As I admitted in Part 1, I have been a big proponent of UT taking some Texas schools with them into the PAC-12 as that would represent leveraging a Texas natural resource (high school football talent) into an optimal return for Texans with likely significant gains in collegiate research at our universities (job creation and financial gains for the state) and a dramatic increase in out-of-state angel investments in Texas.
But it sounds like UT's current leadership is not as interested in the PAC as previous incarnations have been in the past and, frankly, the PAC has not shown that they have any idea how to close the deal (or, IMO, how to build a superconference).
That leaves staying in the Big 12 as by far the most likely short term option remaining for UT.
Today, I want to look at the elephant in the room in the Big 12 that most fans do not want to consider and most Big 12 administrators probably chalk up to their coach's problem (but shouldn't). To me, it is the core problem that threatens the future viability of the Big 12.
Recruiting.
Talent wins. We do not have enough of it.
Matt Hinton wrote an article about winning percentages and the quality of recruiting classes recently. A lot of fans will point at schools like TCU and Baylor and say that recruiting is an inexact science or doesn't matter. It may be an inexact science --- especially when it comes to evaluating QBs --- but Mr. Hinton has proven that recruiting equates to winning.
Years ago, I heard a college football announcer say that 80% of the time in college football, the more talented team wins.
Mr. Hinton's work backs up the existence of that relationship. The records suggest a direct correlation between high level recruiting, increased winning percentages and even playing in national title games. Per Mr. Hinton, since 2003, every participant in a BCS championship game --- except Oregon (which may have outschemed their talent level --- has belonged to a group of the 11 best recruiting schools.
The Big 12 is lucky to have 2 of these schools --UT and OU. That is great for the Big 12, but there are problems that now undermine recruiting at both schools as well as the rest of the Big 12.
First, the Big 12 footprint doesn't yield enough football talent.
Texas is great. Last year, we produced 272 high school prospects ranked three star or better and 47 of the nation's 362 blue chippers (4 and 5 star recruits). Both numbers were good for 2nd best in the country.
The trouble is the rest of the states in this conference are tiny and produce little FBS football talent. Last year, they combined to produce a TOTAL of 68 three star players and 5 blue chippers.
So the Big 12's total native talent pool last year produced 340 three star or better players, 53 of which were blue chippers.
You might think that total is still pretty good.
The SEC footprint including Texas, delivered 1137 three star or better players last year with 188 of them being blue chip players.
That is what every power conference now has to compete against. This is why the SEC had 12 schools with recruiting classes in the top 25 this year and have had about 10 in the recruiting top 25 the previous 3 years.
This (and weak scheduling) is why the SEC posted a gaudy 34-7 OOC record last year. They may have had some problems vs. motivated power conference schools late in the season, but as a conference they were much less susceptible to upsets.
Their teams have much better depth than those in other conferences.
The other power conferences have ramped up their recruiting games and did very well this year, but the Big 12 did not. While I think Big 12 coaches are no slouches, I contend our geography prevents our coaches doing the same.
Let's take a look at this year's recruiting numbers from 247sport.com. (They compile and average out recruit ratings from all over the web.)
Conf
|
Commits
|
3,4,or5*
|
%
|
80%+
|
Not
|
BC
|
%
|
SEC
|
356
|
343
|
96.30%
|
14
|
0
|
141
|
38.95%
|
PAC
|
284
|
265
|
93.30%
|
12
|
0
|
61
|
16.85%
|
B10
|
316
|
285
|
90.20%
|
12
|
2
|
50
|
13.81%
|
ACC
|
322
|
304
|
94.40%
|
14
|
0
|
49
|
13.54%
|
B12
|
244
|
203
|
83.20%
|
6
|
4
|
39
|
10.77%
|
IND
|
97
|
52
|
53.60%
|
1
|
3
|
14
|
3.87%
|
MWC
|
264
|
123
|
46.60%
|
1
|
11
|
5
|
1.38%
|
AMER
|
286
|
139
|
48.60%
|
3
|
9
|
2
|
0.55%
|
MAC
|
298
|
103
|
34.60%
|
0
|
12
|
1
|
0.28%
|
CUSA
|
312
|
115
|
36.90%
|
0
|
13
|
0
|
0.00%
|
SB
|
267
|
87
|
32.60%
|
0
|
12
|
0
|
0.00%
|
The table shows:
1) the number of total commits by conference
2) how many of those were 3,4,or 5 star
3) what percentage that works out to be
4) how many schools in the conference exceeded 80% of their recruits being 3,4, or 5 star
5) how many schools in the conference did not
6) how many blue chip players the conference landed
7) the conference's total share of the total nation-wide blue chip pool.
