Kelly and Recruiting

[CarrollVermin]

I am working on a journal article for a publication and came across these statistics in my research and thought they would be interesting to share. From 2004-2009 Cincinnati was dead last in recruiting (as measured by average recruiting stars per player) with an average player rating of 2.17. In contrast, Pitt, who led during that period, had an average of 2.83. Despite these recruiting rankings, the Bearcats from 2006-2010 (this includes the year after Kelly's departure) won nearly 60% of their games (Pitt was actually lower at 57%).

So I present this question...was it player development, or a bad conference?

 

[irishpat183]

Could be both. The big east isn't turning any heads. But I think Kelly is fantastic at working with young talent. That's why Charlie failed so bad. He could coach guys that were ready (I know others will disagree, but his pro accomplishments speak for themselves,at least on the offensive side) but was clueless when it came to working with young men at the college level that needed to be developed.

So the real question should be: What can we expect outta Brian Kelly with all of ND's resources, considering how well he did with bad recruiting classes at a big east school?

Big things.

 

[Riddickulous]

There were a grand total of seven three-star recruits in the junior and senior classes on Kelly's 12-0 Cincinatti team. The rest were two-stars or lower.

 

[OchoShayneO]

I am working on a journal article for a publication and came across these statistics in my research and thought they would be interesting to share. From 2004-2009 Cincinnati was dead last in recruiting (as measured by average recruiting stars per player) with an average player rating of 2.17. In contrast, Pitt, who led during that period, had an average of 2.83. Despite these recruiting rankings, the Bearcats from 2006-2010 (this includes the year after Kelly's departure) won nearly 60% of their games (Pitt was actually lower at 57%).

So I present this question...was it player development, or a bad conference?

I know the answer...recruiting rankings like tits on a bull. worthless

 

[hrc08]

Its player development.

Look at what Kelly did just this year. Zack Martin, Zeke Motta, Tyler Eiffert, Cierre Wood, Carlo Calabrese, etc, etc, etc, were left for dead and yet, they all came on strong.

 

[OchoShayneO]

Its player development.

Look at what Kelly did just this year. Zack Martin, Zeke Motta, Tyler Eiffert, Cierre Wood, Carlo Calabrese, etc, etc, etc, were left for dead and yet, they all came on strong.

they were left for dead?

 

[johnnykillz]

I, personally, wasn't aware they were dead-end recruits...

Where do you draw this point?

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Its player development.

Look at what Kelly did just this year. Zack Martin, Zeke Motta, Tyler Eiffert, Cierre Wood, Carlo Calabrese, etc, etc, etc, were left for dead and yet, they all came on strong.

they were left for dead?

Yea I am not buying this arguement. All these players with the exception of Martin all got oppportunities to play extensively because of injuries. They were all the #2 at their position to start the year. I don't believe that qualifies as left for dead.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Yea I am not buying this arguement. All these players with the exception of Martin all got oppportunities to play extensively because of injuries. They were all the #2 at their position to start the year. I don't believe that qualifies as left for dead.

Great avatar.

I think maybe it was poor word choice on his part. Maybe he meant they exceeded the expectations that most had for them entering the season. That Kelly got more out of them than expected. I guess that point could be debated, as well, but in any event it is a lot more
accurate than saying they were left for dead.

Oh, the damage people do to their own arguments by overstating their points.....

 

[hrc08]

None of them were expected to play and all of them had fine years. I give credit to Kelly getting them ready. Martin, Eiffert and Wood were all in their first years and lept over upperclassmen. Geez.

Am I going to get grief for saying that they were in "their first years" even though they are technically sophmores?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Its player development.

Look at what Kelly did just this year. Zack Martin, Zeke Motta, Tyler Eiffert, Cierre Wood, Carlo Calabrese, etc, etc, etc, were left for dead and yet, they all came on strong.

