ADVERTISEMENT

Stars or Power 5 offers

grahamcoug

All Conference
Nov 26, 2013
337
114
43
Graham
I found the recent recruiting discussion about Power 5 offers instead of stars interesting, so I compiled some data based on the incoming recruiting class based on Power 5 offers.

Total Power 5 Offers
ath- Buchanan 3-Oregon St, Arizona
g- Kylany 2- ASU
g- Mayginnes 1
ot- Ripley 1
ot- Tialavea 4 Arizona, Tenn, Virginia
ot- McNorton 2 Oregon St
qb- de Laura 3 Ohio St, USC
wr- Wilkerson 5 Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma St
wr- Hobert 1
wr- Pettway 4 Indiana, Virginia, Louisville
wr- Pellum 3 Indiana, Kansas
cb- Oywak 2 Arizona
cb- Anderson 4 Utah, BC, Iowa State
cb- Smith 3 Pitt, Purdue,
cb- Watson 6 USC, Arizona, Oregon St, Louisville, Kentucky
s- Escoria 2 Utah
s- Ashby 2 Kansas St
sde- Fa'aome 1
sde- Lataiumua 1
sde- Pule 1
sde- Muhahid 1
wde- Freeman 8 Syracuse, West Virginia, Kentucky, BC, Pitt, Louisville, Nebraska
wde- Lopez 2 Minnesota
dt- James 2 Indiana

Players with power 5 8 offers = 1 player (Leach recruit)
6 offers = 1 (1 Rolovich recruit)
5 offers = 1 (Rolovich recruit)
4 offers = 3 players ( 2 Leach and 1 Rolovich)
3 offers = 3 (all were Leach recruits)
2 offers = 7 (all were Leach recruits)
1 offer = 8 (5 Leach recruits, 3 Rolovich recruits)

Rolovich Recruits
Oywak 2 offers
Wilkerson 5 offers
Fa'aome 1 offer
Pettway 4 offers
Smith 4 offers
Pule 1 offer
Muhahid 1 offer
Watson 6 offers
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BleedCrimsonandGray
I found the recent recruiting discussion about Power 5 offers instead of stars interesting, so I compiled some data based on the incoming recruiting class based on Power 5 offers.

Total Power 5 Offers
ath- Buchanan 3-Oregon St, Arizona
g- Kylany 2- ASU
g- Mayginnes 1
ot- Ripley 1
ot- Tialavea 4 Arizona, Tenn, Virginia
ot- McNorton 2 Oregon St
qb- de Laura 3 Ohio St, USC
wr- Wilkerson 5 Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma St
wr- Hobert 1
wr- Pettway 4 Indiana, Virginia, Louisville
wr- Pellum 3 Indiana, Kansas
cb- Oywak 2 Arizona
cb- Anderson 4 Utah, BC, Iowa State
cb- Smith 4 Pitt, Purdue, Temple
cb- Watson 6 USC, Arizona, Oregon St, Louisville, Kentucky
s- Escoria 1
s- Ashby 2 Kansas St
sde- Fa'aome 1
sde- Lataiumua 1
sde- Pule 1
sde- Muhahid 1
wde- Freeman 8 Syracuse, West Virginia, Kentucky, BC, Pitt, Louisville, Nebraska
wde- Lopez 2 Minnesota
dt- James 2 Indiana

Players with power 5 8 offers = 1 player (Leach recruit)
6 offers = 1 (1 Rolovich recruit)
5 offers = 1 (Rolovich recruit)
4 offers = 4 players ( 2 Leach and 2 Rolovich)
3 offers = 3 (all were Leach recruits)
2 offers = 6 (all were Leach recruits)
1 offer = 8 (5 Leach recruits, 3 Rolovich recruits)

Rolovich Recruits
Oywak 2 offers
Wilkerson 5 offers
Fa'aome 1 offer
Pettway 4 offers
Smith 4 offers
Pule 1 offer
Muhahid 1 offer
Watson 6 offers
Thanks for the data
 
Great list. Just a few things to clean up. Temple isn't power 5 and Hunter Escoria had an offer to Utah.

I found the recent recruiting discussion about Power 5 offers instead of stars interesting, so I compiled some data based on the incoming recruiting class based on Power 5 offers.

