| The results were interesting. From 2006 through 2008, Penn State’s national recruiting ranking was generally unchanged (from 25th to 26th) while both Florida State and UT’s overall rankings dropped. When looking at 2006 through 2008 data, Florida State’s average national recruiting ranking fell from 11th to 18th while UT’s national recruiting ranking fell from 12th to 21st. Over this same period (2006 through 2008) while both UT and Florida State fell in the rankings, Florida, LSU, and Alabama have had head coaching changes.
It’s not a coincidence that during this period Florida and Alabama each have had recruiting classes that have ranked #1 nationally and each of LSU's classes from 2006 through 2008 LSU have been ranked 7th or better nationally. So much for the theory that head coaching stability is important for recruiting.
Lastly, I looked at average recruiting rankings for Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Alabama again. Each of these program changed head coaches during the 2002 through 2008 period and I wanted to see what their program's average recruiting rankings were both before and after the coaching changes. The results again are interesting.
North Carolina. Butch Davis was named Head Coach at North Carolina in November 2006 and has been a thorn in UT’s recruiting in the Carolinas ever since. Effectively, he is closing down the borders and UT has to fight and scratch to sign any prospect from North Carolina. Before Butch Davis was hired, North Carolina ranked recruiting classes ranked 38th nationally (from 2002 through 2006). Under Butch Davis, North Carolina has improved its recruiting ranking each year and are now a top 20 program when it comes to the recruiting rankings.
Alabama. Briefly mentioned previously but worth mentioning again. Nick Saban got a late start in recruiting for Alabama’s 2007 recruiting class but finished with a 20th ranking nationally. His 2008 signing class ranked #1 nationally and included 3 of the top 10 players from the state of Tennessee in that class. Before Nick Saban was hired, Alabama’s recruiting classes averaged 27th nationally from 2002 through 2006).
Notre Dame. Another program with a national recruiting focus. Charlie Weis was named Head Coach at Notre Dame in December 2004.
Prior to hiring Coach Weis, Notre Dame’s recruiting classes had averaged ranking 16th nationally which is fairly respectable. Since 2005, Charlie Weis’ recruiting classes have averaged ranking 10th nationally. Notre Dame as with Alabama are both off to extremely good starts for their 2009 recruiting classes so I don't expect anything but continued improvement in their overall recruiting and rankings.
While these figures are crude (as mentioned before , followers of college football recruiting are not to be confused with rocket scientists) it
appears that the stability of a Division 1 Football Program has very little impact or effect upon its ability to recruit. In fact, it is clear that you could infer from these numbers that head coaching changes have positively impacted the recruiting at five schools UT recruits against each and every year. Since the coaching changes at Alabama and LSU, their borders have been closed down to other schools. UT can compete for prospects in these states if there are limited scholarships available from the state school and/or the state school decides not to recruit a given prospect.
UT has had limited successes recruiting against North Carolina and less success against Florida and Notre Dame since each Program went through a coaching change.
I found it interesting that over the same period when these changes occurred, both UT and Florida State, programs with Head Coaches firmly entrenched, saw their average recruiting rankings fall substantially. UT’s ranking fell on average nationally to a point where over the last three recruiting seasons their average recruiting ranking is outside the top 20.
I think recruiting is more about meeting needs than signing highly rated players that don't fill a need or fit in your system but one cant quantify "meeting your needs" . The numbers are provided to show trends and more importantly or your review and to allow anyone who reads this to arrive at their own conclusion about whether a 7 year contract is necessary to ensure continued success on the recruiting trail. I find it hard to support that line of reasoning .
Just keep these numbers in mind when you are told one of the reasons for this new contract is for recruiting purposes. I have looked over the numbers and frankly I can’t find the connection between head coaching longevity/stability and prolonged recruiting success.
GO VOLS
X |