Another class of blue collar 3 stars that will succeed

[cr8zyncalif]

It is summer; time yet again to laugh at the talent rating gurus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though the schools that are interested in a young man and the school to whom he finally commits have more to do with being a 4 or 5 star than actual talent. On the other hand, the track record of the coach who is recruiting them seems to have very little to do with ratings...the school at which he works, yes, but the coach himself? And his track record? Not so much.

Either Mike Leach knows something that the gurus don't about rating kids, or he is simply an order of magnitude better as a HC than many of the others. Otherwise, how do you explain his guru recruiting class ratings vs. his actual on field success? I guess I mis-stated that question, because the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. He may in fact both know more than the gurus AND be a magnitude better HC.

For years we've pointed at UCLA as the classic example of a school that always has awesome guru approval for their classes, yet continually under-performs. They are far from the only school in that bucket, but they are a good example.

Judging by UW's recent NFL draft success, one would have to think that Pete is a pretty good talent evaluator. But has his field success (against everyone except WSU) lived up to the draft day kudos? Maybe he is a better talent evaluator than HC? Wouldn't be much of a surprise...we are all better at some things in our job description than others.

CML has said many times that work ethic is very important in his talent evaluation decisions. Just the view from my port hole, but I suspect that remark is closest to the mark of all the things I've heard about his long term talent evaluation success...which of course has led directly to his on field success. I believe that the gurus not only don't really factor work ethic into their ratings; they probably have no idea how to even try to do so. And ultimately, my theory is that is the single biggest source of the disconnect between the guru ratings and the actual field results.

Thoughts?

 

[YakiCoug]

It is summer; time yet again to laugh at the talent rating gurus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though the schools that are interested in a young man and the school to whom he finally commits have more to do with being a 4 or 5 star than actual talent. On the other hand, the track record of the coach who is recruiting them seems to have very little to do with ratings...the school at which he works, yes, but the coach himself? And his track record? Not so much.

Either Mike Leach knows something that the gurus don't about rating kids, or he is simply an order of magnitude better as a HC than many of the others. Otherwise, how do you explain his guru recruiting class ratings vs. his actual on field success? I guess I mis-stated that question, because the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. He may in fact both know more than the gurus AND be a magnitude better HC.

For years we've pointed at UCLA as the classic example of a school that always has awesome guru approval for their classes, yet continually under-performs. They are far from the only school in that bucket, but they are a good example.

Judging by UW's recent NFL draft success, one would have to think that Pete is a pretty good talent evaluator. But has his field success (against everyone except WSU) lived up to the draft day kudos? Maybe he is a better talent evaluator than HC? Wouldn't be much of a surprise...we are all better at some things in our job description than others.

CML has said many times that work ethic is very important in his talent evaluation decisions. Just the view from my port hole, but I suspect that remark is closest to the mark of all the things I've heard about his long term talent evaluation success...which of course has led directly to his on field success. I believe that the gurus not only don't really factor work ethic into their ratings; they probably have no idea how to even try to do so. And ultimately, my theory is that is the single biggest source of the disconnect between the guru ratings and the actual field results.

Thoughts?

I've used this example more than a few times over the years, but a mutt site "evaluator" aka Orson Fetters once argued that J.R. Hasty was every bit as good as Jonathan "Snoop" Stewart. Of course, Hasty had committed to and signed with - who else? - the UW. Snoop went to Oregon. These evaluators attached to their computers in mommy's basement have their biases, and Mike Leach not once has phoned them to get their opinion on who he and his coaches should recruit.

 

[metprof]

I see the inverse of this in UCLA and a bit in USC.

It is summer; time yet again to laugh at the talent rating gurus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though the schools that are interested in a young man and the school to whom he finally commits have more to do with being a 4 or 5 star than actual talent. On the other hand, the track record of the coach who is recruiting them seems to have very little to do with ratings...the school at which he works, yes, but the coach himself? And his track record? Not so much.

Either Mike Leach knows something that the gurus don't about rating kids, or he is simply an order of magnitude better as a HC than many of the others. Otherwise, how do you explain his guru recruiting class ratings vs. his actual on field success? I guess I mis-stated that question, because the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. He may in fact both know more than the gurus AND be a magnitude better HC.

