Recruiting: The myth of “showing it on the field.”

It wasn’t a surprise that Chris Steele (4-star, 39th national rank) or Jahleel Billingsley (4-star, 294th national rank) decided to go to USC and Alabama. And it isn’t a shock that Derek Stingley (5-star, 15th national rank) chose LSU, that Mycah Pittman (4-star, 69th national rank) appears to be leaning towards Oregon or that Ethan Rae (4-star, 243rd national rank) seems like a 50/50 battle with USC.

Fans could point to Steele, Billingsley, Stingley, Pittman and Rae and explain away their commitments elsewhere on being out of state. Steele, Rae and Pittman are from California, so USC and Oregon make sense. Stingley is from Louisiana. Billingsley requires a little more dexterity as he is going from Illinois to Alabama, but you could explain it as the Tide were the only team that could have pulled him out of the Big 10.

But what about the commitment of John Dunmore (4-star, 107th national rank) to Penn State? Dunmore is from Hollywood, Florida.

With all of the out of state recruits going elsewhere, fans have increased the criticism of Mullen. Their biggest area of consternation has been the focus on players 2,500 miles away at the expense of players 350 miles away like Dunmore.

That’s the opportunity cost with this type of high variance strategy. Deliver on those out of state players and Mullen would look like a recruiting boss, doing something even Urban Meyer struggled with during his time in Gainesville. But the downside is significant.

But that criticism of Mullen has been met with a significant backlash. Refrains of “the recruits will come when Mullen is able to show what he can do on the field” and “you’re not a real fan if you’re already criticizing the coach before he’s even coached a game” have become the response to what I view as well thought out, statistically-backed criticisms.

But maybe that is a fair criticism back at the recruitniks? It does make sense that success on the field would lead to recruiting momentum.

A couple of weeks ago, I provided some evidence, albeit limited, that winning on the field did not translate to significant increases in recruit quality for that cycle. But that was also an admittedly small sample size.

But I want to be sure that opinion is backed by the data, so I looked further into the numbers to see what’s there.

Does increased winning on the field improve recruit quality?

The answer to this fairly simple question gets complicated fast. There are limited examples of coaches taking over programs the quality of Florida after a significant down period and having immediate success on the field.

Oh wait, that isn’t true at all. In fact, the last guy at Florida did the same thing. And if you look at just his numbers, you might be convinced that there is something to this after all.

Recruiting of coaches hired from 2014-2017 split prior to August 1 and after. (Will Miles/Read and Reaction)

For this study, I looked at all 4-year recruits (no Juco transfers) for the second-year class of coaches who showed an increase in wins from their predecessor who took over programs since 2014. I then averaged their national recruiting rankings according to 247Sports composite for those who committed before and after August 1.

Ironically enough, McElwain is probably the example Florida fans should point to if on-field performance is a recruiting pied piper. He really struggled prior to August 1, with an average ranking over 700. And it looks like his 10-4 record paid dividends, as the average after August 1 dropped to 350. But those numbers get skewed significantly by Kyle Trask (ranked 2126), who committed on July 26. Had Trask committed on August 2, McElwain’s numbers would be 567 before August 1 and 511 after.

This doesn’t invalidate the August 1 date or this exercise. Instead, it suggests that we need a larger sample so that one recruit doesn’t skew the numbers. And when we look at the overall numbers, there is a slight increase in recruit quality after August 1 than prior for 130 total recruits on each side.

So this means that on-field performance actually does increase recruit quality, right? Well, this is where it gets complicated (and to be honest, I haven’t had time to do enough research).

I’ve only had time to look at two coaches who had worse records in their first year than their predecessor: Charlie Strong at Texas and Matt Rhule at Baylor.

Second-year recruiting for Charlie Strong and Matt Rhule at Texas and Baylor, respectively. (Will Miles/Read and Reaction)

Texas scored 29 points per game and had an 8-5 record under Mack Brown in 2013. In 2014, Strong went 6-7 with an offense that scored 21 points per game. Yet the quality of his recruits went up after August 1.

Rhule took over perhaps the worst situation in the country, coming to Baylor in the wake of a nasty sexual assault scandal. Nowhere in the country should have been harder to recruit than Baylor (deservedly so), yet Rhule improved recruiting 10 spots from his transition class (40 to 30). This was in-line with where Baylor was under Art Briles (25th in 2014 and 36th in 2015).

If there was anywhere where it was important to have a decent performance on the field, it was Baylor. Baylor tanked, going 1-11 in 2017 after having gone 7-6 the year prior. Yet, Rhule’s recruits had the exact same ranking prior to August 1 as afterwards. In fact, three of his six blue-chip players committed after the season was over.

While I haven’t gone through all of the coaches who lost more games than won by the year before by their predecessor, I think this is instructive. It looks like I was incorrect in my assessment a couple of weeks ago. There is a slight uptick in recruit performance after August 1, but I’m not sure it’s due to what happened on the field so much as it is that there is just an uptick across the board.

