 MI) and netted 2 verbal commitments (LA, TX).

Michigan St. has 187 recruits listed as "Interest", has made 69 offers, received 7 verbal commitments and had 18 commit to other schools, leaving 48 offers outstanding.
Of the 187, UF is "interested" in 8, has made 2 offers (2 MI) and netted 0 verbal commitments.
Of the 187, LSU is "interested" in 6, has made 3 offers (3 MI) and netted 0 verbal commitments.
Of the 187, UM is "interested" in 51, has made 19 offers (FL, IN, MD, 7 MI, 9 OH) and netted 2 verbal commitments (MI, OH).

Verbal commits:
19 players received offers by both MSU and UM, 4 players have committed: 2 for MSU, 2 for UM
3 players received offers by both MSU and LSU, 0 players have committed: 0 for MSU, 0 for LSU
2 players received offers by both MSU and UF, 1 player has committed: 1 for MSU, 0 for UF
7 players received offers by both UM and LSU; 5 players have committed: 3 for UM, 2 for LSU
15 players received offers by both UM and UF; 3 players have committed: 3 for UM, 0 for UF
27 players received offers by both LSU and UF; 5 players have committed: 2 for LSU, 3 for UF

The data is insufficient to substantiate the claim that MSU can not compete with LSU or UF. What the data does suggest is that MSU is not competing with LSU or UF in a substantial manner.

Now, a look at the verbal commitments. Note: verbal commitments are not iron clad. The 8 Michigan recruits who decommitted from the 2009 class is, by itself, sufficient proof. Many recruits decommit every year and there is still lots of time before the LOIs are signed in early 2010. Also note that a school that makes an offer and receives a verbal commitment is not required to offer a LOI. A school is only allowed sign 25 new scholarships each year.

MSU 2010 commits include 7 from Michigan
UM 2010 commits include 2 from Florida, 1 from Louisiana, 2 from Michigan, 5 from Ohio, 2 from Pennsylvania, 1 from S.Carolina, 2 from Texas
UF 2010 commits include 1 from Alabama, 10 from Florida, 1 from Maryland, 1 from N.Carolina, 1 from New Hampshire, 1 from New York
LSU 2010 commits include 1 from Alabama, 2 from Georgia, 1 from Kansas, 6 from Louisiana, 1 from Tennessee, 3 from Texas, 1 from Virginia

The above data set is too small and, hence, no meaningful conclusions can be reached. However, preliminary results show (commits only):
MSU 100% from its/UM home turf (MI, OH, IN), 0% from UF home turf, and 0% from LSU home turf.
UM 47% from its/MSU home turf (MI, OH, IN), 13% from UF home turf, and 20% from LSU home turf.
UF 73% from its home turf (FL, GA, AL), 0% from UM/MSU home turf, and 0% from LSU home turf.
LSU 60% from its home turf (LA, TX, MS), 20% from UF home turf, and 0% from UM/MSU home turf.
The recruiting year is still quite young. Does the data support the allegation that "Dantonioioioio cant compete with the Floridas and LSUs of the nation for recruits?" That allegation certainly is one possibility. Another is that Rodriguez is highly interested in earning frequent flier miles.

The reality is that Dantonio does roughly 60% of his recruiting within a 5 hour radius around E. Lansing (approximately 300 miles).

Take a look at the offers made:
MSU 2010 offers:
13 States, 9 States with more than one offer. 90% of the offers were in 8 States. The commits come from 1 State.
57% offers in home turf (MI, OH, IN) yielded 100% of the commits.
Home State recruiting: 26% of the offers, 100% of the commits.
Top 3 hunting grounds (OH, MI, FL) account for 58% of offers and 100% of the commits.

UM 2010 offers:
23 States, 13 States with more than one offer. 90% of the offers were in 13 States. The commits come from 7 States.
27% offers in home turf (MI, OH, IN) yielded 47% of the commits.
Home State recruiting: 9% of the offers, 13% of the commits.
Top 3 hunting grounds (FL, OH, MI) account for 48% of the offers and 60% of the commits.

UF 2010 offers:
24 States, 11 States with more than one offer. 90% of the offers were in 11 States. The commits come from 6 States. 67% local talent, so far.
60% offers in home turf (FL, GA, AL) yielded 73% of the commits.
Home State recruiting: 41% of the offers, 67% of the commits.
Top 3 hunting grounds (FL, GA, TX) account for 64% of the offers and 67% of the commits.

LSU 2010 offers:
23 States, 15 States with more than one offer. 90% of the offers were in 13 States. The commits come from 7 States. 40% local talent, so far.
33% offers in home turf (LA, TX, MS) yielded 60% of the commits.
Home State recruiting: 11% of the offers, 40% of the commits.
Top 3 hunting grounds (TX, GA, LA) account for 41% of the offers and 73% of the commits.

This is very interesting. The so-called "national" approach to recruiting seems to gain nothing except added travel expense. UM and LSU seem to be approaching recruiting in the same way. Florida, of course, stays close to home.

What is fascinating is that the data supports the "pipelines" theory of recruiting.

This data also suggests that UM and MSU have similar targets, turf-wise, and are in similar competitions with other schools, like LSU and UF. Still, it is too early to claim a debunking of the allegation.

Actually, the allegation can not be debunked until all of the LOIs are signed.

Irrespective of the claim that FL and TX are "speed states," the data suggests that Florida recruits primarily close to home as does Michigan St. Michigan St.'s recruiting efforts, according to Dantonio (Dantonio adapts to May's recruiting rule changes [http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/te

ams/mml]), focus on high schools within a five hour radius of E. Lansing.
Louisiana St. seems to have a more "national" flavor to the distribution of scholarship offers tendered. UM seems to be halfway between a regional focus and a national focus.

SPEED:

UM has 5 commits with 40 yd speed of 4.50 or better (FL, LA, OH, TX, SC). UM has offers to the following uncommitted recruits who have speed at or better than 4.50 for the 40 yd dash: 8 FL, 3 MD, 2 GA, 2 SC, 2 PA, 1 AZ, 1 CA, 1 OH, 1 MI.

Funny thing is that the UM offers include NO more recruits from Texas.
Funny thing is the fastest recruit on the list is Dior Mathis, CB from MI, 4.28 in the 40.

MSU has 2 commits with 40 yd speed of 4.50 or better (both from MI). MSU has offers to the following uncommitted recruits who have speed at or better than 4.50 for the 40 yd dash: 3 FL, 2 NJ, 2 MI, 1 IN, 1 PA, 1 DC

Funny. The fastest recruit by either school is a local kid (Mathis).

The data suggests that speed is not exclusive to Florida and Texas. Certainly Florida provides more recruits than any other State and that means there will be a greater total number of fast recruits. The real question is what is the distribution of fast kids in Florida compared to other States. One would need to do a statistical distribution of the speed for the kids in each State and compare the means and the sigmas in order to determine if one State or another is a "speed" State relative to the rest.

A simple example to illuminate the point: If Florida has 100 fast kids out of 1000 recruits and another Ohio has 10 fast kids out of 100 recruits, is Florida really "faster" than Ohio? No. Both have 10% of the kids in the "fast" category.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com