For years we've pointed at UCLA as the classic example of a school that always has awesome guru approval for their classes, yet continually under-performs. They are far from the only school in that bucket, but they are a good example.

Judging by UW's recent NFL draft success, one would have to think that Pete is a pretty good talent evaluator. But has his field success (against everyone except WSU) lived up to the draft day kudos? Maybe he is a better talent evaluator than HC? Wouldn't be much of a surprise...we are all better at some things in our job description than others.

CML has said many times that work ethic is very important in his talent evaluation decisions. Just the view from my port hole, but I suspect that remark is closest to the mark of all the things I've heard about his long term talent evaluation success...which of course has led directly to his on field success. I believe that the gurus not only don't really factor work ethic into their ratings; they probably have no idea how to even try to do so. And ultimately, my theory is that is the single biggest source of the disconnect between the guru ratings and the actual field results.

Thoughts?

 

[WASH ST A&M FAN]

If you track many of these “evaluators” on Twitter, they become semi-buddies with the 4 & 5 Star Kids. Not only do I find that Odd, I believe it pollutes their judgement.

 

[COUGinNCW]

It is summer; time yet again to laugh at the talent rating gurus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though the schools that are interested in a young man and the school to whom he finally commits have more to do with being a 4 or 5 star than actual talent. On the other hand, the track record of the coach who is recruiting them seems to have very little to do with ratings...the school at which he works, yes, but the coach himself? And his track record? Not so much.

Either Mike Leach knows something that the gurus don't about rating kids, or he is simply an order of magnitude better as a HC than many of the others. Otherwise, how do you explain his guru recruiting class ratings vs. his actual on field success? I guess I mis-stated that question, because the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. He may in fact both know more than the gurus AND be a magnitude better HC.

For years we've pointed at UCLA as the classic example of a school that always has awesome guru approval for their classes, yet continually under-performs. They are far from the only school in that bucket, but they are a good example.

Judging by UW's recent NFL draft success, one would have to think that Pete is a pretty good talent evaluator. But has his field success (against everyone except WSU) lived up to the draft day kudos? Maybe he is a better talent evaluator than HC? Wouldn't be much of a surprise...we are all better at some things in our job description than others.

CML has said many times that work ethic is very important in his talent evaluation decisions. Just the view from my port hole, but I suspect that remark is closest to the mark of all the things I've heard about his long term talent evaluation success...which of course has led directly to his on field success. I believe that the gurus not only don't really factor work ethic into their ratings; they probably have no idea how to even try to do so. And ultimately, my theory is that is the single biggest source of the disconnect between the guru ratings and the actual field results.

Thoughts?

Going on the lines of work ethic, I think Leach has a consistently better Strength and Conditioning program than his peers. Injuries, or lack there of, can be a matter of luck but over a course of time, like the past 4 year run, smooths out the randomness and without doing any deep analysis I would venture to guess WSU has been one of the healthier programs in the country. Not sure what the track record was in Lubbock but I almost bet it was similar. If you find the right kind of kids to come to Pullman (or a Lubbock) that will concentrate on football, weights and classes without all the distractions a bigger city brings they will blossom.

 

[BiggsCoug]

WSU is a 3 star kid school. The 4 star kids want glitz, glamor, $30,000 lockers, fancy and shiny stuff. They dont wanna grind. They wanna get off the bus and have the other team oooo and ahhhh at their 4 stars and quit. Then the WSU 3 star kids knuckle up and raise their hands. Oregon is crying at halftime.

Look at Leach’s staff. It’s all guys that can coach ball. All these recruiter types that think theyre gonna land big time guys are a total waste at WSU. They cant land the kids they think they should and they cant get high enough talent to mask their lack of coaching talent, ahem Coach Joe...

WSU is where all day tough, hard nosed kids go to play football. UCLA, Oregon, SC etc dont wanna play ball. Those kids wanna live off high school glory days and press clippings. They see college at the finish line. The WSU kids see college as the starting blocks.

Completely different kids at WSU. Will take them ALL DAY, EVERY YEAR!!!!

 

[Fab5Coug]

"Rankings are wrong because look at UCLA" is kind of a lazy take, no offense.

Look at the rankings year in and year out and you see a lot of teams that play in NY6 bowls.

