Monday, April 02, 2012

The ideal base for any BC recruiting class

Injuries have left our DT position very thin. Our Spring Game roster at running back led to Finch carrying the ball on seemingly every running play. All of this makes me question why we didn't sign a Defensive Tackle and why we scrambled to find one running back well after Signing Day. Things should never be this bad.

Roster balance will always be a challenge to college coaches. Injures and transfers lead to the premature end of many college careers. But a good, well-organized coach should be able to manage some of that attrition through solid recruiting. In an ideal world you would take a predetermined base of players at various postitions annually. Then -- depending on your forecasted need -- you would use your extra scholarships to supplement your base.

If you plan to recruit 15 players each year as part of your base that commits a program to 75 scholarships over a five year cycle. Conservatively assume that 10% of those commits will not play five years. That leaves the cycle with 68 scholarships. BCS programs allow for 85 scholarships. If BC used the 15 scholarship base, at any one time they would still have 17 more scholarships to spread out based on need, transfers or rewarding walk-ons.

If 15 is the base number, how should that 15 be dispersed. These are my suggestions:
Quarterback -- 1
Running back -- 1
Wide Receiver -- 1
Tight End -- 1
Offensive Line -- 3
Defensive Tackle -- 1
Defensive End -- 1
Linebacker -- 3
Defensive Back -- 3

Explanation: Taking a QB every year makes sense. It allows for redshirting and for being pretty straight forward in the recruiting process: "You're going to be our only QB recruit this year!" Running back is similar to QB. However, a difference is that some of the other recruits can be switched to running back if needed (DB, LB, etc). In most high school programs your best athletes have played running back or QB. So if you ever need to switch someone to either of those positions odds are he would have some basic familiarity from playing the position in his younger days.

Wide Receiver is probably under represented in the base. But my feeling is that it can be over recruited when needed with the extra scholarships. Obviously if BC ever moved away from pro-style to a more pass happy spread, I think BC would need two WRs every year.

Although I allocated a certain number for DE, TE and LB, there are many situations where they could overlap or move players around. We've seen players before who were recruited to play one position (Brad Newman) but had enough athleticism to move around to others. Dan Williams is another guy who played LB, DE and FB.

Considering I started this post because of our depleted DT situation, it might seem that taking one DT every year is not enough. But if you offset it by taking three offensive linemen each year, someone from the offensive side will be available at DT.

None of this is rocket science. Most programs manage to it. That's what makes our inability to manage to need that much more confounding. Am I missing something here? Does anyone not think we should bring in one DT or one QB every year? If you would structure the recruiting base differently, leave your suggestions below. You never know if Spaz might read it and have a eureka moment.


EL MIZ said...

the odds of Spaz having a Eureka moment at age 65 are either 0% or very close to it. on top of being a poor leader and a bad in-game coach, he exudes stubbornness. i highly doubt he thinks he's really doing anything wrong.

this is an excellent post and shows just how badly Spaz and this staff has botched things. he was promoted -- not hired, but promoted from his current position as DC to HC -- in january of 2009. he already was involved with recruiting up until that point and his promotion should not have affected recruiting at all. that, plus the fact that he had ample time (3+ months) before signing day, gives him the 09 class as his first class. he & gene both said this would be the best class yet for whatever reason.

i hate to not have the BJK spirit but i just have a feeling that this team is going to be worse than we were last year. i don't see any improvement from spaz as HC, and our roster is only getting worse given that these are the guys he has brought on. we lost our best player (kuechly) and had one of the most underwhelming recruiting classes i can remember in the past 8-9 years.

that finch had to run 30+ times in the freaking spring game is high comedy. we got no RBs, no defensive linemen, and certainly nobody who can be the head coach.

neenan said...

El Miz -- the best place to express the true anti-BJK spirit is to go to BCI.

stuff like this is applauded at BCI:

team is going to be worse than we last year.

i don't see any improvement from spaz as HC,

our roster is only getting worse

we lost our best player

we had one of the most underwhelming recruiting classes

We suck!

You will love it at BCI. They see BC football as lousy, lousy and lousy. Funny thing is they do not know a thing about football, but they know how to trash, trash trash. And they do know about being depressing.

Knucklehead said...

Last season was the worst since Matt Hasselbeck was the QB; the team won four games.

I look at the schedule this year and see 5 wins. The outcome of the Miami game will important. If we win that then we will end up 6-6 and in a bowl. We have not started the season well over the last couple of years. Our game is more suited to the cold weather. A good win early would be GREAT for EVERYONE.

There is a 50/50 possibility that Spaz resigns after a 6-6 bowl season.

If we do not make a bowl again I forsee Spaz coaching the last year of his contract in 2013. After that he will be gone.

I am not sure what security Gene has in his role. From his perspective it is probably better to let Spaz meddle through the next couple years. This way Gene does not risk cutting ties with Spaz, paying Spaz to leave, and pay a new coaching staff as well. He does not have a good track record with hiring coaches. It would be a tough sell to any perspective coach willing to accept a below market value salary(ie to Head Coach BC) to also see that Gene does not give his coaches the full term of the agreement to become successful.

It will take a new coaching staff in 2013 two or three years to get us back to an 8-9 win level program.

EL MIZ said...

Jimmy, I'd love to be positive, but don't see what there is to be positive about. The recaps of the Spring Game that I have read covered:

-- a lousy/inoperative feed
-- how Rettig seems to be regressing in his 3rd year as starter
-- how Finch had to run the ball 30+ times because we have no other healthy RBs

I will go into this season like I do every other season hoping for the best, and already have a trip to visit my friend (the Meat Pie King!) in Chicago for the Northwestern game and at least one trip to Boston for a game planned, but I see little to be optimistic about, especially with Kuechly gone. I guess I am looking forward to Duggan being the main man, and maybe our O-Line will regain some of its Nastiness from years ago.