Total Power 5 Offers
ath- Buchanan 3-Oregon St, Arizona
g- Kylany 2- ASU
g- Mayginnes 1
ot- Ripley 1
ot- Tialavea 4 Arizona, Tenn, Virginia
ot- McNorton 2 Oregon St
qb- de Laura 3 Ohio St, USC
wr- Wilkerson 5 Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma St
wr- Hobert 1
wr- Pettway 4 Indiana, Virginia, Louisville
wr- Pellum 3 Indiana, Kansas
cb- Oywak 2 Arizona
cb- Anderson 4 Utah, BC, Iowa State
cb- Smith 4 Pitt, Purdue, Temple
cb- Watson 6 USC, Arizona, Oregon St, Louisville, Kentucky
s- Escoria 1
s- Ashby 2 Kansas St
sde- Fa'aome 1
sde- Lataiumua 1
sde- Pule 1
sde- Muhahid 1
wde- Freeman 8 Syracuse, West Virginia, Kentucky, BC, Pitt, Louisville, Nebraska
wde- Lopez 2 Minnesota
dt- James 2 Indiana

Players with power 5 8 offers = 1 player (Leach recruit)
6 offers = 1 (1 Rolovich recruit)
5 offers = 1 (Rolovich recruit)
4 offers = 4 players ( 2 Leach and 2 Rolovich)
3 offers = 3 (all were Leach recruits)
2 offers = 6 (all were Leach recruits)
1 offer = 8 (5 Leach recruits, 3 Rolovich recruits)

Rolovich Recruits
Oywak 2 offers
Wilkerson 5 offers
Fa'aome 1 offer
Pettway 4 offers
Smith 4 offers
Pule 1 offer
Muhahid 1 offer
Watson 6 offers
 
This is some great stuff. Comments for future research:

- Generally, I'd only include *other* P5 offers. I know it winds up being consistent either way, but adding WSU's P5 offer -- which, by definition, all of them would have, even the worst Wulff-era Big Sky recruit -- has the effect of blunting the overall contrast by creating the wrong denominator, IMO, especially if you're totaling them up and comparing years against each other.

- Jumping the gun here, but to the extent there are going to be comparisons across years, I think the most important thing isn't the sheer number of offers a recruit has, although that can be useful, but instead the % of the class that has at least one other P5 offer, corresponding to the staff beating out its peers, as opposed to Mountain West (or worse) schools, for recruits.

There's all kinds of noise in other offers data (they're self-reported so, among other things, lower-profile recruits might be getting other offers but not reporting them, those who commit early but are locked in may not report them, recruits may confuse or misconstrue a PWO offer or interest as an "offer," an offer can be extended that's conditional or that no longer is committable by the time the recruit commits to WSU, and there can be recruits completely off the radar who just don't get any offers but deserve them, like the kinds of guys Joe used to bring in from Samoa). In general, though, I still think they're the best way we can evaluate recruiting.
 
My only caveat is that you have to be careful about putting too much weight on offers when it comes to early commits. As mentioned by 425, there is a lot of noise that has to be filtered out before the data is all that meaningful. Early commits in particular might not get offers from other schools if they are shutting down conversations fast.

The other thing that we won't know for a few years is whether or not Rolovich and his staff is any good at identifying diamonds in the rough. It's encouraging that Rolovich's 2019 squad was talented enough to beat bad Pac-12 teams. If the talent that he draws is good enough to do that......we will be fine although not "great". Looking back at our schedules under Leach, here is a list of what our records would have been if we are good enough to beat 6-6 Pac-12 teams (or worse) and non Power 5 teams:

2012: 6-6
2013: 5-7 (Leach did an outstanding job with that team getting them to a bowl game)
2014: 4-8
2015: 7-5
2016: 9-3 (what a crap schedule we faced that year...no wonder we struggled against Minnesota)
2017: 7-5
2018: 7-5
2019: 7-5

Total overall record (without bowl games): 52-44. FWIW, Leach was 53-43 at WSU when you don't include bowl games.