I bet, if you went to handful of high school games with guys like Huffman, Biggens & Gorney, you'd spot the 4 & 5 star kids, just like they do. Beyond that, it's probably pretty daunting to rank the rest of the field.

As for work ethic, how on Earth could they determine that? I mean, they could maybe observe a kid taking plays off, or maybe talk to the head coach about it. But, they aren't checking to make sure these kids are hitting the weight room on a Tuesday.

Overall, I'd say these guys do a pretty accurate job.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

It is summer; time yet again to laugh at the talent rating gurus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though the schools that are interested in a young man and the school to whom he finally commits have more to do with being a 4 or 5 star than actual talent. On the other hand, the track record of the coach who is recruiting them seems to have very little to do with ratings...the school at which he works, yes, but the coach himself? And his track record? Not so much.

Either Mike Leach knows something that the gurus don't about rating kids, or he is simply an order of magnitude better as a HC than many of the others. Otherwise, how do you explain his guru recruiting class ratings vs. his actual on field success? I guess I mis-stated that question, because the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. He may in fact both know more than the gurus AND be a magnitude better HC.

For years we've pointed at UCLA as the classic example of a school that always has awesome guru approval for their classes, yet continually under-performs. They are far from the only school in that bucket, but they are a good example.

Judging by UW's recent NFL draft success, one would have to think that Pete is a pretty good talent evaluator. But has his field success (against everyone except WSU) lived up to the draft day kudos? Maybe he is a better talent evaluator than HC? Wouldn't be much of a surprise...we are all better at some things in our job description than others.

CML has said many times that work ethic is very important in his talent evaluation decisions. Just the view from my port hole, but I suspect that remark is closest to the mark of all the things I've heard about his long term talent evaluation success...which of course has led directly to his on field success. I believe that the gurus not only don't really factor work ethic into their ratings; they probably have no idea how to even try to do so. And ultimately, my theory is that is the single biggest source of the disconnect between the guru ratings and the actual field results.

Thoughts?

We went over this last fall.

Rivals got caught when they were catfished by a couple of kids. They threw 4 stars at a player who didn't exist, had no film, only stats and an offer sheet.

While I'm sure the 5 star kids have earned their status, there are so many kids out there that there is no way/ enough man power to actually evaluate all of them.

 

[BiggsCoug]

It's not hard to see BCS kids on the field. Don't pretend like this is some kind of high end detective work they're doing.

BCS kids show up as freshmen and sophomores on All League teams. BCS kids stand out on a roster cause they have bigger than everyone else. BCS kids typically show up consistently at the same programs. You're already there looking at one BCS kid, wait! Who is that 6'7" guy over there???

You wanna earn your money as an evaluator? Find Will Derting. Find James Darling. Sign the all conference 6' TE/LB in SoCal and watch him blow up at Utah State. Anyone know who Im talking about???

I give these guys credit for going out and putting together a list. They did the legwork, as easy as it already is to find these high end athletes.

I give them zero credit for actually digging for kids and evaluating 2 star kids that somehow turn into NFL guys. There is a reason why college coaches don't have these guys in meetings or hire them as consultants.

 

[Coug1990]

It's not hard to see BCS kids on the field. Don't pretend like this is some kind of high end detective work they're doing.

BCS kids show up as freshmen and sophomores on All League teams. BCS kids stand out on a roster cause they have bigger than everyone else. BCS kids typically show up consistently at the same programs. You're already there looking at one BCS kid, wait! Who is that 6'7" guy over there???

You wanna earn your money as an evaluator? Find Will Derting. Find James Darling. Sign the all conference 6' TE/LB in SoCal and watch him blow up at Utah State. Anyone know who Im talking about???

I give these guys credit for going out and putting together a list. They did the legwork, as easy as it already is to find these high end athletes.

I give them zero credit for actually digging for kids and evaluating 2 star kids that somehow turn into NFL guys. There is a reason why college coaches don't have these guys in meetings or hire them as consultants.

That would be Bobby Wagner. Yes, it is easy to spot the superstars. After the top 100-200, which most people can spot, the evaluation is less good.

 

[BiggsCoug]

That would be Bobby Wagner. Yes, it is easy to spot the superstars. After the top 100-200, which most people can spot, the evaluation is less good.