Do tell what you are see as worth looking forward to this season, and no, Spaz stumbling through a half-time interview does not count.

neenan said...

Miz, all I am saying is that you should have good time at BCI. They think like you.

I am see the entire offense improving quite a bit in 2012. Why? New OC with good ideas, new OL coach with "big time" experience, getting rid of Day, getting rid of Brock, the OL improved last year, Rettig improved. No reason to think the improvement won't continue.

Does that mean that I think we win the division. Of course not, but I would very pleased to see 7-5. It is doable. We can beat Wake, Maryland, NCSU, NU, Maine, GTech, Army (hope I got the schedule right)

Seems like you are placing a great deal of weight on the Spring Game. Really, for lots of reasons, the Spring game is meaningless.

eagleboston said...

The whole ageism thing pisses me off. Criticize Spaz for being a Spazoo but don't blame it on his age. Warren Buffet, in his 80's, is still running circles around young, Ivy-educated money managers. People who are 65 can certainly be open to change and novel ideas. Whether Spaz has the personality to innovate and be open to fresh thinking is another question.

MUD said...

Ageism? When you are in your mid-60s and had your head beaten in on the football field for a good portion of your life, I think you would be lucky to be wiping yourself properly and might have difficulty remembering to call recruits. As the meat pie king of chicago, I will be hosting many guests for the Northwestern game. The Cats get marginal recruits, and it affects their defense more so than their offense. I feel like we have had the same problem in reverse since I have started watching BC ball. Hopefully, our offense picks it up. If El Miz's NCAA 2006 season featuring Bobo (a PlayStation 2 game) is anything like a potential BC Season, we would break all scoring records. Can't we all dream?

Eagle BC 01 said...

Forget BC football, what's all this talk about meat pies? Where do I need to go in Chicago to meet the "king"?

NEDofSavinHill said...

According to the Heights" Rettigs good throws were overshadowed by 2 poor interceptions thrownn right to defenders and several others into defenders hands" The stats of the QBs are noteworhy. Rettig threw for 120 yards on 23 attemps or just over 5 yards per attempt. while Bordner had 160 yards on 18 attempts or 9 yards per throw. Bordner was clearly the superior QB Saturday. The O-line looked good. It looks size wise like an old BC line (averaging 305 lbs.) However it was playing against a depleted defense. 2. Did anyone note the sale price of the Dodgers. It was 2 billion. The buyers anticipate a tv deal similar to the Lakers ( about 200 million per year for local tv rights). Compare those numbers to the payout for the ACC ($155 mil. per year) and one can only conclude that the 3 Stooges,Swafford, Gdf anf Coach K were totally fleeced by Espn. The Big 10, Pac 12 and Sec will be getting $25 mil. per team per year and the Acc teams will be getting only 15.(see Atlanta Journal) 3. What would BC's b-ball team have looked like if Skinner stayed, Jackson, Ravenel and Heslip were still there. Maybe a sweet 16. Certainly not a 9 win team. Great job Gdf.

Jeff said...

ATL, I don't want to be harsh, but your post just doesn't make sense to me. Are these the numbers of players we should offer or the number of commits we should get?

See, the thing is we can really only control how many guys we pursue and offer. There's no way to make sure we get exactly one QB commit a year. If we only offer one, telling him "You're going to be our only QB recruit this year!" and we don't get him, then we're left with nonthing. Conversely, if we offer multiple QBs to try to end up with one, there is a chance we get multiple commits the same year. This is just how recruiting works at the college level. You can't just fill your shopping cart with items from your checklist.

Scott said...

Just a few changes:

I think you want 4 QBs in the program's 5 year development cycle. So once we get 4 quality prospects in line ( which is perceived as a backlog to a recruit), I'm okay taking a year off,But we're not there yet.

The D-line Needs 3-4 a year, because it's a high injury position, requiring a two-deep rotation.

Only 1 WR is to thin for a 6 deep rotation, but the position is interchangeable with DBs, and some RBs. The key is getting 5-6 skill/speed athletes in every year.

To better fortify our DL and skill, I would go with a 1 less at LB, QB, OL from time to time

Crill said...

Have to say I disagree with you about BCI. I've been reading them for several years now - during the good times (and even mediocre times) they have always seemed more than fair to me. Really, why should they not tell it like it is for football? We did have a terrible recruiting class, lose our best player, and still have a terrible coach - I wouldn't respect them (or ATL) for being optimistic without reason!

I mean, look at their hockey and basketball coverage - to me they highlight both the good and the bad. Unfortunately for football its been almost all on one side of the equation for the past couple seasons...

neenan said...

Crill - I agree that BCI's hockey coverage is very good. Fun to read, informative. I think it is a good resource. Also, the periodic round up of articles on BC sports is good too. Hoop stuff I don't read much, so i have no idea.

But I can't read the BCI football coverage. First, the beat writer is a very poor writer. Hard to read. Turgid writing style. Lots of typos. Lots of misspellings, many factual inaccruacies. Hard to believe the writer is a BC grad.

But more to the point, the whole tone of BCI football coverage is a downer. Everything is about how bad BC is and how "the worst is yet to come" and other stuff like that. Really, I can't read that crap.

EagleManhattan said...

I'll never understand why people feel the need to go to news sites simply to complain that they're actually providing news and not psycophantic feel good stories totally disconnected from any truth or accuracy. How are these people BC grads?

neenan said...

How are you a BC grad when the subject matter of your diatribe is not even discernible?