Bill Sikes: The 5-star nerd breaks down the current state of Gators recruiting

On a recent episode of Gators Breakdown, I shared a research project I’ve been working on.  After witnessing so much angst and argument over the state of UF’s  2019 recruiting class, I wanted to come up with some factually-based analysis. Just keep in mind that the goal here is not to outline what is possible – anything is possible – but rather to look at history to understand what is probable. With that said, I’m rooting for Dan Mullen to buck the trends shown below and I’ll be impressed should he be able to do so.

Summary of Research

Since 2005, there have been 132 Power-5 conference head coaching hires, including 11 who – similar to Mullen – have yet to coach a game. I examined multiple metrics from each coach’s first three seasons to hopefully paint a complete picture about what is historically necessary to win nationally and in the SEC. The metrics included were the following:

• Win/loss record during the year prior to the coach’s arrival
• Win/loss record for each coach’s first three years at the program
• Eight different recruiting metrics for each of their first three recruiting classes

The goal was to understand how new head coaches recruit in their transition class (first year), their bump class (year two) and after their first full season of coaching (year three).

But why in the world is it called a “bump class”?

Since coaches are typically fired (or leave for other jobs) around the end of the college football season or shortly after, their incoming replacements usually join the recruiting fray with little time to build a class. This short-time effort is a whirlwind of hiring coaches, evaluating prospects who committed to play for the previous staff, and searching under every rock for recruits who are willing to play for a coach they don’t yet know all that well.  Since the chaos that ensues is directly related to the transfer of power between coaches, these first classes are commonly known as “transition” classes.

Once the transition class is signed and official however, the new coach enters a very special time in recruiting for his new school. Unlike when he showed up late in pursuit of the first class, he (and his now-completed staff) has a full year to evaluate, recruit, and build relationships with prospects. Also, since the coach has yet to coach a game, he won’t have to worry about explaining any potential on-field struggles until well into this second recruiting cycle. And even if his team does struggle, it’s an easy, plausible sell to explain that 1) the program is in disarray because of the last guy, 2) it won’t be that way for long, and 3)  there’s not only playing time available, but “…we believe you’re the guy we can build this team around!”.  Oh it’s a grand ole’ time indeed, with built-in excuses aplenty for when the rival coaches talk bad about you to recruits. Historically, this almost always results in a second class that has has more recruits, better recruits, and higher recruiting class rankings.  These statistical increases comprise the overall quality “bump” that the term “bump class” refers to. As we dive into my research below, I’ll explain just how big that bump typically is, how important it has been to recent SEC champion coaches, and what this all means to Dan Mullen’s 2019 recruiting class.

The significance of bump classes

About 79% of all Power-5 coaching hires see a national rankings increase between their first and second classes. On average, a coach’s bump class is ranked 8.3 spots higher than their first in the national rankings and 1.5 spots higher in conference. The overall average transition class is ranked 40th and the average bump class is ranked 31st (a 22 percent improvement).

This percentage is actually a little higher in the SEC, as second classes rose only 6 spots on average – from roughly 24th to 18th – but represent an improvement of 25 percent (since 1st and 2nd year classes are ranked higher in the SEC than the national average). Based on this, a reasonable expectation for Mullen’s transition class would be a finish of 10th or 11th, as a 25 percent improvement would be 10.5.

Of course, that does ignore Gators history, as previous UF coaches since Steve Spurrier have seen their classes improve by  9 spots, from 13.5 to 4.5, an improvement of 67 percent. If Mullen were to maintain this average, his 2019  class would finish with a national ranking of 4th or 5th.

Additionally, the 6 future SEC Championship coaches hired since 2005 saw the following during their bump class:

• An increase of 8.2 spots in the national rankings
• An increase 2.3 spots in the conference rankings
• An average of 2.3 5-star recruits
• An average national ranking of 4.7
• An average conference ranking of 2.3
• An average of 16.8 blue-chips (4 or 5-star recruits) in the class

You only have to look at last year’s SEC Champion for a recent example.  In 2017, Kirby Smart’s bump class at Georgia had a national ranking of third, was ranked second in the conference, had three 5-star recruits and 20 total blue-chip recruits. That obviously included QB Jake Fromm, but also included other major contributors like running back D’Andre Swift and tackle Andrew Thomas.

Importance of bump classes

If you want to fully understand how important bump classes are, consider first that life truly comes at you fast in the SEC.  Dating back to 1990, only two coaches have won their first SEC Championship at a school after their third season: Phillip Fulmer at Tennessee in 1997 (with Peyton Manning at QB) and Tommy Tuberville at Auburn in 2004 (both in their fifth seasons). Each of the 6 future SEC championship coaches hired since 2005 were among those who won the conference in their first three seasons.