I'll add this to the conversation. Ian Williams was totally wasted by the Weiss staff. And Sean Cwynar was burried even deeper. Any deeper and he would have been six-foot under. After reviewing games, I cannot find a player that wasn't moved to a different position, any more responsible for the incredible improvement in the defense in the final four games. Doesn't this cover the "player development" and "burried" aspects of the conversation?

(Note: in an attempt to ward off drama and controversy, players like Teo and Smith were already doing their part. I think the ends stepped up their play but no more or not as much as Sean. Brian Smith may be the exception, but he moved to the inside.)

 

[Sherm Sticky]

I'll add this to the conversation. Ian Williams was totally wasted by the Weiss staff. And Sean Cwynar was burried even deeper. Any deeper and he would have been six-foot under. After reviewing games, I cannot find a player that wasn't moved to a different position, any more responsible for the incredible improvement in the defense in the final four games. Doesn't this cover the "player development" and "burried" aspects of the conversation?

(Note: in an attempt to ward off drama and controversy, players like Teo and Smith were already doing their part. I think the ends stepped up their play but no more or not as much as Sean. Brian Smith may be the exception, but he moved to the inside.)

Everyone is giving Louis Nix the starting NT spot next year, but I'm saying wait did you see Sean play last year. I completely agree with you. I think Sean locks down that spot and Nix backs him up.

 

[Irish Man3]

I know the answer...recruiting rankings like tits on a bull. worthless

Then please explain why the majority of the best teams in the country, are also atop the recruiting rankings every year. Explain why everyone on this board was going crazy when Aaron Lynch and Stephon Tuitt decommited. Would the reaction have been the same if it was Springmann and Carrico?

 

[OCIrish]

None of them were expected to play and all of them had fine years. I give credit to Kelly getting them ready. Martin, Eiffert and Wood were all in their first years and lept over upperclassmen. Geez.

Am I going to get grief for saying that they were in "their first years" even though they are technically sophmores?

No because Eifert had back surgery and Wood couldn't pick up a blitz if the defender ran head first into him.

 

[irishtrain]

I know the answer...recruiting rankings like tits on a bull. worthless

I may not be this eloquint but its also what I think, he's a developer and a projector of athletic talent extrodinaire. Match that with a strength coach who knows what he's doing and you have the formula. As for these ratings I'm with you-tits on a bull.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

None of them were expected to play and all of them had fine years. I give credit to Kelly getting them ready. Martin, Eiffert and Wood were all in their first years and lept over upperclassmen. Geez.

Am I going to get grief for saying that they were in "their first years" even though they are technically sophmores?

This is all great except again how were they left for dead? You are arguing that they were first years and they lept over upperclassmen which is true, but they didn't have much to leap over an I just have a hard time believing it was BKs development of them.

 

[OchoShayneO]

sophmores on the two deep. yea your going to get grief for being wrong unless you say you typed wrong and better follow that up with a sweet story as to why you accidently typed an entire sentence. one possibly involving a asian hooker or jimmer ferdette or both

 

[Old Man Mike]

Actually, I think everyone's got some of the truth in this. Kelly IS good at player development--people following football far and wide agree to this. Kelly has now also proved that he can recruit elite talent.

These two things alone should easily add up in everybody's minds as tremendous positive potential for Notre Dame. In fact more than not I hear such words coming out of the mouths of commentators. [plus, Kelly's likability is winning us friends so we'll get more generous comments generally].

As to the value of high star ranked talent: Easton has already posted on that somewhere, and you can do the stats yourself by looking at NFL drafts and seeing the ratios of five-star succeeders to others. It's a statistical thing not a deterministic thing. But the odds are better that you'll get a starter out of a high star rank than a low to no star rank.

The fact that there are great coaches that can overcome this, does not invalidate the statistical advantage in going for the gold in recruiting. ALL of these lines of argument/concern bode well for Notre Dame as Kelly is winning in every angle of this. I can not be happier with the way coach is molding the future.

 

[irishtrain]

To agree with OldManMike Kelly is playing the game and winning at the game in all areas. What I notice more than anything is that they are recruiting 'bigs' that can run.

