The New Formula for Success in College Football

#1
casual-observer

casual-observer

Pantone 151C
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
215
Likes
681
#1
Success in college football up until 2020 consisted of the following formula:

-> Recruiting of top talent (33%)
-> Player development (33%)
-> In-game coaching (33%)

Recruiting of top talent was traditionally dominated by the blue bloods (Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, USC). In the past couple of years we've seen the success from top recruiting programs like Georgia and Clemson.

Player development is where teams like Oregon, Washington, TCU have excelled - they might not have top recruiting classes but have been able to develop and win with the talent they have. This is also where staffs like Butch Jones and Jim McElwain have faired poorly.

In-game coaching is where coaches make their names: Saban, Carroll, Spurrier are some of the greats in this category.


-------- Enter 2020, a confusing couple of COVID years, and the passing of NIL ----------


The teams of the future will be able to navigate the NFL-lite nature of sponsorships and deals. Players will move continuously in and out of programs with zero loyalty (I don't like it, but who can blame them?)


I believe the new formula for success will look something like this:

-> Recruiting of top high school talent (10%)
-> Attract top talent through NIL (15%)
-> Leverage the transfer portal to quickly fill gaps (20%)
-> Player development and ability to assimilate quickly into a new system (20%)
-> In-game coaching (35%)

I think the importance of recruiting has dropped significantly. Why invest so much in young, under-developed talent only to have them leave for gr$$ner pastures as they progress in their talent. Player development has changes as well. There is not longer an idea of moulding an athlete so they peak in year 3 and hope for a fourth year. Now it's - how fast can we develop inbound transfers because they might only be around for one year.

This new formula diminishes the drama of the high school talent choosing their school. It also renders a yawn for news of top players leaving a program.

My $.02 during this 'recruiting' time of year. I used to get excited watching and hoping where the recruits would shake out. Now I just hope for great purchases through the Transfer Portal. And not too many important losses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigorangedude and Smokey19rt
#2
#2
I can only find one example of your new formula.

The LA Rams two years ago. They did what you postulate with success. It was not sustained. I am dubious it will be the new formula.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#7
#7
Hawkeye4588 said:
I would add finish in the top 12. With a 12 team playoff you just need to build a team that can go the distance.
Click to expand...
definitely...doing this helps all of the below. I'd put a higher premium on talent and development to the system coaches run (every player not made up for JH offense). In game coaching matters, but matters less if you out-talent peer teams and have player development evident w/ JH...which had been a big void w/ prior 3 coaches before him.
-> Recruiting of top talent (33%)
-> Player development (33%)
-> In-game coaching (33%)
 
#11
#11
Interesting post and I especially concur with your recruiting observations. Why get giddy or ”BOOM” when a recruit commits? With all the NIL money being thrown around and having the freedom to easily transfer my guess is that less than half of these recruits will stick around for more than a year or two anyway. As Neon Deion is demonstrating the portal is the new recruiting frontier.
PS And for the record … I’m NOT a fan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 84_TN_VLF, tbh and Voltopia
#15
#15
casual-observer said:
Success in college football up until 2020 consisted of the following formula:

-> Recruiting of top talent (33%)
-> Player development (33%)
-> In-game coaching (33%)

Recruiting of top talent was traditionally dominated by the blue bloods (Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, USC). In the past couple of years we've seen the success from top recruiting programs like Georgia and Clemson.

Player development is where teams like Oregon, Washington, TCU have excelled - they might not have top recruiting classes but have been able to develop and win with the talent they have. This is also where staffs like Butch Jones and Jim McElwain have faired poorly.

In-game coaching is where coaches make their names: Saban, Carroll, Spurrier are some of the greats in this category.


-------- Enter 2020, a confusing couple of COVID years, and the passing of NIL ----------


The teams of the future will be able to navigate the NFL-lite nature of sponsorships and deals. Players will move continuously in and out of programs with zero loyalty (I don't like it, but who can blame them?)


I believe the new formula for success will look something like this:

-> Recruiting of top high school talent (10%)
-> Attract top talent through NIL (15%)
-> Leverage the transfer portal to quickly fill gaps (20%)
-> Player development and ability to assimilate quickly into a new system (20%)
-> In-game coaching (35%)

I think the importance of recruiting has dropped significantly. Why invest so much in young, under-developed talent only to have them leave for gr$$ner pastures as they progress in their talent. Player development has changes as well. There is not longer an idea of moulding an athlete so they peak in year 3 and hope for a fourth year. Now it's - how fast can we develop inbound transfers because they might only be around for one year.

This new formula diminishes the drama of the high school talent choosing their school. It also renders a yawn for news of top players leaving a program.

My $.02 during this 'recruiting' time of year. I used to get excited watching and hoping where the recruits would shake out. Now I just hope for great purchases through the Transfer Portal. And not too many important losses.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that the weight on in-game coaching is too high on both fronts. Saban and Carroll made their money with recruiting and developing top-tier talent. What looks like in-game coaching is closer to a combination of player development and recruiting well to a particular scheme (as opposed to Butch Jones chasing after stars).
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRich and Voltopia
#17
#17
casual-observer said:
Success in college football up until 2020 consisted of the following formula:

-> Recruiting of top talent (33%)
-> Player development (33%)
-> In-game coaching (33%)

Recruiting of top talent was traditionally dominated by the blue bloods (Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, USC). In the past couple of years we've seen the success from top recruiting programs like Georgia and Clemson.