While it might seem counterintuitive that a coach would need help from his second recruiting class to win an early championship, that’s exactly what happened with the following bump class-additions:

• Tim Tebow and Percy Harvin from Urban Meyer’s 2006 class at Florida
• Cam Newton from Gene Chizik’s 2010 class at Auburn
• Mark Ingraham from Nick Saban’s 2008 class at Alabama
• Jake Fromm from Kirby Smart’s 2017 class at Georgia

Also, if you’re counting at home, that’s 3 Heisman trophy winners acquired in the bump classes of the last 6 SEC championship-winning coach hires. So yeah, the bump class is a little important. But just how good were the bump classes of these guys? Well, the aforementioned future SEC champion coaches acquired bump classes that averaged:

• 4.7 national class ranking
• 2.3 SEC class ranking
• 2.3 5-star recruits
• 16.8 Total “blue-chips” (4 & 5-star recruits)

Moreover, the lowest-ranked bump class of the six aforementioned coaches  was eighth nationally (Les Miles at LSU in 2005) and every one of them signed at least two 5-star recruits in their first two recruiting cycles. Together, these numbers are why I often suggest that elite recruiting is a historical prerequisite of winning championships in the SEC. And since that’s the goal of Dan Mullen and Gator fans everywhere, let’s now address Coach Mullen’s 2019 recruiting class and the conflagration of debate that surrounds it.

Mullen’s track record: Transition vs bump-class recruiting

When it comes to hitting the ground running, not many Power-5 hires have been better than Dan Mullen. His 2018 transition class at Florida was not only ranked 14th nationally, but had an average player rating of 0.9075, the latter of which was 4th best of all SEC transition classes since 2005 and the 8th best nationally. The only SEC coaches with a higher average player rating in their first classes were Les Miles at LSU, Kirby Smart at Georgia and Ed Orgeron at LSU. Considering that two of the three have won SEC titles, I’d say that puts Mullen in elite company.

But also remember that both UF and Mississippi State were coming off of 4-win seasons when Mullen arrived. When only considering coaches who took over teams with 4-win (or worse) seasons, Mullen has both the second and third best (nationally) ranked transition classes (UF 2018 and MSU 2009) in the SEC since 2005. Only Gus Malzahn achieved better results (10th at Auburn in 2013).  No doubt about it, Mullen appears to be a great transition class recruiter.

But what about the bump class? Well, Mullen’s lone result as a second-year recruiter is a little sketchy. To be fair however, it should first be noted that bringing in a top-10 bump class after a 4-win season is a rare feat. The only Power-5 coaches to accomplish this are Malzahn at Auburn (6th), Rick Neuheisel at UCLA in 2010 (10th) and Hugh Freeze at Ole Mi$$ in 2013 (8th).

This is further clouded by the fact that not many elite programs like Florida have gone through a 4-win season before a coaching transition. The one that did (Auburn) experienced a quick rebound on the recruiting trail.

But then again, Florida could be viewed as a 5-win team if one considers their canceled cupcake game (due to Hurricane Irma) as a likely victory. Doing so positions Mullen for comparison with several other programs of similar prominence, and coaches who got the job done in recruiting their respective bump classes.

• Tom Herman at Texas (3rd)
• Gene Chizik at Auburn (6th)
• Butch Jones at Tennessee (7th)
• Jim Harbaugh at Michigan (8th)

Regardless,  Mullen’s equivalent of bump class game-tape (from Mississippi State) is a bit perplexing. There, he followed up the strong transition class we spoke about above (18th nationally) with a bump class that actually fell to 30th nationally. In fact, Mullen is one of only five Power-5 coaching hires (of 132 total, 121 who have completed a bump class) since 2005 to see recruiting rankings decline in his first three cycles.

• Jerry Kill – Minnesota (2011-2013): 57, 59, and 67
• Kyle Flood – Rutgers (2012-2014): 23, 48, and 56
• Derek Dooley – Tennessee (2010-2012): 7, 14 and 19
• Derek Mason – Vanderbilt (2014-2016): 46, 49 and 54
• Dan Mullen – Mississippi State (2009-2011): 18, 30 and 41

That’s not good company. And while I remain optimistic that the 2019 recruiting effort will rebound significantly, how do you explain it away if Mullen sees bump-class rankings decline at two schools? Or what if his bump class ranks lower than the 12th ranked 2016 effort of the illustrious Jim McElwain? Since I would rather eat boiled ribs than further explore that idea, let’s now turn our attention to one of the central debates that permeates current discussions on UF recruiting:

But doesn’t Mullen have to win first?