As I mentioned earlier, last year was a solid recruiting year for all of the other power conferences, but this really lays out what should be the lay of the land. Power conference schools should be able to meet the depth in class measurement, to fill out at least 80% of their classes with 3 star players at least, if not a combination of 3 star and blue chip players. Likewise non-power conference schools should not.
The Big 12 and the American Conference are the middle class --- walking between the two worlds.
That went to form last year with 50 of the 52 members of the other power conferences landing at least 80% 3 star or better players. (Nebraska and Purdue did not). The four Big 12 schools furthest from Texas, (West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State) did not. (UCF, USF, and ECU of the American were the only non-power conference members to exceed the 80%.)
This situation is a problem. It is chronic. Those 4 schools are always going to be far from Texas and the state of Texas is our only good, reliable recruiting territory.
A lack of quality depth costs teams random big plays. This presents itself on the record as 2-3 more losses than a roster's starting talent suggests it should have. This becomes an issue late in the season. When a quality West Virginia starting roster drives the team to a victory over Baylor, that West Virginia team might be unranked due to dropping 2 game earlier in the season that "they shouldn't have". That kind of loss is devastating for the Big 12, where a loss to a top 20 West Virginia team would not be.
Better depth means better records overall. That means more quality wins and more quality losses.
Secondly, Texas A&M's departure to the SEC and Johhny Football's Heisman Trophy win have made TAMU a trendy location for today's youth. This is an issue as football recruits are 17 years old and trendy rules at that age. Boosters can make valid excuses about the coaching change at UT hurting recruiting for 2 years and complain all they like about kids ignoring tradition, but coaching changes always hurt recruiting and it is not reasonable to expect teenaged recruits to remember anything that happened in college football prior to 4-6 years in the past. For them, 6 years ago is "tradition".
In the past, Texas kids may have entertained playing in front of the big crowds of the SEC, but it appears most haven't wanted to live in the deep south for 4-5 years. College Station may not be most people's cup of tea, but it is in Texas and it is near civilization. Playing for A&M today can scratch that itch for a lot of Texas kids.
TAMU may or may not continue to recruit at today's highs, but this clearly appears the start of a good recruiting run for TAMU. These gains are not likely going to be a flash in the pan.
From 2008-2011, just under 80% of Texas blue chippers landed at one of the state's schools, in Oklahoma, or at LSU.
From 2012-2015, With UT and OU down, that number is (probably temporarily) down to 77%.
This is where the A&M situation really hits home. In 2009-2011, TAMU and LSU were signing 10.24% and 5.42% of the state's blue chip talent respectively. This was fine because TAMU was in the Big 12, so the Big 12 still had about 75% of Texas's blue chip talent.
From 2012 to 2015, with TAMU in the SEC and LSU struggling, TAMU and LSU's numbers are 23.78% and 3.78%. That leaves the Big 12 -- a power conference with four Texas schools ---potentially splitting 49% of Texas's blue chippers.
David Wunderlich wrote a fascinating article on whose blue chip talent A&M is taking. His research was eye-opening to me and lead me to crunch the numbers even more.
Per class, from 2008-12 UT averaged 14 blue chip 4 & 5 star players from Texas and OU 7 to add to their own home state blue chippers.
A&M has been recruiting Texas at an elite level since 2013. Really they have out-recruited UT and OU since then.