You don't make your $ evaluating talent in SoCal that was All State. Those are the easy ones. You make your $ evaluating honorable mention, finding the slot receiver in the wing t offense, finding the 6' kid that blew up at LB and TE...

Or you just pay the 4 star kids like the uw does.

 

[Coug1990]

You don't make your $ evaluating talent in SoCal that was All State. Those are the easy ones. You make your $ evaluating honorable mention, finding the slot receiver in the wing t offense, finding the 6' kid that blew up at LB and TE...

Or you just pay the 4 star kids like the uw does.

Many years ago when I was in high school, it was easy to spot players on the team or the other team that we were playing in any sport that was going on to play in college.

With the information out today, it is even easier to spot the superstar players. Plus, if you scout just the football football factory high schools, it is even easier.

Heck, I could pick the top five schools from every power five conference and make a list of just those players and it would be just as good as the so called experts.

Fact is, the top schools select players more than they recruit them. WSU has to evaluate and recruit players.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Many years ago when I was in high school, it was easy to spot players on the team or the other team that we were playing in any sport that was going on to play in college.

With the information out today, it is even easier to spot the superstar players. Plus, if you scout just the football football factory high schools, it is even easier.

Heck, I could pick the top five schools from every power five conference and make a list of just those players and it would be just as good as the so called experts.

Fact is, the top schools select players more than they recruit them. WSU has to evaluate and recruit players.

It's a different sales pitch. Do you really think SC is selling quality coaching??? lol Really? They're selling history, tradition, close to home, playing with other 4 and 5 star kids (however well they've been coached up too), high social status, etc. SC isn't launching guys into the NFL like they have in the past. So what is the draw???

Same for Oregon. What's the draw? Shiny stuff? Luxury living? Those kids aren't going there to play football first. They're going there for the lux lifestyle. They wanna show off their gear to their friends.

These 4 and 5 star kids pick schools for all the wrong reasons. There might be one or two schools that have it together. They get their kids coached up, trained up and off to the NFL as fast as possible. The rest of them are posers. Kids don't go there to play ball. They go there to take selfies for Instagram. And those kids don't win 11 games.

Im good with the guys Leach gets. Even better when they beat the cry babies from Oregon. Duck tears taste like sugar.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Wow! Some good comments.

I especially liked the comment that today it may be more about SC under-performing than UCLA under-performing. That is probably accurate, though SC doesn't have decades of that sort of situation. UCLA does. I think the big question for Chip all along has been whether (in the current vernacular) he can be a cultural change agent at the softest campus in the PAC. I guess we will find out!

The CouginNCW comments about Leach's strength & conditioning program are right on. There is no way that our transition from the high ankle sprain capital of north america to a team that seldom has niggling injuries can't be due to much of anything other than improved S & C.

Biggs comments about what SC and Oregon are selling are also accurate. Of course, they would not admit that...but from a distance it certainly appears to be true. And his comments about how our program is built on guys who grind it out are also correct.

I completely agree that under most circumstances it might be hard for a guru to evaluate work ethic. That is tough for coaches, so it would be even more difficult for the kibitzers. However, it is my view that the gurus don't really even try in that area. I will admit, though, that since academic progress became important to D1 programs, the gurus will eventually do at least a cursory check into whether a kid seems likely to be academically eligible. And the comments about gurus "friending" top prospects, and how that biases their opinion, pretty much have to be true...it is human nature.

That leaves me still thinking that the "work ethic" piece of the puzzle may be the biggest single disconnect between the prospect ratings and how they actually turn out on the field.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Wow! Some good comments.

I especially liked the comment that today it may be more about SC under-performing than UCLA under-performing. That is probably accurate, though SC doesn't have decades of that sort of situation. UCLA does. I think the big question for Chip all along has been whether (in the current vernacular) he can be a cultural change agent at the softest campus in the PAC. I guess we will find out!

The CouginNCW comments about Leach's strength & conditioning program are right on. There is no way that our transition from the high ankle sprain capital of north america to a team that seldom has niggling injuries can't be due to much of anything other than improved S & C.

Biggs comments about what SC and Oregon are selling are also accurate. Of course, they would not admit that...but from a distance it certainly appears to be true. And his comments about how our program is built on guys who grind it out are also correct.