Will has done a good job recently of pointing out that winning on the field doesn’t necessarily translate to an immediate, same-cycle uptick in recruiting. While it’s certainly possible that winning will bring a rapid deluge of recruits, I don’t see evidence that winning is a prerequisite to good recruiting.

A popular current narrative says, “UF has had bad seasons, they don’t have offense and there’s been too much coaching turnover. Mullen has to prove it on the field first.” Does history support this?

Well, no. In the 5 seasons from 2008-2012, the University of Tennessee posted win totals of 5, 7, 6, 5 and 5. They hired Lyle Allen “Butch” Jones Jr. as their fourth coach in four years, one month, and four days. He then promptly posted the team’s fourth 5-win season in six years, showing offensive explosion that yielded the following national rankings:

• Total offense – 103rd
• Scoring offense – 94^th
• Passing offense – 109^th

And what did this fireworks show provide in recruiting? A bump class that ranked 7th nationally. This from a team whose fanbase had recently burned mattresses in the street and posted YouTube videos of themselves urinating on Lane Kiffin apparel. The Wildlings rampaged North of the Wall, yet the talking heads of UF media chastise fans for simply expecting a good recruiting class. Nonsense.

Oh, and Tennessee is not alone. In 2009, Steve Sarkisian followed-up an 0-12 season with 5 wins, then ascended from the 75th ranked transition class all the way up to the 19th ranked bump class at Washington.

At Texas, the Longhorns have averaged 6.6 wins in the eight seasons since their 2009 title game loss (the same year Tim Tebow left and the glory days ended at Florida). In that span, Texas has managed no conference championships and only one second place finish in the Big 12, with its past four finishes being 5th, 5th, 6th and 4th. Yet Tom Herman shows up, wins  seven games, and lands the number 3 recruiting class in year two. So no, program adversity does not appear to be the top-10 deal-breaker that some would have you to believe.

Here’s my real concern though. Even if winning is prerequisite, you still have to recruit. In 2009, Mullen only won five games as he turned MSU around, which is completely understandable. His class ranking fell from 18th to 30th, which again is a reasonable outcome if you believe winning has to come first. But in his second season in 2010, he won big, posting 9 wins. That might not sound like much to Gator fans, but the effort met the following benchmarks for MSU:

• First 9+ win total in 11 years
• Second highest win total since 1980
• Second bowl appearance and win in a decade

The effort was truly historic at Mississippi State, yet Mullen’s class ranking plummeted even further in the 3rd cycle (41st nationally). If such a fall followed Mullen’s extraordinary on-field display in 2010 at MSU, why do we assume the recruiting troubles will immediately disappear if he follows suit at Florida?

Will Mullen’s bump arrive in the 3rd class?

While Mullen didn’t see rankings increase in either the 2nd or 3rd classes at MSU, there are a few examples of coaches who have achieved a “3rd class bump”.  More specifically, three coaches have managed a national top-10 recruiting class in their third cycle after being outside the top-10 with their first and second classes:

• Dabo Swinney at Clemson (2009-2011): 36, 27 and 10
• Mark Richt at Miami (2016-2018): 22, 12 and 8
• Steve Spurrier at South Carolina (2005-2007): 18, 33 and 7

So is it possible Mullen follows this path to recruiting success? Sure, but it’s only happened two percent of the time since 2005. Certainly some of the 132 programs examined since 2005 have never had a top-10 class in their history and so that expectation would be unreasonable. But still, to only see three coaches at major programs show a slow build to top-10 classes indicates that we need to hope for a more immediate turnaround.

But UF is in bad shape… right?

Is that turnaround possible? Would any highly-ranked recruit choose UF over other top-schools right now? What can UF possibly offer?  While I fully acknowledge that UF’s football program is dealing with some adversity right now, the desolation narrative is getting a little out of hand. Yes, the facilities need to be upgraded, but the Gators are not Job from the Bible. All is not lost and there really is plenty left to sell. For example, consider that:

• Edward Aschoff noted in an April ESPN article that UF was #5 among all programs in NFL draft picks the past 10 years.
• Yes, UF has had two four-win seasons in the past six years, but it’s also had 11, 10, and 9-win seasons during that time, including two outright eastern division championships and shared third.
• As much as people blame offensive performance for hurting recruiting, UF has only been out of the top-10 in total defense twice since Tebow left (2014, 2017). Are you telling me this isn’t an effective recruiting pitch for defenders and that they’re more concerned with seeing a passing game?