 

[Junkhead]

Its player development.

Look at what Kelly did just this year. Zack Martin, Zeke Motta, Tyler Eiffert, Cierre Wood, Carlo Calabrese, etc, etc, etc, were left for dead and yet, they all came on strong.

Wood was left for dead, though it was his first season seeing the field? Wait, what?

 

[OchoShayneO]

I like what old man mike said

 

[Easton Pa ND Fan]

Question?

Question?

There were a grand total of seven three-star recruits in the junior and senior classes on Kelly's 12-0 Cincinatti team. The rest were two-stars or lower.

Do you use Rivals or Scout star system?
There is difference in their methodology.
Scout ranks more on the high end, it is
a marketing technique. You are more
likely to read an article about a 5 or
4 star kid than one of 4 or 3 star.

Tom

 

[IrishinSyria]

Do you use Rivals or Scout star system?
There is difference in their methodology.
Scout ranks more on the high end, it is
a marketing technique. You are more
likely to read an article about a 5 or
4 star kid than one of 4 or 3 star.

Tom

Just to emphasize this point, it's important to keep in mind that scouting services pay much more attention to higher ranked players than lower ranked ones. So while Rivals (for example) is likely to have seen, say -Manti- in person at least once and watched all of his game film, they may never have even seen film on a J.J. Watt type guy. Top end rankings should be much more accurate because of this.

 

[choo choo]

Could be both. The big east isn't turning any heads. But I think Kelly is fantastic at working with young talent. That's why Charlie failed so bad. He could coach guys that were ready (I know others will disagree, but his pro accomplishments speak for themselves,at least on the offensive side) but was clueless when it came to working with young men at the college level that needed to be developed.

So the real question should be: What can we expect outta Brian Kelly with all of ND's resources, considering how well he did with bad recruiting classes at a big east school?

Big things.

boo-yah

 

[choo choo]

Great avatar.

I think maybe it was poor word choice on his part. Maybe he meant they exceeded the expectations that most had for them entering the season. That Kelly got more out of them than expected. I guess that point could be debated, as well, but in any event it is a lot more
accurate than saying they were left for dead.

Oh, the damage people do to their own arguments by overstating their points.....

ok, just as long as we dont leave any of our guys for dead...by god, we stay till we have em all...

 

[choo choo]

dear god im going crazy...baseball hasnt started yet and we're still three weeks away from spring practice...i have nothing to do...i even went shopping with my wife today...

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I STILL want to see tits on a bull.

Hey!

Maybe it would make Neutered feel a little better . . .

 

[CarrollVermin]

Do you use Rivals or Scout star system?
There is difference in their methodology.
Scout ranks more on the high end, it is
a marketing technique. You are more
likely to read an article about a 5 or
4 star kid than one of 4 or 3 star.

Tom

For the sake of my work, I used Rivals because it was seen as most consistent over a period of time.

Also, it is interesting to see the jump in Oregon and their recruiting stars over the course of the last two seasons....just saying.

 

[North Buffalo Irish]

I know the answer...recruiting rankings like tits on a bull. worthless

That's been proven not to be true, the ratings due hold a decent amount of weight (especially as far as an NFL future goes). The fact is you don't need elite or even high-end talent to compete in the Big East. Kelly is a good coach and a great developer. However, let's not act like those Cincy teams would have been piling up wins in the SEC or Big 12.

When Kelly's coaching wasn't there to to close the gap in the bowl game against Florida, the talent disparity was so obvious.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OchoShayneO
I know the answer...recruiting rankings like tits on a bull. worthless

That's been proven not to be true, the ratings due hold a decent amount of weight (especially as far as an NFL future goes). The fact is you don't need elite or even high-end talent to compete in the Big East. Kelly is a good coach and a great developer. However, let's not act like those Cincy teams would have been piling up wins in the SEC or Big 12.

When Kelly's coaching wasn't there to to close the gap in the bowl game against Florida, the talent disparity was so obvious.

So who did Kelly play and/or beat out of conference?