Recruiting Heuristics and Best Guesses

Submitted by LSA Superstar on

Like many of you, I study recruiting too closely. I have for years. And in this time I've begun to notice patterns that tend to emerge that I use to predict recruiting commitments.

I don't know if I'm better or worse than the next guy but at least there's method to my madness. Here are my three "Recruiting Heuristics:"

1.) If a kid has been "heavily favored" somewhere for a long time without a commitment, he's unlikely to end up there. An explanation for this phenomenon might be that you're waiting around for something better.

2.) Late-game inexplicable "surprise visits" tend to be motivated to goad the bagmen into visiting. Beware the surprise LSU visitor. Leonard Fournette wasn't coming to Michigan, guys. But who can blame scheduling a free vacation in order to get paid a couple G's to skip it? No judgment here.

3.) If you think in terms of "tiers of program prestige," you rarely pick a school more than one tier down from your most prestigious offer. Kids might sometimes turn down Michigan for State or Nebraska. Kids rarely turn down Michigan for Rutgers, say.

Obviously, there are tons of exceptions. These aren't hard and fast rules. But in my experience they'll rarely steer you wrong.

So what does this mean for our targets?

High on: Marshall (rule 1), R. Smith (rule 1), Burnett (rule 3), Adams (rule 3)

Low on: Clark (rule 1), Wheatley (rule 1, although that may not apply here), Jefferson (rule 2).

Thoughts? What are your "rules?"

AAB

January 31st, 2015 at 2:55 PM ^

Stars matter.  A 5 star is more likely to be an all-conference player and a high draft pick than a 4 star, and a 4 star is more likely than a 3 star.  There's a huge margin of error with any individual recruit, but on balance recruiting rankings are decent predictors of college performance.  

Zarniwoop

January 31st, 2015 at 2:45 PM ^

I see your points but number 1 is backwards in my experience. I don't see us being in on any of the big names but clark (40%) and wheatley (no idea what he's up to).

 

End of the day we will get primarily 3stars and maybe 1 or two more 4 stars if we are very lucky.

Don

January 31st, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^

I think it would be potentially interesting to see how other Power 5 programs have done with new coaching staffs who've had the small amount of time JH & Co. have had. What we're seeing here right now might be very normal for new staffs: if you've got less than a month to recruit to a program that's been struggling in the recent memories of the kids you're going after, you're likely to find it hard to get the quality of kids you want, especially if many of your targets are in other regions of the country.

turtleboy

January 31st, 2015 at 2:49 PM ^

Interesting points. I'm not sure about the tiers argument, though. The most common theme among all recruits is kids stay at or close to home. Most teams lock down their home state first. Clowney stayed in South Carolina, Stephon Diggs stayed in Maryland, Dorial Green-Beckham stayed in Missouri, Quin Blanding stayed in Virginia, Damian Prince stayed in Maryland, Robert Crisp at NC State, Sheldon Richardson at Mizzou, etc. All these kids were consensus 5 star prospects who could've played anywhere in the country with bagmen buying them cars and more for their signature, but they played for schools several tiers below their top offers.

UMaD

January 31st, 2015 at 2:53 PM ^

1.  I think most of the time the leans end up committing. (e.g., Chris Bryant, Will Campbell, Blake Countess).  Maybe if we are talking about 3 stars, it is more likely.  I feel like few kids are uncommited but "waiting around for something better".  If you're going that route, you probably committed somewhere else to reserve your spot and then when the 'better' offer comes along you reconsider things.

2.  The 'bagmen' hypothesis seems very weak for visits that happen. Petty skepticism.  A lot of kids feel uncertainty at this kind of huge decision, so some (I assume most) are very legitimate interests if they bother to take the time.  Others are just using the schools for a free vacation.  Hopefully that's the case with Clark and UCLA.  If you are talking about aborted visits...maybe you're on to something.  If you're applying to Jefferson -- why not Marshall?

3.  Too many exceptions here to make this a worthwhile heuristic.  Prestige matters, so does weather, academics, playing time, freinds, proximity to home, etc.  Prestige is a huge factor in recruiting but far from the only one.  I don't even know how we can make this projection when Michigan just through out offers to kids from schools like Texas Tech and got shot down.

Here is one of mine:

1. Beware of projections on people that don't talk to the media.  This is classic echo-chamber inducement.  Some of you remember the Rojo saga and that was a classic example.  Kid who never said anything and everyone assumed he would fall to Michigan.  After the fact he made it clear that he was very much about USC for a while.  This season -->  Nobody has any clue what Wheatley is thinking so all we can really go on are his visits.