The Great California Adventure: Chasing pyrite

Obviously Coach Mullen and his staff feel fairly comfortable with their sales pitch, as they’ve recently taken it on the road to California. In fact, the west-coast state appears to be a priority for the staff, as they have targeted no less than five of it’s top-30 prospects. After a few of those committed to USC and UF appeared to lose ground on the rest, many fans openly questioned the strategy. To decide whether such concerns are valid, let’s consider a couple of facts:

• According to CFB Data Lab, the median distance from home for 2017 blue-chip SEC recruits was 192 miles. Also, nationally, over 76 percent of blue-chip recruits play college ball within 500 miles of home.
• Since 2002, UF has signed multiple California blue-chip recruits in a single class just once. That was in 2010, when the Gators signed Ronald Powell and Josh Shaw. Shaw promptly returned home.

Here is a list of every California recruit UF has signed in the past 17 recruiting cycles:

While this is certainly an insufficient precedent upon which to head west,  there are some other important things to consider about California recruiting:

1. The transfer of Shaw illustrates the start-to-finish opportunity cost of chasing California/west-coast recruits. It’s not just about allocating more resources to get their commitment. Even if they pick UF, you immediately  start playing defense against programs who have a compelling distance pitch. Even if they do end up signing with your program, you have to keep the players engaged and productive thousands of miles away from their families. Historically, it’s been a costly, low-yield endeavor for Florida.
2. There’s a big difference between out of state recruiting and west-coast/California recruiting. From Gainesville to New Jersey, you’re talking about 1000 miles. From Gainesville to Chris Steele’s hometown of Bellflower, California, it’s over 2300 miles. There’s a huge difference there for travel and the logistics of living away from home.
3. People keep talking about Meyer’s “national” influence on Mullen and the west-coast recruiting, but this is not what Meyer did to build his roster. Meyer’s first two classes were made up of 65 percent and 63 percent in-state kids (as opposed to Mullen’s 45 percent in 2018). Meyer also landed 10 of the Florida top-25 in his 2006 bump class, giving him a Florida foundation which he augmented with out of state talent.
4. UF’s highest rated in-state commit is Wardrick Wilson, the 43rd ranked player in the home state. Wilson is a really good player, and Florida needs a bunch more just like him because FSU and Miami have a combined 14 Florida commits ranked higher. Also, the following eight schools have commitments from Florida recruits ranked higher than Florida’s best: Florida State, Miami, Penn State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Clemson, Georgia and Ohio State.

5. Jim McElwain’s 2017 class matched an in-state high at Florida of 74 percent (tied with Meyer in 2011). I believe that firing Corey Bell, not prioritizing Ja’Juan Seider (who eventually left), then employing a national focus is significantly impacting the recruiting effort. In on-field terms, I’d compare it to the early struggles of a spread-option coach trying to run his system with the old coaches’ pro-style personnel (or vice versa).
6. If Mullen felt things were so bad in-state, then I guess I can understand the 2019 strategy as a temporary retreat. But if this was intentional, in my opinion it was a costly error.

The bottom line on this issue for me is this: If you believe your pitch is strong enough to recruit kids from 2500 miles away, then why are things so bad in-state? Why would you not instead allocate more resources to your backyard, which happens to be the nation’s most-fertile recruiting ground?

Takeaways

None of this means that Mullen won’t succeed at Florida. What it does mean is that there are four possible outcomes.

1. Recruiting picks up, and in a significant way. Mullen is able to secure the commitments of multiple elite recruits and begins to see the tide turn in Florida to deliver a top-10 bump class.
2. Mullen finishes with a bump class considered historically disappointing and wins big anyway because of his on-field acumen. He’s an elite coach and once he shows it, the recruiting floodgates open up a year or two from now.
3. Mullen builds the Florida program slowly, in a more methodical way than has historically been done in the SEC. That’s just his style and it works for him.
4. Mullen continues to struggle with teams that recruit at a level higher than him, just like he did at Mississippi State.

Far be it from me to tell you which outcome will occur. Three of them are positive outcomes for Gators fans, and after some of the stories we’ve heard about Jim McElwain, even the fourth outcome is not altogether horrible.

But historically, new coaches in the SEC win the SEC Championship quickly, have top-tier bump classes and many times recruit Heisman Trophy winners in those classes. If recruiting doesn’t pick up this cycle, Dan Mullen is unlikely to hit those benchmarks.

If he’s able to win anyway, we’re going to have to give him a ton of credit.