If Rolovich can get to the point where we are good enough to beat 7-5 teams and worse, the numbers change to:

2012: 8-4
2013: 6-6
2014: 7-5
2015: 9-3
2016: 9-3
2017: 9-3
2018: 8-4
2019: 10-2

So, if we can be the best of the worst, Rolovich can get pretty close to matching Leach's overall record. If the talent he recruits is good enough to beat teams that have at least four conference losses, he can easily surpass Leach's record at WSU. So, while it's a good idea to look at Power 5 offers to gauge how we are going against our peers, it won't take much for Rolovich to generate a record that he can build his recruiting upon if his ability to evaluate recruits puts us in the position to beat the bad teams in our conference each year.

That list does highlight how special Gardner Minshew was to our program and what a crapshow that Leach inherited overall in 2012.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cr8zyncalif
My only caveat is that you have to be careful about putting too much weight on offers when it comes to early commits. As mentioned by 425, there is a lot of noise that has to be filtered out before the data is all that meaningful. Early commits in particular might not get offers from other schools if they are shutting down conversations fast.

The other thing that we won't know for a few years is whether or not Rolovich and his staff is any good at identifying diamonds in the rough. It's encouraging that Rolovich's 2019 squad was talented enough to beat bad Pac-12 teams. If the talent that he draws is good enough to do that......we will be fine although not "great". Looking back at our schedules under Leach, here is a list of what our records would have been if we are good enough to beat 6-6 Pac-12 teams (or worse) and non Power 5 teams:

2012: 6-6
2013: 5-7 (Leach did an outstanding job with that team getting them to a bowl game)
2014: 4-8
2015: 7-5
2016: 9-3 (what a crap schedule we faced that year...no wonder we struggled against Minnesota)
2017: 7-5
2018: 7-5
2019: 7-5

Total overall record (without bowl games): 52-44. FWIW, Leach was 53-43 at WSU when you don't include bowl games.

If Rolovich can get to the point where we are good enough to beat 7-5 teams and worse, the numbers change to:

2012: 8-4
2013: 6-6
2014: 7-5
2015: 9-3
2016: 9-3
2017: 9-3
2018: 8-4
2019: 10-2

So, if we can be the best of the worst, Rolovich can get pretty close to matching Leach's overall record. If the talent he recruits is good enough to beat teams that have at least four conference losses, he can easily surpass Leach's record at WSU. So, while it's a good idea to look at Power 5 offers to gauge how we are going against our peers, it won't take much for Rolovich to generate a record that he can build his recruiting upon if his ability to evaluate recruits puts us in the position to beat the bad teams in our conference each year.

That list does highlight how special Gardner Minshew was to our program and what a crapshow that Leach inherited overall in 2012.

Flat, that was one of your best posts. Totally understand the logic and thank you for doing the research. And you make a good point, which I'd re-phrase as follows, based on how it fits in my brain:

"If Rolo & staff can identify talent well enough that in any given year we can beat the bottom third to half of the league (bearing in mind that we don't play every south team every year, so that will be a schedule strength variable), and if Rolo & staff coaches well enough to win those games with that talent, then his record is likely to approach CML's. On top of that, a great QB makes a big difference, so that aspect of recruiting becomes a real wild card."

And I loved the sentence, "So, if we can be the best of the worst, Rolovich can get pretty close to matching Leach's overall record". I had never really thought of it that way, but it is like the joke about 2 guys having to outrun a bear. Really, the only job is to outrun the other guy. And being better than the bottom third to half of the league...then coaching well enough to not choke those games...is really the first step...right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flatlandcoug
My only caveat is that you have to be careful about putting too much weight on offers when it comes to early commits. As mentioned by 425, there is a lot of noise that has to be filtered out before the data is all that meaningful. Early commits in particular might not get offers from other schools if they are shutting down conversations fast.

The other thing that we won't know for a few years is whether or not Rolovich and his staff is any good at identifying diamonds in the rough. It's encouraging that Rolovich's 2019 squad was talented enough to beat bad Pac-12 teams. If the talent that he draws is good enough to do that......we will be fine although not "great". Looking back at our schedules under Leach, here is a list of what our records would have been if we are good enough to beat 6-6 Pac-12 teams (or worse) and non Power 5 teams:

2012: 6-6
2013: 5-7 (Leach did an outstanding job with that team getting them to a bowl game)
2014: 4-8
2015: 7-5
2016: 9-3 (what a crap schedule we faced that year...no wonder we struggled against Minnesota)
2017: 7-5
2018: 7-5
2019: 7-5

Total overall record (without bowl games): 52-44. FWIW, Leach was 53-43 at WSU when you don't include bowl games.