Rank
|
University
|
C.Rank
|
Commits
|
5*
|
4*
|
3*
|
Ave
|
Total Pts
|
% 3,4,or 5*
| |
2015
|
11
|
TAMU
|
6
|
26
|
3
|
11
|
11
|
89.16
|
270.51
|
96%
|
2014
|
6
|
TAMU
|
4
|
22
|
3
|
9
|
9
|
90.68
|
285.43
|
95%
|
2013
|
9
|
TAMU
|
6
|
33
|
1
|
17
|
14
|
89.18
|
273.28
|
97%
|
2012
|
13
|
TAMU
|
5
|
19
|
1
|
12
|
5
|
90.47
|
254.57
|
95%
|
4 YR AVE
|
9.75
|
TOT
|
100
|
8
|
49
|
39
|
89.87
|
270.95
|
96%
| |
4 YR TOT BC=
|
57
|
Rank
|
University
|
C.Rank
|
Commits
|
5*
|
4*
|
3*
|
Ave
|
Total Pts
|
% 3,4,or 5*
| |
2015
|
9
|
UT
|
1
|
30
|
1
|
13
|
14
|
88.81
|
272.52
|
93%
|
2014
|
20
|
UT
|
2
|
23
|
0
|
10
|
13
|
88.22
|
244.18
|
100%
|
2013
|
20
|
UT
|
2
|
15
|
0
|
10
|
5
|
91.00
|
233.76
|
100%
|
2012
|
2
|
UT
|
1
|
31
|
2
|
20
|
5
|
89.39
|
291.75
|
87%
|
4 YR AVE
|
12.75
|
TOT
|
99
|
3
|
53
|
37
|
89.36
|
260.55
|
94%
| |
4 YR TOT BC=
|
56
|
Rank
|
University
|
C.Rank
|
Commits
|
5*
|
4*
|
3*
|
Ave
|
Total Pts
|
% 3,4,or 5*
| |
2015
|
15
|
OU
|
2
|
28
|
0
|
10
|
18
|
88.20
|
249.69
|
100%
|
2014
|
11
|
OU
|
1
|
28
|
1
|
10
|
14
|
88.14
|
263.78
|
89%
|
2013
|
13
|
OU
|
1
|
24
|
0
|
10
|
13
|
88.25
|
248.04
|
96%
|
2012
|
12
|
OU
|
2
|
24
|
0
|
16
|
6
|
89.29
|
262.42
|
92%
|
4 YR AVE
|
12.75
|
TOT
|
104
|
1
|
46
|
51
|
88.47
|
255.98
|
94%
| |
4 YR TOT BC=
|
47
|
That increase in recruiting success by A&M appears to be hurting UT's and killing OU's Texas blue chip recruiting.
Hogwash you say? Take a look where the stat's 5 star recruits were going in in 2008-2011...
| Texas's 5 star recruits landing points | |||||||
UT
|
OU
|
Baylor
|
A&M
|
LSU
|
Nebraska
|
PAC
| |
2011
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
2010
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
2009
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
2008
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2007
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
Totals
|
10
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
| Texas's 5 star recruits landing points | |||||||
UT
|
OU
|
Baylor
|
A&M
|
LSU
|
FSU
|
PAC
| |
2015
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
2014
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
2013
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2012
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
Totals
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
6
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
The trending suggests the Big 12 is generally picking from A&M's leftovers. This is damaging in a other way.
All 4 and 5 star recruits are not created equal. Being that highly rated can just mean a player was a good player in high school who happens to be an athlete with good size or top notch measureables. It can just mean that a player looks like he could start as a freshman in college. It doesn't mean that he is a worker or has refined skills. (This is why 3 star prospects are often better players. This is extremely visible when you look at QB prospects where it seems that most top prospects are busts and most stars are 3 star recruits.)
If you are a top level program, you want to have first pick of the blue chippers so you can plug in guys who are actually great players or who fit your system really well ---especially on the lines. You don't want to be put in a situation where you are signing blue chippers who don't fit or who you see as under achievers or loafers in order to keep your ranking high to appease booster recruiting expectations and protect your job.
Now it looks like A&M has first choice of Texas's blue chippers. That's a problem for the Big 12.
What this means for UT, OU, and the conference?
UT and OU are Big 12 conference's national brands. If both are strong, there is NO WAY the Big 12 can get frozen out of the playoffs.
Last year, neither UT or OU was up to that level. TCU and Baylor had great seasons and both were left out of the playoffs, largely IMO because neither are national brands. Last year the tough 3rd place team Baylor and TCU had to take out in that 7-13 spot was Kansas State another school that regularly "coaches up" what on paper looks like a fairly modest talent base (by power conference standards).
That is just not the same. If either had to take out highly ranked UT and OU teams, it would be impossible to discount TCU or Baylor.
OU and UT represent power conference credibility. They are the schools that can load up on talent and be the kind of quality team that the playoff committee likes (ala Ohio State) or can provide a school like TCU or Baylor a big time win.
As powerful as UT's athletic program is, if OU stays in the 3 loss neighborhood where they have been recently --- something very possible in a conference with UT, TCU, Baylor, WV, and KSU --- the national perception will be that the Big 12 is UT and the 9 dwarves. (For the record I think OU will have it's strongest season in the last few years this year, but I see little to lead me to believe that is a new status quo in this post-A&M Big 12.)
The bottom line for the conference.
Since 2013, only 71% of Texas's blue chip players are staying in state and almost 27% of those are going to Texas A&M , a university that props up the SEC --- a conference otherwise made up of out of state institutions.