I completely agree that under most circumstances it might be hard for a guru to evaluate work ethic. That is tough for coaches, so it would be even more difficult for the kibitzers. However, it is my view that the gurus don't really even try in that area. I will admit, though, that since academic progress became important to D1 programs, the gurus will eventually do at least a cursory check into whether a kid seems likely to be academically eligible. And the comments about gurus "friending" top prospects, and how that biases their opinion, pretty much have to be true...it is human nature.

That leaves me still thinking that the "work ethic" piece of the puzzle may be the biggest single disconnect between the prospect ratings and how they actually turn out on the field.

Top programs manage every aspect of the kids lives. Kids don't get to choose their work ethic. The coaches do.

Everything in the weight room is gonna be managed. They aren't going to just write a workout on the wall and let kids have at it. Too many guys will take a lap around the gym and leave. They're gonna make sure you do every rep.

Same for classwork. They're gonna have people that make sure you're attending and doing the work. If you don't, they'll nip that in the bud.

At practice, under Leach's nose, he is gonna make sure you're going full speed.

Programs that don't have checks and balances in place to make sure the kids are doing everything just do better. The school is gonna spend tens of millions on facilities, personnel, equipment, etc. Then they let 18-22 year old kids do whatever they want??? Ain't happening. And if it does, I will show you a program that loses for 10 years in a row.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Biggs, that makes sense.

All kids don't put forth the same effort though, regardless of supervision.

For a while during Toledo's UCLA years, when their new lifting facility was recently finished, I spent a fair amount of time there, fixing a lot of the building stuff that wasn't done right in the first place. What I was told and what I observed suggested that, while everybody did some prescribed minimum amount of work, there was a fair amount of difference between what the "scrape by with the minimum" folks did and what the "self motivated, work hard" kids did. Perhaps that has changed. Maybe supervision is better now, across the board, and accountability has improved. I'm pretty confident that it is better than that in Leach's program, and clearly some of that is due to the approach taken by the staff. But some of it has to be the kids themselves, as well.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Biggs, that makes sense.

All kids don't put forth the same effort though, regardless of supervision.

For a while during Toledo's UCLA years, when their new lifting facility was recently finished, I spent a fair amount of time there, fixing a lot of the building stuff that wasn't done right in the first place. What I was told and what I observed suggested that, while everybody did some prescribed minimum amount of work, there was a fair amount of difference between what the "scrape by with the minimum" folks did and what the "self motivated, work hard" kids did. Perhaps that has changed. Maybe supervision is better now, across the board, and accountability has improved. I'm pretty confident that it is better than that in Leach's program, and clearly some of that is due to the approach taken by the staff. But some of it has to be the kids themselves, as well.

There are programs that have kids show up for an appointment at the gym and literally have a S&C coach put them thru the workout. Nothing is left to chance.

 

[random soul]

I suspect part of our injury improvement over what often happened in the Price years is less about strength and more about the emphasis on quickness and flexibility. More flexible ankles and knees are always better, bench press ain't everything

 

[BiggsCoug]

I suspect part of our injury improvement over what often happened in the Price years is less about strength and more about the emphasis on quickness and flexibility. More flexible ankles and knees are always better, bench press ain't everything

Written like someone that's never had to block a 450lbs bench presser...

 

[random soul]

Written like someone that's never had to block a 450lbs bench presser...

Guilty

 

[79COUG]

I suspect part of our injury improvement over what often happened in the Price years is less about strength and more about the emphasis on quickness and flexibility. More flexible ankles and knees are always better, bench press ain't everything

Speaking of which, coming from an old left tackle like myself, I was thrilled to see every stinking one of our O-linemen with knee braces on when CML took over. During the previous regime there were games where you would see one maybe two guys with them on. And yet knee injuries were rampant during those dark days.
It's the little things that add up to success.

 

[COUGinNCW]

I suspect part of our injury improvement over what often happened in the Price years is less about strength and more about the emphasis on quickness and flexibility. More flexible ankles and knees are always better, bench press ain't everything

Leach Beach

 

[mikalalas]

i generally, mostly agree up to a point with what has been said about recruiting, WSU, vs the gurus, vs other colleges.

While that is true that WSU recruits, evaluates, gets 2,3 stars that grind it out, work hard, smart, get coached up, developed, etc, there is more to it then that.