 

 

Tater

January 31st, 2015 at 3:40 PM ^

I definitely agree with the "bagman" theory.  It was the first thing that came to mind when kids scheduled visits and suddenly unscheduled them.  I am still waiting for the NCAA to do the right thing and let kids take money so that Michigan can play on a level field with the dirty programs.

Nicholasgoblue

January 31st, 2015 at 5:42 PM ^

If your eluding to inconsequential money's being allotted to players; I totally agree. If your speaking of expediently large amounts on money; I couldn't disagree more. If that day ever comes (please Lord no!) CFB will be ruined for sure!

UMaD

January 31st, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^

Adams - Prestige should trump loyalty here.  UM chances >60%

Clark - M is closer to home, loyalty, tradition vs...weather & hotties.  UM chances ~60%

Burnett - Visit is huge. Not just a matter of prestige, but Pullman is awful.  Time to make the pitch.  UM chances >50%

Jefferson - Loyalty not an issue it seems.  Recruiting has been very "SEC-focused" so far.  Depends on how 'home' UM is to him.  UM chances >30%

Wheatley - Nobody knows anything but buzz is he wants to blaze his own trail.   UM chances ~25%

R.Smith - Interest and Durkin relationship seem legit, but home is down south.  UM chances <25%

Marshall - Has gone dark so uncertainty here plays to UM's advantage. Interest feels authentic, but Cali is home and Dad is a USC fan.  UM chances < 20%

 

Add up these percentages and you get about 3 recruits.  That would be my best guess from this group.  Hopefully others come from elsewhere - it seems the offers are still flying out.

 

BlueKoj

January 31st, 2015 at 4:54 PM ^

I think your Wheatley buzz is wrong and not what I've read. He's at least 50/50 and I'd tend to think UM looks good there. Recent buzz on Marshall is that UM may be even stronger than previously thought. Trojans still lead, but UM is legit threat.

UMaD

January 31st, 2015 at 5:12 PM ^

This was the story before his UM visit:

Wheatley "was visiting with USC coaches on Tuesday. Wheatley Jr., said Alabama, Oregon, USC and UCLA were among his top schools, but his father was just hired as Michigan's running backs coach.

"I don't know, I haven't really looked at them in a while," Wheatley Jr., said of Michigan."

If Wheatley is 50% to Michigan than you have to put the 4 teams that he said were ahead of them in the 10-20% range and make 'other' options next to zero.

Me, I'm saying we really don't know how real his desire to play for his dad or be his own man is.  So pretending we know the kid is silly.  I think the most realistic percentage would be to put each of his top 4 (and MIchigan) at under 20% and allow some room for a surprise.  We just don't know.

 

 

BlueKoj

January 31st, 2015 at 5:28 PM ^

If you listen to Sam Webb or read him, you know that UM is in a good position here. Hiring Sr and Harbaugh changed the game and they've down-played the UM talk purposefully. UM is by no means a lock with Jr, but if Sam thinks its looking decent for UM, then it is. The visit meant a lot, and anything said before that, and before the hire just doesn't matter much...according to Sam.

BlueKoj

January 31st, 2015 at 5:46 PM ^

I said the others have a chance, but also your "blaze his own trail" buzz was old or exaggerated. I think its better than the 25% because if Sam had to pick a leader he would pick UM and said Sr's presence is significant. They're not just one of 4 teams. Again, by no means a UM lock, but by no means just one of 4.

UMaD

January 31st, 2015 at 6:55 PM ^

This isn't exactly science, so I'm not going to start quibbling over decimal points but you said he's "at least 50/50" which , I don't care how much you trust Webb, seems pretty overconfident given Wheatley's statements.

I certainly hope he comes -- anybody with offers from Alabama, USC, Oregon, etc. is a prospect that is exciting and his name will be fun to see again in a Michigan uniform -- but I really don't think people should be remotely surprised if he goes elsewhere.

BlueKoj

January 31st, 2015 at 7:32 PM ^

I can't tell if you're quibbling, but it sort of seems you are. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he went elsewhere. Even "locks" go elsewhere. That's recruiting. But if we're speculating based on "information" then I trust Sam over any article or supposed "buzz" about the kid. He is and has been friends with TW since the 90s. I think he's the guru to listen to on this one (actually on most), and he seems to like UM's chances...so do I. I think your view was more pessimistic than his, and was based on old or exaggerated "buzz."

UMaD

January 31st, 2015 at 8:44 PM ^

Locks aren't supposed to go anywhere else, otherwise it's a mislabel.

I said around 25% (which I consider to mean Michigan leads), you said at least 50% (which is very strong) and then said more than 25% (which is vague but at least sounds close to my stated estimate).  To me 25% and 50% are very different predictions for a guy who is considering 4 or 5 schools (or more).