If Rolovich can get to the point where we are good enough to beat 7-5 teams and worse, the numbers change to:

2012: 8-4
2013: 6-6
2014: 7-5
2015: 9-3
2016: 9-3
2017: 9-3
2018: 8-4
2019: 10-2

So, if we can be the best of the worst, Rolovich can get pretty close to matching Leach's overall record. If the talent he recruits is good enough to beat teams that have at least four conference losses, he can easily surpass Leach's record at WSU. So, while it's a good idea to look at Power 5 offers to gauge how we are going against our peers, it won't take much for Rolovich to generate a record that he can build his recruiting upon if his ability to evaluate recruits puts us in the position to beat the bad teams in our conference each year.

That list does highlight how special Gardner Minshew was to our program and what a crapshow that Leach inherited overall in 2012.

So now that you've typed that it begs the question... what are your expectations for Rolo? 3 year? 5 year? Beyond?
 
Flat, that was one of your best posts. Totally understand the logic and thank you for doing the research. And you make a good point, which I'd re-phrase as follows, based on how it fits in my brain:

"If Rolo & staff can identify talent well enough that in any given year we can beat the bottom third to half of the league (bearing in mind that we don't play every south team every year, so that will be a schedule strength variable), and if Rolo & staff coaches well enough to win those games with that talent, then his record is likely to approach CML's. On top of that, a great QB makes a big difference, so that aspect of recruiting becomes a real wild card."

And I loved the sentence, "So, if we can be the best of the worst, Rolovich can get pretty close to matching Leach's overall record". I had never really thought of it that way, but it is like the joke about 2 guys having to outrun a bear. Really, the only job is to outrun the other guy. And being better than the bottom third to half of the league...then coaching well enough to not choke those games...is really the first step...right?
And winning the AC...
 
The other thing with other offers (and stars or rankings) is that the numbers can be misleading. Don't want to make this a novel, but the most important thing is having a two-deep of legitimate Pac-12 players and at least some guys with difference-making talent, and keeping most of those guys healthy. Leach could win with that. It remains to be seen whether Rolovich can, but it's not as simple as just counting other offers, stars, and rankings, and finding that the team with more of all those things has more talent in a way that's actionable.

E.g., if UW, USC, or UCLA stacks up 4-star QBs with 8 other offers each every single year and has four of those guys on the roster, that's great, but comparing those guys to players like Falk, Minshew, or Gordon, who essentially had no other offers between them, overstates the case in terms of relative talent, provided the WSU starter stays healthy and is on the field. There only are so many reps available, whether it's to one of four 4-stars lined up at a position or WSU's upperclassman 3-star who has developed.

Some of the talent disparity can be overcome through development (and purposeful effort and luck in keeping players healthy), to the extent players with more offers or higher rankings are simply more developed at age 17 but can be caught up with. Sometimes the players with more offers and better rankings have skills or talent that just can't be taught or overcome, so we'll always have an uphill battle against at least 75% of the conference, but the situation isn't quite as dire as just looking at general quantitative measures of "talent" defined by recruiting rankings would imply. I write all of this with about as much of a quantitative bent, and with as much of a focus on the importance of talent, as anyone.
 
Last edited:
The other thing with other offers (and stars or rankings) is that the numbers can be misleading. Don't want to make this a novel, but the most important thing is having a two-deep of legitimate Pac-12 players and at least some guys with difference-making talent, and keeping most of those guys healthy. Leach could win with that. It remains to be seen whether Rolovich can, but it's not as simple as just counting other offers, stars, and rankings, and finding that the team with more of all those things has more talent in a way that's actionable.

E.g., if UW, USC, or UCLA stacks up 4-star QBs with 8 other offers each every single year and has four of those guys on the roster, that's great, but comparing those guys to players like Falk, Minshew, or Gordon, who essentially had no other offers between them, overstates the case in terms of relative talent, provided the WSU starter stays healthy and is on the field. There only are so many reps available, whether it's to one of four 4-stars lined up at a position or WSU's upperclassman 3-star who has developed.

