Welcome to the HornSports Forum

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our Texas Longhorns message board community.

SignUp Now!

Chalk Talk - Recruiting, and "Year 2"

Coleman Feeley

On the line
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
177
gallery_6706_2_23287.jpg


in Texas Longhorns Football By Coleman Feeley
 
Philosophy changes, dismissals, ‘internal investigations’, and a team’s evolution are all expected with a new coach. It’s also true a certain clause is unofficially written into every contract; “In year two all is forgiven, yet nothing is forgotten.†Assuming a coach doesn’t completely fall on his face in Year 1, his second year is guaranteed. However, that second year is laden with pressure, anxiety, and high expectations.

In Year 2 Coaches usually don’t have their jobs threatened by the administration, but job security in the court of public opinion is a different story. The second year is when judgment is laid. In Year 1, fans split in two groups: ‘Coach was the wrong hire’, or ‘I knew he’d get the program on track’. The public uses Year 2’s outcome to fit their narrative, and in their mind, the opinion becomes fact.

Players that lacked the ‘fine tuning’ to become All-League athletes when a new coach arrives are expected to have a fresh perspective and improved training after a year with new coaches. Superstars are expected to win the Heisman and the new coaches’ recruits are expected, by many fans and analysts, to be starters from day one.

That is all unrealistic.

For example, Texas’ biggest issue this season was, arguably, the offensive line. In the last two years Texas has only signed eight offensive linemen, one of whom has been dismissed and another has graduated. This lack of foresight created many of the problems that Texas fans have witnessed as of late.

This year’s signing class contains six offensive linemen, including several Junior College players who have potential to contribute right away. This commitment to linemen demonstrates that Coach Strong has identified problems with his team and is addressing those problems immediately as well as ensuring the solidity of the unit down the road. However, the majority of these commits will fill the role for which they were recruited several years from now after some essential development has occurred. From a long term perspective, fans should be excited that Coach Strong appears to be building a rock solid foundation for his team rather than taking quick shortcuts designed to win games right away.

When signing college recruits coaches prioritize positions and players years in advance – what is happening today has been planned for at least a year. As a college coach (especially at a program the caliber of Texas), the expectation is that only three or four of the current year’s signees will contribute on the field in the coming year, and furthermore, coaches expect none of the signees to start…that is if they are recruiting properly.

The NCAA and the NFL have an extremely close relationship due to the fact that the NCAA is essentially a farm league for the NFL. Unlike the NBA, MLB, or even the NHL, minor leagues do not carry much significance, nor do high school players make the jump to playing professionally. Professional football requires both technical and physical development, and those things are expected to happen while an athlete is in college. This development is ultimately overseen by, and most often accredited to, the program’s head coach.

However, unlike the NFL, most college recruits are signed to eventually fill gaps in a depth chart. Teams will always sign superb athletes regardless of how deep they are at any given position, yet they will be unlikely to sign athletes at a position where younger superstars currently reside.

With that said, of course there are always teams that start true freshman! Nonetheless, those freshmen are seldom held to the same standard as a junior, senior, or even a sophomore.

Coveted recruits (the college equivalent of a ‘first rounder’) don’t always need to come in and make a direct impact from the beginning, nor should they have to. The harsh reality is that most ‘five star athletes’ who walk onto a college campus are regarded as nothing more than rookies; rookies that are subject to hazing and public ridicule (in this writer's experience, singing “Umbrella†by Rhianna to the Women’s Soccer and Volleyball teams at lunch).

Joining a program with a new coaching regime is difficult. While it is understood that new recruits are coach’s “guysâ€, those players must understand that the team they joined is full of talented athletes - young men who already experienced being a rookie. Veteran players in a locker room are hungry to play, and exceedingly determined not to let “the rookie†take their spot.

Being the first recruiting class of a new coach is not only thrilling, it is uplifting. The thought that a coach wants to build his team’s foundation with his players is a truly amazing feeling, however, the reality is still that only contributors remain the ‘Coach’s Guys’. 