I'm speculating based on a lack of good information.  I'm a fan of Sam Webb but his info still needs to be taken within the appropriate context.  I'm certainly encouraged by his information because otherwise what I would see would be Wheatley's quotes and I'd put MIchigan's chances at more like 5%.

BlueKoj

January 31st, 2015 at 8:53 PM ^

I wasn't saying UM was a lock. I was saying recruiting is so surprising that "locks" (we both agree there is no such thing) even change last minute to the surprise of many. Since TWJ isn't a lock, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I think at this point the best source (by a lot) is Sam, but of course, he doesn't know, and he says that. I do think he's basing his speculation on "good" information. It seemed you were disagreeing with his statements so I pointed that out.

As for my pure speculation (based on bad info) I don't think 25% would be a lead. I don't think at this point it is between 4 or 5 schools. I would guess its narrowing each day. I think the cancelled OR visit is part of that. I think it's probably mostly about 2 schools of which one is UM. Even if a third school still has a shot it is 10-15% and will likely be rejected to leave his top-2 soon. Even in that scenario if UM leads which Sam seems to feel they do, then its something like 45 - 40 - 15...which is very different from your 25% and one amongst many. It's getting late for "many" to still be in the mix. I think its down to a couple or three and UM leads. 

UMaD

January 31st, 2015 at 10:08 PM ^

You went from over 50% to 40% - dropping your confidence level more than 10% and yet my difference of 15% is "very different" from your prediction.  By your own definition the predictions you have made are "very different".  So, your inconsistency isn't confidence instilling.

I don't know what Sam Webb said as I don't subscribe to Scout and he says a lot of things elsewhere, but typcially things like Wheatley being more likely to come than not filter through to twitter and messageboards.  I'm just going to guess that he said something pretty innocuous like "I like Michigan's chances" which you ran with to jump to conclusions.  Apologies if I got it wrong - again, I don't know everything Sam says.

And honestly, there is a limit to how much I care.  Insiders are interesting and informative but they are also wrong.  Sam seems genuine and full of integrity.  He's my favorite "insider" by a long shot.  But it's still just a bit of evidence until he says something more concrete.  I've been following Michigan recruiting since the 90s and you really just have to take these guys with a grain of salt -- even the good ones.  And with the many outlets being so competitive now, the echo-chamber misinformation is more preveleant than ever.  Now you have random guys on blogs like Ace Williams and Magnus who just take insider info and pawn it off as their own "updates" without any direct sources whatsoever. {Magnus has 1% of the sleeze, but a lot of his "information" is just stuff from other sites.} I digress...

Point is this:  This thread is about heuristics and mine are far lighter on "insider" conjecture and much heavier on direct information.

I'm going of Wheatley's words and actions.  His words have said he has a top 4 that does not include Michigan. I think Michigan should be included for all the reason you mention.  So that's 5 teams.  Yeah - that could have changed. It also could have not changed.  I don't know what reasons you have ruling out other unnamed schools and maybe they are legit, maybe not.  I have not heard the other teams that were ahead of Michigan a week ago get ruled out, so I'm not ruling them out.

Obviously things change but until I have a reason to rule out his 4 leaders I won't.  So those teams each get at least a 10% chance and then you have to give a non-zero something to "other".

So we'll see...  I think if you had just said in the beggining "In my opinion it's more like 40%, based on what Sam Webb was saying."  My response would have been:  "cool. that's seems reasonable, glad there is a reason to hope I'm underselling it a bit."

BlueKoj

February 1st, 2015 at 12:46 AM ^

You pretend to dislike quibbling over percentage points and now that's become your whole point. 25% didn't seem to align with "UM leads" and you also used info prior to the visit (significant event) and don't think Sam who is friends with the Wheatley's is more inside on this one than most others. Finally, you've not heard what Sam said in his JUB interview on Friday nor his recruiting roundups last week mentioning his TWJ opinion multiple times. I believe UM leads and I believe UM's chances are good, and I think Sam has the best info to go on and listening to him makes more sense than listening to the public interviews (especially when out of date). You don't, and that's cool.

UMaD

February 1st, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^

If there are 5 or more options and we don't have any reason to think one leads strongly, then yeah, 25% does "seem" to lead.

It's reasonable to take Webb's opinion and draw a different conclusion.  It's also reasonable to take that information with a grain of salt and accept more uncertainty in regard to UM's chances.

I think sometimes people hear what they want to. Sam is a MICHIGAN insider talking to MICHIGAN fans.  I know he talks to Dad, but according to rivals Dad has very intentionally stepped back from this process. 