WSU, Leach is recruiting, getting more high end, borderline 3,4 star, low end 4 stars, at a higher level then never seen before.

WSU, Leach is averaging about 1,2,3,4, 4 stars per every year, every other year at worst.

WSU, Leach, has recruited about 8 to 16, 4 stars over Leach's Tenure.

But despite that WSU classes still ranked about, between 40 to 60.

The reason why WSU, Leach gets these 4 stars:

1. Leach Name recognition, reputation, credibility, system, etc.

2. They will be coached up, develop into a top college player.

3. They will produce lots of good game film, stats, etc.

4. More WSU players going to NFL

5. More playing time.

6. Safe, Cozy, good, fun, etc, small college town experience.

7. They can better become a top college player at Pullman then at a bigger city college, with more distractions.

8. Good Facilities.

9. Best Air Raid.

Top Pitch:

"Do you as a 4,5 star, want to lead the nation in receiving, passing, whatever positional stats, at WSU, in Leach's awesome system, etc, or do you want to sit on the bench, and never ever play at USC, blue bloods, other colleges, behind other 4,5 stars"

Cite prominent examples of 5 stars that sat on bench, never played, didnt produce behind other 4,5 stars at other colleges.

State, show, prove that they would likely be same, no different, would also sit, not play behind 5 stars at other colleges.

This is why more 4 stars are choosing WSU over blue blood programs.

Now that is not to say WSU, Leach, doesnt recruit, evaluate 2,3 star recruits.

Leach does recruit, evaluate, coach up, develop, etc, 2,3 star recruits, and does a freaking AWESOME job at it.

But Leach also does a freaking Awesome job of recruiting, pitching, evaluating, beating out blue bloods for 4 stars, and then coaching, developing the 4 stars up.

And that is how you win at WSU. And Leach is doing a awesome job of it.

 

[fingerdisco]

i generally, mostly agree up to a point with what has been said about recruiting, WSU, vs the gurus, vs other colleges.

While that is true that WSU recruits, evaluates, gets 2,3 stars that grind it out, work hard, smart, get coached up, developed, etc, there is more to it then that.

WSU, Leach is recruiting, getting more high end, borderline 3,4 star, low end 4 stars, at a higher level then never seen before.

WSU, Leach is averaging about 1,2,3,4, 4 stars per every year, every other year at worst.

WSU, Leach, has recruited about 8 to 16, 4 stars over Leach's Tenure.

But despite that WSU classes still ranked about, between 40 to 60.

The reason why WSU, Leach gets these 4 stars:

1. Leach Name recognition, reputation, credibility, system, etc.

2. They will be coached up, develop into a top college player.

3. They will produce lots of good game film, stats, etc.

4. More WSU players going to NFL

5. More playing time.

6. Safe, Cozy, good, fun, etc, small college town experience.

7. They can better become a top college player at Pullman then at a bigger city college, with more distractions.

8. Good Facilities.

9. Best Air Raid.

Top Pitch:

"Do you as a 4,5 star, want to lead the nation in receiving, passing, whatever positional stats, at WSU, in Leach's awesome system, etc, or do you want to sit on the bench, and never ever play at USC, blue bloods, other colleges, behind other 4,5 stars"

Cite prominent examples of 5 stars that sat on bench, never played, didnt produce behind other 4,5 stars at other colleges.

State, show, prove that they would likely be same, no different, would also sit, not play behind 5 stars at other colleges.

This is why more 4 stars are choosing WSU over blue blood programs.

Now that is not to say WSU, Leach, doesnt recruit, evaluate 2,3 star recruits.

Leach does recruit, evaluate, coach up, develop, etc, 2,3 star recruits, and does a freaking AWESOME job at it.

But Leach also does a freaking Awesome job of recruiting, pitching, evaluating, beating out blue bloods for 4 stars, and then coaching, developing the 4 stars up.

And that is how you win at WSU. And Leach is doing a awesome job of it.

“Averaging 1,2,3,4 4 stars.”

Baffling.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Finger, I think the intent was "1-4 four star kids each year".

I live in SoCal and do a lot of translating.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Wow! Some good comments.

I especially liked the comment that today it may be more about SC under-performing than UCLA under-performing. That is probably accurate, though SC doesn't have decades of that sort of situation. UCLA does. I think the big question for Chip all along has been whether (in the current vernacular) he can be a cultural change agent at the softest campus in the PAC. I guess we will find out!

