Does High School Recruiting for Football Still Matter?

[SNAFU]

Data says yes. Summary from Sam Khan, The Athletic

".... even in an age of transient rosters and rapid movement, college football coaches still largely believe that championship teams are built through high school recruiting. And though there are many reasons Kiffin left the College Football Playoff-bound Rebels to take over SEC rival LSU, one that should not go understated is the built-in recruiting advantages the Tigers enjoy.

In the pursuit of championships, high school recruiting still matters."

“It’s like the NFL Draft,” a Power 4 personnel director recently told The Athletic. “No one wants to live in free agency. You want to live in the draft and build your core there and then supplement it with positions that are needs (in the portal).”

In the last four seasons, no SEC team has had a larger portion of games started by transfers than Ole Miss. Since 2022, 60.9 percent of the Rebels’ starts have come from transfers, according to SportSource Analytics. The only other SEC team with more than half of its starts from transfers in that time span is Arkansas (51.7 percent).

The four teams with the fewest number of starts from transfers in the last four years? Georgia (8.8 percent), Texas (19.1), Alabama (23.6) and Texas A&M (25).


Roster construction, top 15 teams in CFP rankings- Starts by recruits first column, transfers second

Georgia	90.4%	9.6%
Notre Dame	84.5%	15.5%
Texas	83.0%	17.0%
Utah	73.7%	26.3%
Ohio State	72.3%	27.7%
BYU	62.6%	37.4%
Alabama	61.9%	38.1%
Oklahoma	61.1%	38.9%
Oregon	57.4%	42.6%
Texas A&M	55.2%	44.8%
Miami (Fla.)	46.4%	53.6%
Vanderbilt	41.3%	58.7%
Texas Tech	36.7%	63.3%
Indiana	34.1%	65.9%
Ole Miss	33.7%	66.3%

Recent College Football Playoff results seem to support that roster-building method. In the 2024 Playoff, the four teams that made the semifinals all had more than 75 percent of their games started by players they signed out of high school: national champion Ohio State (77.7 percent), Texas (79.3), Notre Dame (80.1) and Penn State (88.6).

 

[volfan102455]

I think the numbers at some of the top schools are what they are because those teams already had stacked rosters. Maybe check back in a couple of cycles.

 

[volfan102455]

It would also be interesting to see stats on transfer out rates from the schools (i.e. how many high school players that start at a school end up at another school). I just know that in most games if you listen to the announcers, you hear a lot of he played at this school last year commentary.

 

[SNAFU]

It would also be interesting to see stats on transfer out rates from the schools (i.e. how many high school players that start at a school end up at another school). I just know that in most games if you listen to the announcers, you hear a lot of he played at this school last year commentary.

Exactly and I replied with the same thought. A school is only as strong as those HS players who decide to stay 3-4 yrs and develop at that school.

 

[Visidog]

It would also be interesting to see stats on transfer out rates from the schools (i.e. how many high school players that start at a school end up at another school). I just know that in most games if you listen to the announcers, you hear a lot of he played at this school last year commentary.

Good idea. High school recruiting is very resource intensive: find young players, build a relationship, make projections, get them on campus, sign them, then develop. And still they can transfer.

Focusing on transfers is cheaper. Somebody else does the initial work and development and you can browse collegiate film.

But I see two advantages to building through recruiting. You get the first crack and the most elite players, and you get to develop culture over time. It’s probably also easier to build depth, as transfer guys need to play quick or you lose them.

 

[volfan102455]

Exactly and I replied with the same thought. A school is only as strong as those HS players who decide to stay 3-4 yrs and develop at that school.

It has become apparent that the concept of stacking great players on a roster is slowly going away. It is going to be most noticeable at the glory position, QB. I think we will still see situations where schools have multiple 4 and 5 star QBs, but the player who loses the starting position will more than likely transfer out. And if a player doesn't develop quick enough- they will leave for another place and a new start.

We may get some rare situations where the player selected the school for other reasons, or a player realizes they are not what they thought they were and decides to stay for the education and other reasons.

In the past a high school player was more locked into the school they selected. They couldn't easily transfer and there wasn't an abundance of places to transfer to. Now it is easy so they know the first choice they make, if not the right choice can easily be undone. And the schools are playing along especially when you see some schools starting over 50% of transfers.

 

[volfan102455]

Good idea. High school recruiting is very resource intensive: find young players, build a relationship, make projections, get them on campus, sign them, then develop. And still they can transfer.

Focusing on transfers is cheaper. Somebody else does the initial work and development and you can browse collegiate film.

But I see two advantages to building through recruiting. You get the first crack and the most elite players, and you get to develop culture over time. It’s probably also easier to build depth, as transfer guys need to play quick or you lose them.

I think this is why so many transfers play - first they are needed to fill a void on the team and two they typically can fill that void IF the coach has made a good choice on brining in someone that fits their scheme.

In the case of Joey, he was able to learn quickly and fit into what CJH wanted to do. Nico, not so much at UCLA but UCLA was looking for a player that could transform the team into a winner, so they needed a leader, which Nico is not.

The only QB in recent years at Tennessee, that I can remember that came right in from high school and showed he could make a difference was Josh Dobbs. He was special.

 

[Visidog]

I think this is why so many transfers play - first they are needed to fill a void on the team and two they typically can fill that void IF the coach has made a good choice on brining in someone that fits their scheme.

In the case of Joey, he was able to learn quickly and fit into what CJH wanted to do. Nico, not so much at UCLA but UCLA was looking for a player that could transform the team into a winner, so they needed a leader, which Nico is not.

The only QB in recent years at Tennessee, that I can remember that came right in from high school and showed he could make a difference was Josh Dobbs. He was special.

QBs are a special case, for sure. But it’s harder to get a transfer to fill the two deep at, say, ILB. If you’re bringing a guy in, he expects to play and you need him to play to justify the investment. That means the guy you recruited to play ILB is sitting, which in turn makes it harder to recruit. Transfers can turn into payday loans: you need the next one because you took this one.