If we look at the timing of the recruits for all of the coaches who saw improved records, the reason for this becomes clearer.

Number of commits by ranking prior to August 1 and after. (Will Miles/Read and Reaction)

Less top-100 players have committed after August 1 than before for these particular coaches. So it doesn’t look like on-field performance is really impacting the elite-of-the-elite.

Instead, what we see is the top-200 players seem to commit later. This may be because they were waiting to see on-field performance. But I tend to believe it is more because they want to navigate their situation so they are not stuck deep on the depth chart.

Current percentage of players committed based on recruiting ranking, as of June 24, 2018. (Will Miles/Read and Reaction)

The same is true for this year, as only 34 percent of the recruits ranked between 150-200 have committed while more than 48 percent have committed in the other bins.

What this means for Florida

What this means for Florida is that the Gators have a lot of work to do for the 2019 cycle. Mullen has an average recruit ranking of 497.9 for 11 recruits.

Let’s say he killed it on the trail from here on out and signed recruits ranked 150 to 163. That would bring his average recruit ranking to 306.7, right in line with Herman’s second year. But Herman (3rd ranked class) had more top-100 talent, so Mullen’s 247Sports score would only be 270.9. Over the past three years that would have been the 9th ranked class.

But that is the absolute ceiling. If Mullen “only” sees the 50.7 percent bump that McElwain had from August 1 to national signing day (the biggest on the list), that takes his average recruit ranking to 360.4. That’s much closer to Ed Orgeron’s second class at LSU, ranked 15th.

And what if Mullen just sees the average bump (15.5%)? Well, that reduces his average recruit ranking to 455, which probably puts the class in the 17-20 range. For fans who thought McElwain’s recruiting was poor, that’s an absolute dumpster fire.

I don’t think that’s likely. I can’t imagine that Mullen is such a bad recruiter that this holds up for much longer. I suspect he’s going to get a couple of elite recruits to commit during Friday Night Lights, which will not only bring his averages way down, but will quiet the masses for at least a while. Then those percentage increases make things look a lot better, which is why I’ve advocated for not judging his recruiting until after July is over.

But the point remains, Mullen’s going to have to sell the program and sell himself prior to doing anything on the field. Unfortunately for Mullen, the statistics indicate that – at least for the 2019 class – what happens on the field will have much less of an effect than how he sells it prior to ever setting foot on it.

And that – quite frankly – is a reasonable expectation. Tom Herman took over a situation more difficult than the one Mullen is inheriting at Florida. Texas is the flagship school in the state and is used to competing for championships. But the Longhorns had fallen on hard times (44-44 from 2010-2016) and struggled under Charlie Strong. Texas A&M joined the SEC and became a major competitor for recruits and funds. Oklahoma directly north was a Big 12 power.

Yet, Tom Herman immediately made a difference in his second year on the recruiting trail, signing 19 blue-chip recruits in 2018, 11 of them before he ever set foot on the field.

Is it difficult? Yes it is, but it’s the expectation at a flagship program.

Takeaway

I’ve watched on Twitter the last couple of days and wondered why there has been such vitriol spewed in the direction of people who love the Florida program, but have shown legitimate concern about its direction (note: I’m not talking about people who are already calling for firings).

The only thing I can come up with is that when you have no facts to support your argument, your only recourse is to insult the people who do. You label them “whiners” and tell them they’re not “true fans”. You mock them by telling them “it’s only July” and “all that matters is what happens on the field”.

After all, it sounds great to say that recruits won’t commit until they see an improved offense and the stands are filled again. It sounds about as good as people who say they’d prefer a 3-star recruit over a 5-star recruit because the 3-star has had to work harder to get where he is.

The problem is, neither one is true.

Investing in your buddy’s start-up venture because you believe in him and understand what he’s doing is wise.  Investing in it only because you believe in him is questionable.

I can’t fully buy into Mullen right now because I don’t understand his approach. I don’t like the focus out of state. I’m concerned that in-state players are now getting pulled out of state. I haven’t agreed with his decision to stick with the QBs he has in his room. And it doesn’t appear that he’s overly concerned with star-rankings, despite their historical reliability.

I hope I’m wrong. I love Florida football and it’s a lot more fun to write positive things about it. But to ask me (and others) to not be critical is asking me to invest in Mullen without understanding his approach, and that’s not something I’m prepared to do.

Others believe differently and that is fine. I don’t agree with their position but I can respect it. However, I am not going to allow them to belittle those of us who put a significant amount of work into making sure that our arguments are fact-based and supported by evidence.

If they can produce evidence-backed arguments that support their position, I’m happy to re-evaluate my opinion. Those are the rules of engagement.

In the meantime, there’s likely one thing upon which we can all agree. September can’t come fast enough.

FEATURED IMAGE USED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE FROm Stevenm_61