Some of the talent disparity can be overcome through development (and purposeful effort and luck in keeping players healthy), to the extent players with more offers or higher rankings are simply more developed at age 17 but can be caught up with. Sometimes the players with more offers and better rankings have skills or talent that just can't be taught or overcome, so we'll always have an uphill battle against at least 75% of the conference, but the situation isn't quite as dire as just looking at general quantitative measures of "talent" defined by recruiting rankings would imply. I write all of this with about as much of a quantitative bent, and with as much of a focus on the importance of talent, as anyone.
Player development cannot be emphasized enough as to how important it is, especially for a program like ours. CMP and staff were excellent at this. I suspect Rolo might be as well. Fingers crossed.
 
This conversation is probably also a good point to note that the differences between the bad old days when there were no scholarship limits and SC would simply sign everybody, to the 95 player era, to the 85 player era, have all had the effect of distributing available talent and making it critical that the SC's of the world have to evaluate their kids. They can't simply over-sign and be sure that somebody would work out. The SC's of the world also have tremendous alum interest in "winning" the recruiting battle by having more stars, so there is a real and almost irresistible tendency by coaches at top programs to ignore what they see and go with the "safe" recruit (i.e., the one with more stars), even if a 3 star looks a little better to them when seen side by side with a 4 star.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 425cougfan
So now that you've typed that it begs the question... what are your expectations for Rolo? 3 year? 5 year? Beyond?

At this point, I will be a little surprised if WSU wins the Pac-12 North with Rolovich as coach but if we do, it's not going to be with any consistency. I'm just not getting that vibe. I think that Rolovich is a great guy for the WSU job and that he can get us to bowl games 2 out of every 3 years and maybe slightly better than that. I believe that Leach installed an overall culture of success and that we will be better than we looked last year. That will help Rolovich be successful at WSU.

I fully expect that Rolovich does not view the WSU job as his dream job and that he will be gone if he has any real success. If I were a betting man, I don't believe that he will be our coach in 2025. My gut feel is that we do well enough under Rolovich and he gets hired away. I'm not sure that we will have the resources to keep that from happening.
 
At this point, I will be a little surprised if WSU wins the Pac-12 North with Rolovich as coach but if we do, it's not going to be with any consistency. I'm just not getting that vibe. I think that Rolovich is a great guy for the WSU job and that he can get us to bowl games 2 out of every 3 years and maybe slightly better than that. I believe that Leach installed an overall culture of success and that we will be better than we looked last year. That will help Rolovich be successful at WSU.

I fully expect that Rolovich does not view the WSU job as his dream job and that he will be gone if he has any real success. If I were a betting man, I don't believe that he will be our coach in 2025. My gut feel is that we do well enough under Rolovich and he gets hired away. I'm not sure that we will have the resources to keep that from happening.
So to be clear, those are your predictions but do they align with your expectations? What does success under Rolo look like to you? Failure?
 
So to be clear, those are your predictions but do they align with your expectations? What does success under Rolo look like to you? Failure?

To me, a minimum acceptable standard at WSU is any coach whose teams make it to bowl games more often than not and as long as we are making a bowl game most years at WSU, you keep the coach. Longer term, competing for a Pac-12 North title every 3-4 years would be great. Failure is any time you fail to compete for a bowl game over half the time.

Mike Price would be a failure by that metric, but I believe that the landscape has changed to the point where WSU would compete more often. Also, we aren't playing body bag games the way that we used to. 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1996 were seasons that would have resulted in bowl trips in today's environment. 1991 would have been close depending on who we got to play in our extra game. On top of that, the extra exposure and bowl practices from having a successful team from 1992 to 1997 would have likely meant that 1998 & 1999 may not have been the mess that they were. So, I believe that Price would have been successful by my standard in today's environment.

So, for me, I would give Rolovich a pass if we don't make a bowl game in year one. If we haven't been to a bowl game by year three, it's pretty much game over in my opinion. Success will be competing for the Pac-12 North title in year three. He gets a statue if he can get us into the Rose Bowl and doesn't leave for Alabama.
 
ADVERTISEMENT