Since 2013, only 44.6% of Texas's blue chippers have made their way to Big 12 schools. OU has landed a total of 9 Texas blue chippers in the last 3 years.
If OU stays in the 2-5 loss range of the recent past, that will dramatically increase the pressure on the conference from the other power conferences and the pressure UT boosters put on UT leadership to address the issue of a subpar conference home.
The bottom line on expansion now
I think this answers the question of why OU appears to be beating the drum for the addition of the University of Houston to the conference. The reason seems likely to be football recruiting.
If the conference is going to do a larger expansion, other schools might make more sense to OU. If the conference is going to add 1-2 schools as conventional wisdom would likely align most Big 12 schools, OU would likely want Houston or Tulane because OU's leadership likely feels they can probably leverage either school into better recruiting.
OU's leadership probably looks at the effects of the collapse of longtime rival Nebraska's out of state recruiting in the Big Ten and it makes this issue is a big deal to OU --- very possibly a big enough deal to depart the conference for the PAC-12 over in a few years.
The Houston DMA today is A&M country and may be SEC country in the future. That is very troubling to OU. OU has been able to stem the Texas recruiting bleeding somewhat with California recruits, but now the PAC-12 is loaded with quality coaches and shy of joining the PAC-12, California looks like an unreliable source for blue chip recruits for OU.
Bringing UH into the fold, with their fairly large, mostly Houston-based alumni base, would probably steer a media correction in Houston. The media reports what the local crowds want to hear. Adding UH alumni to the existing Big 12 alumni in Houston would ensure the Big 12 would again get a favorable Houston coverage. Good coverage would get the Big 12 brands like OU in front of today's Houston teenagers.
That should be enough erode A&M slightly, allowing UT and OU to maintain their past talent levels.
The problem with OU's plan start with the fact that UH's football attendance is subpar for the power conference level and the negatives get progressively worse. Their basketball attendance is equally poor. Criteria for academic evaluation like the perceived quality of their undergraduate education (I use the US news rankings) and their amount of annual research dollars strongly suggest they have more in common with the schools outside of the power conference ranks.
That is a tough sell to schools inside the conference and is the kind of addition that would likely be frowned upon by schools in the other power conferences. (Does that matter or not? We do not conclusively know.)
(Which is another reason the conference should shed the conventional wisdom thinking of a minor expansion that has OU thinking adding Houston is their best option.)
And that is before even getting into petty self-centered thinking questions like "Would TCU and Texas Tech view Houston as an unwanted in-conference competitor for the better Texas 3 star recruits?"
Clearly the OU/A&M recruiting situation is something that needs to be addressed. Does that require adding a school that the measureables likely do not support adding?
"Winning fixes everything."
At least that is what some fans will say.
Does it really? Why would one believe that A&M and LSU are not going to continue to grab 25-30% of Texas's blue chip talent annually long term? LSU has been very forgettable lately. That won't last.
I have no doubt UT will get it's talent (or at least close to what UT fans are used to) but the rest of the conference is screwed trying to compete with the SEC.
The SEC has two things rolling for them today --- finances and recruiting.
The two gives the SEC schools high end athletes and access to high end coaching.
The finances I honestly feel the Big 12 could match. The recruiting....that is tougher.
You really need to understand why recruiting works against us.
You see the recruiting deficit is all about race and location. I am half Jamaican, so I will be your race guide in this sensitive subject. (Some of you should prepare to have your mind blown.)
Where are the "good football recruiting states" in the US? Texas, Florida, California, Louisiana, Missisippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, and New Jersey.
Ready to see something you can never unthink?
I think we are all comfortable enough talking about race today to get a better understanding of what we are looking at here without devolving into quivering masses because we are discussing adult thoughts that border on non-PC.
The difference between a 4 athlete and a 3 star athlete is weight and speed. It often isn't the quality of football technician the player happens to be. An 3 star Defensive Tackle may run a 5.0 and may weigh 265 in high school while an 4 star Defensive Tackle may be just as fast but weigh 300. A 3star CB may run a 4.7 at 165 while a 4 star CB runs a 4.5.
FBS coaches will always want to roll the dice on the bigger/faster players.
And as we discussed earlier, there is a direct correlation between playing in title games and recruiting blue chippers.
The NBA, the NFL, and the Olympics has shown us repeatedly that, in general, with the same training, black athletes tend to be a step faster than white athletes.
So where do you go to get your fast CBs and safeties? In states with large black populations and warm climates where people can go outside and run year-round . There are lots of WRs and CBs with elite speed in Florida and Louisiana.