To me, it seems unlikely a kid goes from "I want to blaze my own trail" and "Michigan's not in my top 4" to just flipping the switch to >50% Michigan.  Not impossible, but unlikely.

Uper73

January 31st, 2015 at 3:25 PM ^

How much does the old textbook " recency vs primacy" play into this?



Those that get the last visit before signing day has the best chance because the most recent impression has the most impact? The bar has been set so a typical " great visit" has a halo effect ?



Of course, a visit that does not wow probably works in reverse and solidifies previous positive perceptions.



Who knows, these are kids, for most, the most loving they will ever get (most won't go pro). I can see why some want to take full advantage of VIP treatment they get on officials.



Let's hope Harbaugh's made some BIG impressions the last week. Hoping the recent slate of "see you laters" means slots are being closed and potential depth chart meant the grass was greener elsewhere.



No matter what, I am sure there are plenty of high potential players to fill out this class whether they are big names or not.

MGoVictory

January 31st, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^

Rule 2 is all dependent on where the recruit is currently committed, right? I wouldn't expect a Northwestern or Michigan or Vanderbilt commit to be looking for a payout from bagmen.

victors2000

January 31st, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^

or not; my opinions are mostly opposite of yours. Your reasoning seems sound though, aka Mr. Fournett, and also no judgement . Still, do your rules apply to Coach Carr's 'Michigan' or to Coach Harbaugh's 'Michigan'? The recruits of Coach Carr's time probably thought more of Michigan then the current recruits probably do, as the program has been a hot mess as of late. Also, shockingly, we need to keep in mind not everyone bleeds blue and therefore do not have an intrinsic advantage in their recruiting just because 'Michigan'.

To apply your rules with Michigan being a hot mess...

Rule 1 may not apply because Michigan as of late hasn't been 'better'.

Rule 2 may apply because Coach Harbaugh is in a difficult recruiting situation with little time to recruit and is forced to get as many guys to visit as possible, but how many "Bag Men" kind of guys out there are recruits Michigan REALLY wants? Do character guys with good grades generally look for who is going to give them the biggest bag? I'm sure there are "Bag Men" out there but I would think most of Michigan's recruits are not of this subset.

You didn't mention what you thought of us getting Weber; I'm partcularly concerned with him; we can't have guys that have bled blue their whole lives going...THERE. As distasteful as it is to me, he's got a taste of Buckyness and actually seems to like it. And of course they are the reigning Champs. It's a sign of the times we have to rip out of the clutches of the Buckeyes a guy who bleeds blue.

LSA Superstar

January 31st, 2015 at 7:47 PM ^

1.) I don't think any of my rules apply to Weber.

2.) I don't think you meant any harm by it, but I sort of object to your characterization of working with a bag man as a "low character" behavior.  Except in truly egregious outlier instances, getting a couple g's for dad's church or to get your car fixed carries essentially no possibility of punishment whatsoever and certainly doesn't represent any moral hazard.

I also think it's really naive to believe that at least some of our dudes aren't getting the occasional handout.  This is major college football.  It happens and we shouldn't stress when it happens here, down south, for Michigan State, or at OSU.  It's only when parents are selling their kids for ransom or when boosters are buying abortions or hookers that morality or "justice" interests are implicated, I'd argue.

victors2000

February 1st, 2015 at 9:04 AM ^

to give handouts, and then bigger handouts. Heck, what am I talking about, it already is the norm down in SEC-land. It's an erosion of standards; the coach is going to be okay with it, the administration is going to look the other way. Society is going to be okay with it. It's an erosive process that doesn't stop after, "Aww, that kid needed help".

There is a lot of room for interpretation under "the kid needs help". Soon, "the family needs help" or simply, "just a little something to help out with what might come up".  Also, aren't you deluding yourself into thinking it's for a good cause? It's to get the guy to play for the school and pretty soon you got schools or boosters looking to give "help" when none is requested.

Where do you draw the line? Why draw a new line anyways, the previous one wasn't worth a lick. Rules are being broken by giving out money; why have rules at all if they are not going to be enforced?

 

 

Yooper

January 31st, 2015 at 5:41 PM ^

A lot of the top guys just like the attention so they create drama so they can announce on ESPN or other signing day shows. There are really very few signing day surprises anymore. I fear that is the case with Marshall

champswest

January 31st, 2015 at 7:04 PM ^

3.) If you think in terms of "tiers of program prestige," you rarely pick a school more than one tier down from your most prestigious offer. Kids might sometimes turn down Michigan for State or Nebraska. Kids rarely turn down Michigan for Rutgers, say. Obviously, there are tons of exceptions.

If there are "tons of exceptions" how can it be a valid rule?  And didn't we just get turned down for Syracuse?