Player development is where teams like Oregon, Washington, TCU have excelled - they might not have top recruiting classes but have been able to develop and win with the talent they have. This is also where staffs like Butch Jones and Jim McElwain have faired poorly.

In-game coaching is where coaches make their names: Saban, Carroll, Spurrier are some of the greats in this category.


-------- Enter 2020, a confusing couple of COVID years, and the passing of NIL ----------


The teams of the future will be able to navigate the NFL-lite nature of sponsorships and deals. Players will move continuously in and out of programs with zero loyalty (I don't like it, but who can blame them?)


I believe the new formula for success will look something like this:

-> Recruiting of top high school talent (10%)
-> Attract top talent through NIL (15%)
-> Leverage the transfer portal to quickly fill gaps (20%)
-> Player development and ability to assimilate quickly into a new system (20%)
-> In-game coaching (35%)

I think the importance of recruiting has dropped significantly. Why invest so much in young, under-developed talent only to have them leave for gr$$ner pastures as they progress in their talent. Player development has changes as well. There is not longer an idea of moulding an athlete so they peak in year 3 and hope for a fourth year. Now it's - how fast can we develop inbound transfers because they might only be around for one year.

This new formula diminishes the drama of the high school talent choosing their school. It also renders a yawn for news of top players leaving a program.

My $.02 during this 'recruiting' time of year. I used to get excited watching and hoping where the recruits would shake out. Now I just hope for great purchases through the Transfer Portal. And not too many important losses.
Click to expand...

MMMMMmmmmm statistics!

tenor (2).gif
 
#18
#18
The formula will never change.
-you have hit yo have great talent
-you have to have great player development
-and you have to have great in game coaching

This will forever be the formula for elite, championship level college football.
 
#20
#20
jeff1vol said:
I'd go with...
90% recruiting
7.5% development
2.5% in game coaching (I mean Les Miles and Larry Coker won NC's)
Click to expand...
I can't argue with your numbers. I don't find Kirby to be all that Smart when it comes to coaching. And he's got a couple of championship rings (even after letting Justin Fields try a fake punt, hahahaha). If Alabama wasn't hurt in 2021 he would only have one - I guess that's the % of luck part of the formula (ask Saban how he won that Iron Bowl this year).
 
#21
#21
Vols410 said:
I'd argue that the weight on in-game coaching is too high on both fronts. Saban and Carroll made their money with recruiting and developing top-tier talent. What looks like in-game coaching is closer to a combination of player development and recruiting well to a particular scheme (as opposed to Butch Jones chasing after stars).
Click to expand...
I can't argue too much about this. I can't figure out how many times UT gets beat from mid-game adjustments vs having the Jimmy's and Joe's to finish the job.

Seems like Spurrier was always able to find a way to monitor and adjust his way to a win. Saban, too.

I think Heupel did a better job than Napier this year...just dug the second quarter hole too deep.

Kirby's always winning on Jimmy's and Joe's - he's a terribly overrated coach.
 
#22
#22
PEPPERJAX said:
Too much allocation with these percentages.
Click to expand...
Maybe? My point is - the future of college football is going to be predicated on management of the constant in's and out's of portal players.

Many good souls will leave a program and many will be available for the plugging of holes. "Franchise" players will no longer exist.

He who manages this best will win the most.
 
#24
#24
casual-observer said:
Success in college football up until 2020 consisted of the following formula:

-> Recruiting of top talent (33%)
-> Player development (33%)
-> In-game coaching (33%)

Recruiting of top talent was traditionally dominated by the blue bloods (Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, USC). In the past couple of years we've seen the success from top recruiting programs like Georgia and Clemson.

Player development is where teams like Oregon, Washington, TCU have excelled - they might not have top recruiting classes but have been able to develop and win with the talent they have. This is also where staffs like Butch Jones and Jim McElwain have faired poorly.

In-game coaching is where coaches make their names: Saban, Carroll, Spurrier are some of the greats in this category.


-------- Enter 2020, a confusing couple of COVID years, and the passing of NIL ----------


The teams of the future will be able to navigate the NFL-lite nature of sponsorships and deals. Players will move continuously in and out of programs with zero loyalty (I don't like it, but who can blame them?)


I believe the new formula for success will look something like this:

-> Recruiting of top high school talent (10%)
-> Attract top talent through NIL (15%)
-> Leverage the transfer portal to quickly fill gaps (20%)
-> Player development and ability to assimilate quickly into a new system (20%)
-> In-game coaching (35%)

I think the importance of recruiting has dropped significantly. Why invest so much in young, under-developed talent only to have them leave for gr$$ner pastures as they progress in their talent. Player development has changes as well. There is not longer an idea of moulding an athlete so they peak in year 3 and hope for a fourth year. Now it's - how fast can we develop inbound transfers because they might only be around for one year.

This new formula diminishes the drama of the high school talent choosing their school. It also renders a yawn for news of top players leaving a program.

My $.02 during this 'recruiting' time of year. I used to get excited watching and hoping where the recruits would shake out. Now I just hope for great purchases through the Transfer Portal. And not too many important losses.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, you're trying to make us feel better with Heupel's average recruiting ability 😜
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top