Where do you get your big linemen? From states where parents eat a lot and let their kids eat unhealthy ...or at least eat unhealthy amounts. Queue map.
The deep south has a lot of fat people.
I am not unfairly hating. My beloved Texas has some of the fattest cities in America. (I think Houston and Dallas are represented on this map.)
And of these fat lineman which tend to be the more athletic? The black athletes.
Where are they? Mostly in SEC territory. Mississippi and Alabama are great places to land DTs.
The great state of Texas may be the mecca of football in this country, producing great technicians in huge numbers, but it does us little good here. The kind of hard to find, huge, athletic defensive tackles a team more often then not needs to win a national title are usually found in SEC territory.
If the Big 12 footprint just doesn't produce as many blue chippers, 4 & 5 star athletes, as the SEC, our teams are likely going to struggle in the playoffs where everyone is bigger and stronger and the schools from the SEC have more experience playing against that kind of high level talent.
Right now the SEC is playing with a stacked deck. They may produce 6 schools with top 11 caliber loads of blue chip talent and another 6 with dark horse contender levels of blue chip talent (top 12-25 level) while the Big 12 produces 1 heavy hitter (UT) and now one school at the second level (OU).
Recruiting has to figure in to any Big 12 expansion effort.
That said, not all rich recruiting areas are created equal.
And not all schools can successfully recruit an area.
This on last thought really needs to be kept in mind when looking at expansion candidates.
What are they going to do for the recruiting of existing members?
One of the leading argument for adding Cincinnati is that Ohio is a fertile recruiting region (the best in Big 10 territory) and a football crazy state. That is true, but it ignores some fairly important factors, the biggest of which being, can we mine it?
Ohio is still pretty far away, it is right in the middle of the power schools of the Big Ten, there are like a half dozen MAC -level football programs in Ohio, and finally Ohio recruits may be less enticing and exist in smaller numbers than those in some southern states.
Ohio produced 94 3 star or better players last year and a total of 17 blue chippers. Georgia produced 203 and 34. Florida produced a nation's best 306 and 49. (Ohio produces a somewhat surprising lack of 4 and 5 star recruits vs. SEC states.)
All of these factors suggest Cincinnati may be like West Virginia ---a solid candidate for any power conference, but maybe not the best for the Big 12 given the conference's needs.
The idea of recruiting playing a role in an expansion decision is that by playing a certain school in conference, the conference will get strong annual media exposure in the local area, influencing the impending college selection process of area teens. That can increase a conference school in another area's chances of pulling a recruit from the region.
Additionally, some recruits have the idea of escaping an area that has the potential for trouble for them.
Still most kids still want their parents to be able to see them play live at least a few times in college. Having a school in a recruiting hotbed can create that productive situation with biannual games in that market near the player's parents, but it needs to be understood, it doesn't always work.
Let's talk about the Cincinnati expansion idea head on. In the instance of adding Cincinnati as one of two new schools to what would then be a two division conference, what Big 12 schools would be likely to gain a significant recruiting edge in Ohio?
Ohio only produced 17 blue chippers last year. Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and Notre Dame are all very close to Ohio.
UT and OU can always easily fill their rosters with 3 star recruits from Texas. It's only the 4 and 5 star recruits that they would hope to land from outside of their home regions. With so few blue chippers, it is hard to imagine UT and OU making a significant gain in that heavily worked region. What relevance the Big 2 have there with certain recruits is unlikely to change based on Cincinnati's affiliation.
As far as the other Big 12 schools, I cannot imagine most would pull much talent out of Ohio. I am sure most 3 star guys in Ohio who get passed over would rather play for Purdue, Indiana, or Illinois than Iowa State, Kansas State, or Kansas.
The only schools I would see getting an Ohio recruiting bounce if Cincinnati was added would be Cincinnati (moving into a power conference) and nearby West Virginia.
I would think if you were applying logic in evaluating only the recruiting aspect of Cincinnati as an expansion candidate, helping specifically ONLY West Virginia among member schools may not be enough bang for the buck for this kind of expansion.
Now states like California and Florida that are under served with FBS schools vs. their high school talent base or even nearby states like Louisiana, Tennessee, or Mississippi that produce a fairly high rate of blue chippers....Different story.
I could see the Big 12's strong programs pulling 4 star recruits from those states and a marginal Big 12 program developing a somewhat productive recruiting pipeline to one of those states that might deliver say 2-3 decent players a year.
That represents a better recruiting yield for many Big 12 schools.
In the next article in this series, I will lay out what other problems the conference really should try to address in order to keep UT long term.
No comments:
Post a Comment