The CouginNCW comments about Leach's strength & conditioning program are right on. There is no way that our transition from the high ankle sprain capital of north america to a team that seldom has niggling injuries can't be due to much of anything other than improved S & C.

Biggs comments about what SC and Oregon are selling are also accurate. Of course, they would not admit that...but from a distance it certainly appears to be true. And his comments about how our program is built on guys who grind it out are also correct.

I completely agree that under most circumstances it might be hard for a guru to evaluate work ethic. That is tough for coaches, so it would be even more difficult for the kibitzers. However, it is my view that the gurus don't really even try in that area. I will admit, though, that since academic progress became important to D1 programs, the gurus will eventually do at least a cursory check into whether a kid seems likely to be academically eligible. And the comments about gurus "friending" top prospects, and how that biases their opinion, pretty much have to be true...it is human nature.

That leaves me still thinking that the "work ethic" piece of the puzzle may be the biggest single disconnect between the prospect ratings and how they actually turn out on the field.

At some point, I think we have to remind ourselves of what the "gurus" jobs are here. They do interviews with the recruits, report offers & commits, and do rankings. The rankings are just a projection of what the kid could contribute at the college level. They'll know if a kid is an academic risk if the kid mentions his GPA. They'll know if the kid is a slacker if it's visible on film or the high school coach says something.

They don't go to class with these kids. They don't follow them around Friday night.

Someone pointed out JR Hasty. I don't know, his problem was that he had a crap attitude at UW, then later flunked out of CWU. Not sure how one forecasts that watching him at a camp and conducting a handful of interviews with him in high school.

 

[mikalalas]

Finger, I think the intent was "1-4 four star kids each year".

I live in SoCal and do a lot of translating.

Or 1-4, four stars every other year at worst, when not the usual 1-4, four stars per year.

So yep, your right, that was what I was trying to say.

 

[fingerdisco]

Or 1-4, four stars every other year at worst, when not the usual 1-4, four stars per year.

So yep, your right, that was what I was trying to say.

On average. Within this range. On alternating years. Except in years of no 4-stars like 2019.

 

[CrimsonDisciple]

It's a different sales pitch. Do you really think SC is selling quality coaching??? lol Really? They're selling history, tradition, close to home, playing with other 4 and 5 star kids (however well they've been coached up too), high social status, etc. SC isn't launching guys into the NFL like they have in the past. So what is the draw???

Same for Oregon. What's the draw? Shiny stuff? Luxury living? Those kids aren't going there to play football first. They're going there for the lux lifestyle. They wanna show off their gear to their friends.

These 4 and 5 star kids pick schools for all the wrong reasons. There might be one or two schools that have it together. They get their kids coached up, trained up and off to the NFL as fast as possible. The rest of them are posers. Kids don't go there to play ball. They go there to take selfies for Instagram. And those kids don't win 11 games.

Im good with the guys Leach gets. Even better when they beat the cry babies from Oregon. Duck tears taste like sugar.

Let’s not forget that behind almost every 4/5 star player is a Helicopter parent that is marketing that child. It’s the one thing most of these kids have in common. To your point, many of these kids are soft. Kids feel they have arrived when they get to UCLA or USC. Without Mom/Dad/Uncle watching them, will they put the effort in? Is their heart into it? WSU uncovers the mentally tough kids who are coachable and gets the absolute best out of them.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Let’s not forget that behind almost every 4/5 star player is a Helicopter parent that is marketing that child. It’s the one thing most of these kids have in common. To your point, many of these kids are soft. Kids feel they have arrived when they get to UCLA or USC. Without Mom/Dad/Uncle watching them, will they put the effort in? Is their heart into it? WSU uncovers the mentally tough kids who are coachable and gets the absolute best out of them.

Good programs don't let kids choose how hard they work and how much effort gets put in. They choose for them. You may be seeing some of that at UCLA right now. Last time I looked at the transfer portal list there were quite a few names from UCLA. I think CK was probably a pretty honest guy at UO. After having been in the NFL I think he is probably even more blunt with players about what he expects. You either do as is directed or you go away as directed.

You cannot let the kids decide the culture or tone of your program. They're young men. Lead them.