A little perspective on recruiting

[stlnd01]

I really want to hear everyone's thoughts on this idea. Instead of "filling bodies" with 3 stars with potential (and paying for it for 4 years if they don't pan out), why not only go after 3 stars that we have evaluated as high potential guys that are super athletic (kinda like Stanford, but on a more limited scale). After that, any "warm body" type kids are athletic preferred walk ons. That way, if they don't turn into Schmidt level players, we can fill their spot with a new preferred walk on or scholarship player.

Being a preferred walk-on at Notre Dame is not an inexpensive proposition. The number of Joe Schmidt types who'll turn down scholarships elsewhere while also having the talent to actually contribute is not large.
And it's not like we're just taking "warm bodies" here. 13 of our 18 commits are four stars (on 247), and of the other four (fifth's a punter) I think you could make a case that they're all "high-potential" types.
There will always be recruits who don't pan out. But I'm not sure what we're supposed to be doing differently.

 

[phork]

But they typically don't have the fire power on O to make them a contender.

No I get that. But the point is with an equally skilled offensive coaching regime you can get the same results. Its much like the NFL when you rely on your scouts. If your scouting is bad (ahem Lions of years past) then your picks suck. No matter how many #1 picks you have.

 

[woolybug25]

Being a preferred walk-on at Notre Dame is not an inexpensive proposition. The number of Joe Schmidt types who'll turn down scholarships elsewhere while also having the talent to actually contribute is not large.
And it's not like we're just taking "warm bodies" here. 13 of our 18 commits are four stars (on 247), and of the other four (fifth's a punter) I think you could make a case that they're all "high-potential" types.
There will always be recruits who don't pan out. But I'm not sure what we're supposed to be doing differently.

I don't think you grasp the amount of financial assistance available to preferred walk ons. It's immense and that is part of the pitch to preferred walk ons. Is it free? No. Absolutely not. But it puts ND education on the same level as State universities. For a lot if kids, they are willing to pay that instead of getting a free ride at a mediocre school. Plus, they can earn a full scholly through their play.

I also never said that we're filling our classes with warm bodies. You completely misread that. What I am saying is that instead of grabbing "bodies" at the end of cycles to fill classes, we should be actively be pursuing preferred walk on players throughout the cycle (as they don't count towards the 85 limit) and not pick up project prospects unless they are high potential. For instance, Heggie (no offense, he's a great young man that I respect the hell out of) should probably have never been on this team. Sure he filled a body on the practice squad, but now he is taking a roster spot while we are passing on good prospects. If we were Bama, we'd cut him, but instead we pass on good prospects.

 

[BGIF]

Oh... this may be unpopular, but i'm going to say it anyway.

Unless a kid is a crazy elite talent that can bomb 60 yard fg's on the reg... then I think we should only take kickers as preferred walkons.

Holtz used to do that. When Hentrich graduated Holtz had Pendergast. Few people recall the early blocked ND FG attempt that was returned deep into ND territory. Then came Cengia, Schroffner, Maloney, McCarthy.

In '94 there was an Argentinian born soccer kicker recruit that asked for scholarship. Holtz told him to walkon. Instead he went to KSU and scored almost 400 points in a 4 years span including a 65 yard FG. He was an All-American and 80th pick in the NFL Draft. He was nicked name Automatica, as it rhymed with (Martin) Gramatica.

Holtz learned from that mistake and spent a scholarship the next year on Thunderfoot. Kevin Kopka. He had a knee injury and was done. Then came Jim Sanson who got death threats after ND games and Cengia ... and Sanson and Cengia ... and so on and so on ...

In the two decades since the B.C. block which proved to be the difference maker, ND's had success with I believe one walk on kicker and we've had as many as three on scholarship at the same time.

ND is too expensive a place for a talented kid to walk on when 50 schools will jump at the chance to sign him up.

 

[stlnd01]

I don't think you grasp the amount of financial assistance available to preferred walk ons. It's immense and that is part of the pitch to preferred walk ons. Is it free? No. Absolutely not. But it puts ND education on the same level as State universities. For a lot if kids, they are willing to pay that instead of getting a free ride at a mediocre school. Plus, they can earn a full scholly through their play.

I also never said that we're filling our classes with warm bodies. You completely misread that. What I am saying is that instead of grabbing "bodies" at the end of cycles to fill classes, we should be actively be pursuing preferred walk on players throughout the cycle (as they don't count towards the 85 limit) and not pick up project prospects unless they are high potential. For instance, Heggie (no offense, he's a great young man that I respect the hell out of) should probably have never been on this team. Sure he filled a body on the practice squad, but now he is taking a roster spot while we are passing on good prospects. If we were Bama, we'd cut him, but instead we pass on good prospects.

Fair enough on the financial aid. But that's true of any school. State schools aren't cheap these days either. The scholarship still matters to a lot of kids.
As for "projects" or "bodies" Like who? Heggie, sure. Maybe Luke Massa or John Turner. But in the last couple of years, I'm hard pressed to see guys who were borderline recruits and still aren't on track to contribute.
The bottom five recruits in last year's class (per 247) were Fuller, Deeb, Onwualu, Matuska and Robinson. Three of them have already played meaningful minutes and the other two are at positions of big need. Taking "bodies" isn't the nearly the problem that attrition, injuries and whiffing on borderline fits is.

 

[woolybug25]

Fair enough on the financial aid. But that's true of any school. State schools aren't cheap these days either. The scholarship still matters to a lot of kids.
As for "projects" or "bodies" Like who? Heggie, sure. Maybe Luke Massa or John Turner. But in the last couple of years, I'm hard pressed to see guys who were borderline recruits and still aren't on track to contribute.
The bottom five recruits in last year's class (per 247) were Fuller, Deeb, Onwualu, Matuska and Robinson. Three of them have already played meaningful minutes and the other two are at positions of big need. Taking "bodies" isn't the nearly the problem that attrition, injuries and whiffing on borderline fits is.

Word. You named a few, and tomorrow when I'm not using my phone, I'll list some more players. My point isn't what level of impact they have only. My point is that if project guys only fill deep depth and provide practice squad players, then why are we guaranteeing 4 years to those level of player? SEC teams cut those kids and fill it with new projects. We aren't going to do that, but we can be more diligent in what 3 stars we accept (preferably ones that have future starter potential) and utilize preferred walk ons for deep depth and practice squad "projects".

That would also allow us to take fliers on 4 stars like Tommy Schutt and Eric Brown that might not perfectly fit the profile we are looking for, but sure as hell a better risk than a (again, great kid) Bruce Heggie to fill a deep depth position.

 

[Irishbounty28]

More preferred walk ons = More championships.

Seriously though, I think that more preferred walk ons would be a great thing for this program, but filling our classes is the number one priority. The staff hasn't been able to fill a class to its potential since they have been here, hence the reason 5th years are brought back that probably wouldn't have been otherwise.

Once the staff is able to get the amount of scholarship athletes on a year to year basis then I will agree that the emphasis on preferred walk ons needs to be upped. Until then we need to focus on bringing in the prospects on our board, and letting some fifth years play ball at another location for their final year of eligibility.