 
Good stuff Coleman! It'll be fun to watch this class of recruits, especially the JCs. See if they can have an immediate impact.

 
Not to pick nits, Coleman, but isn't signing juco players a "quick fix" to fill needs? I know we're doing it out of necessity, but it hasn't been our MO under Mack or any other UT coach. I don't consider it a long-term strategy, anyway.

 
JB, I think Snyder has shown how it can be done successfully and consistently. I doubt, no I know, we'll never get to the degree he has there at KSU. But sometimes due to circumstances that arise, a quick fix is what you need.

Nice work, Coleman. Very enjoyable read.

 
Not to pick nits, Coleman, but isn't signing juco players a "quick fix" to fill needs? I know we're doing it out of necessity, but it hasn't been our MO under Mack or any other UT coach. I don't consider it a long-term strategy, anyway.

There are a couple of junior college players committed - maybe 10-15% of the total. I'm not Coleman, but my interpretation is that since Strong is signing 85-90% high school recruits, that he's clearly building with an eye to the future. If the percentages were reversed, then I'd call it a quick fix.

IMO, mixing in a few junior college guys plays directly into having open competition daily at practice. The surest way to make a high school standout better is to make him compete against someone older/more mature (physically) than him (and likely equally talented). And if those JUCO players make your team better in the short-term, then it's win-win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For a great many D1 teams recruiting JCs is a way of filling holes created by the normal loss of players, dismissals, and mistakes in recruiting in the first place. I don't think anyone should view bringing in JCs as anything but a smart move to make sure we have the strength, maturity and experience needed at each position. JCs fill holes on almost every D1 team, every year and some turn out to be great players. Charlie is not trying to fix his team quickly, but rather using a stop gap measure to stay somewhat cometitive while permanently "fixing" his team through better high school recruiting. Think of it as using every tool at his disposal to make his team a winner, short and long term.

 
Not to pick nits, Coleman, but isn't signing juco players a "quick fix" to fill needs? I know we're doing it out of necessity, but it hasn't been our MO under Mack or any other UT coach. I don't consider it a long-term strategy, anyway.
You could technically say a Junior College player is a 'quick-fix', but only on the condition that their maximum possible time on campus is 3 years. JUCO's should never be viewed as a 'band-aid' or a 'half-assed' fix because there are some recruits (5 year guys) who never really contribute on the field for more than 2 years.

The Mac Brown era has portrayed Junior College transfers in a somewhat negative fashion, but in reality some of the best college players ever were JUCO guys. Cordell Patterson at Tennessee, Jason Pierre Paul at South Florida, Daniel Thomas at K-State, Keyshawn Johnson at USC, and even Cam Newton (yes, I'm aware why he transferred from Florida...).

 
You could technically say a Junior College player is a 'quick-fix', but only on the condition that their maximum possible time on campus is 3 years. JUCO's should never be viewed as a 'band-aid' or a 'half-assed' fix because there are some recruits (5 year guys) who never really contribute on the field for more than 2 years.

The Mac Brown era has portrayed Junior College transfers in a somewhat negative fashion, but in reality some of the best college players ever were JUCO guys. Cordell Patterson at Tennessee, Jason Pierre Paul at South Florida, Daniel Thomas at K-State, Keyshawn Johnson at USC, and even Cam Newton (yes, I'm aware why he transferred from Florida...).

The Horns could use Cordarelle Patterson. Dude was a beast at UTenn.

 
The Mack Brown era has portrayed Junior College transfers in a somewhat negative fashion, but in reality some of the best college players ever were JUCO guys. Cordell Patterson at Tennessee, Jason Pierre Paul at South Florida, Daniel Thomas at K-State, Keyshawn Johnson at USC, and even Cam Newton (yes, I'm aware why he transferred from Florida...).
Yeah, I guess I've always viewed juco guys somewhat negatively. Either as guys with character issues or grade problems. I suppose that's the wrong way to look at them because a percentage are just late-bloomers.

I'll keep an open mind. Vasser, Nickelson, & Hodges appear to be good kids.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom