Another recruiting class is in the books, signed, sealed and delivered for Boston College. They could still add more help down the road as there's probably room, but I'm not sure what exactly that would look like. Not sure the coaches know either.
With Signing Day behind us let's take a look back at the Class of 2016 and reflect on some lessons learned as well as some trends.
Nothing's a sure thing
I really didn't see Scooter Harrington flipping to Stanford. There's no doubt the Cardinal has an enormous national brand and Harrington had sort of hinted that Stanford would be a great option. But Stanford draws from a huge pool of smart, talented kids all over the country. First, it's a bad beat when they target one of your guys, particularly when it's a guy who's independent and able to be away from home. They steal kids from all parts and all programs without discrimination. But second, Harrington seemed genuinely at ease with BC. He almost seemed to be above the on-field struggles and some of the consternation over recruiting particularly after the coaching changes.
Obviously things weren't what they seemed. Here was a BC legacy, committed for a long time and targeted for even longer, who wasn't really hinting for long that something was up. It's a testament to Stanford's brand (which is surely the envy of BC, Virginia and prestigious schools everywhere who wonder why they can't channel the same qualities with recruits and on the field) but it's also a testament to the unpredictable character of recruiting. I don't think BC really could have done anything differently other than maybe win more games.
BC's got to win some bigger battles
Everybody at BC is working overtime to bring the best possible kids into the program. From what I know, from the glimpses I've been given behind the scenes, they have some really talented people as part of the recruiting operation. This is not ascribing fault, blame or taking anything away from them. It's just a simple fact. You've gotta be able to get a couple of four-star kids from the region. Sure, you have to win the in-state kids, the legacies, the BC fans, the devout Catholic families and Catholic school kids, the kids with brothers and sisters at school at Harvard, etc. Those are the kinds of links that every program looks for in players. Looking for the right match. The right fit. Those things coupled with a blue collar work ethic and grades, irrespective of size (because BC has shown a linebacker's height isn't a disqualifying mark against him; same for centers, guards, and defensive backs) are the makeup of the kinds of players that can legitimately form the nucleus of all BC teams. The best of BC will always be what the best of BC has always been. The image that comes to mind when you imagine the program. Great linebackers, scrappy defense, no-nonsense approach, physical football, a fearsome offensive line, discipline.
But that's only going to take you so far. Until now the staff would very fairly say that they achieved the No. 1 defense ranking and two winning seasons (tough to argue with, given what he inherited) with Spaziani and even Addazio classes that weren't exactly praised by pundits. They found good fits. They made good, nontraditional additions. The teams were good at a couple of things, not a lot of things, and they played the game to their strengths better than most ACC teams floundering without an identity.
Let's be fair and acknowledge that you can win seven or eight games in the ACC with the kinds of classes BC just signed. You can. Duke's now recruiting better, but they've won ten games in the ACC with unspectacular classes. Get a quality quarterback, protect the football, play sound defense, don't screw up kicking the ball -- history says those ACC teams can win more than they lose.
However, the ACC is improving. No doubt. Better coaches most places. Less margin for error. There will be less "out-disciplining you" into wins (i.e. sometimes that has meant the team, of the teams with average talent, which makes the least mistakes wins). The baseline of talent required for league competitiveness is clearly being raised. The ACC had four or five top 25 classes and programs like UNC, Pitt and others are recruiting well, with the new hires likely to change the game.
I'm not saying BC has to recruit a Rivals100 quarterback, win over kids with SEC offers from Atlanta right and left, have a satellite camp in Florida and pull four kids on the last day or even finish with four or five kids rated four stars. That doesn't have to be the formula for success. But BC does have to start winning at least some of the recruiting battles for the best players in the region outside of Massachusetts. Not a criticism so much as a fact. Still, work those little angles like the St. Peter's pipeline, friendships with current players, legacies and those connected to legacies, etc. However they do it they've got to build the regional brand a little more.
Comfort close to home; going big out west
BC is doing two seemingly contradictory things recruiting-wise right now. They're trying to make a splash in California, by offering a lot of kids on the west coast. Most of them are going to finish with lots of offers and Pac-12 offers at that. The staff doesn't have any illusions about their chances with most of those kids, although you work like anything's possible with the knowledge that you only have to get a couple.
While they're trying to make a splash and buck convention out west, they're sort of retrenching into a comfort zone with local recruiting. This is related to the last point. More and more the emphasis is on guys who camp, guys the staff is very familiar with, guys whose character meshes with the program, system fits, etc.
That's just this guy's assessment. As I said elsewhere this morning, I think the staff has increasingly become convinced (or maybe a little jaded) about the realities of recruiting in 2015. That is not to say 2020's reality will be the same, because in this universe Baylor, yes Baylor, is becoming a brand. Things change. Nothing's fixed. Even the Big Ten had a resurgence this year. Against all demographic odds and modern history they pulled, I believe, five Top 25 classes with more that were close.
But the BC staff seems to be more focused on devoting early time, energy and resources towards players who clearly demonstrate their interest. How? Early visits, attending games, attending camps before their junior season, junior days, etc. Those four-star kids who might not camp and haven't visited by this time of year? I'm sure they're still recruiting some of them, but I think they're mostly recruiting them while they're recruiting the former kind of kid as well.
It's the result of a heavy dose of realism. Where the region's four-star players have gone in recent years is a matter of public record. The emphasis that I'm hearing is more about coming to terms with reality and finding the best 'fits' than it is trying to do something drastic to change the brand in the hopes of getting those kids they haven't been getting.
Size isn't all-important
We've talked about this for a long time, several years now, but this staff is really not obsessed with a player's size. I know for a fact that they like longer, taller players in the secondary. You'd be dumb not to in today's game because you can coach a lot of things but not that.
But more than some schools BC is throwing conventional wisdom to the wind.
LB Max Richardson: Under 6-feet
DB Hamp Cheevers: Under 6-feet (not too uncommon)
OL Shane Leonard: 6'1 - 6'2
Looking at the current roster:
- Only one defensive lineman above 6'4.
- Of the 11 linebackers listed on the official roster just two are 6'3, none taller.
- Most surprisingly, only three offensive lineman are more than 300 pounds.
- Two of the three RB's, respectively, are 5'8 and 5'9.
With Signing Day behind us let's take a look back at the Class of 2016 and reflect on some lessons learned as well as some trends.
Nothing's a sure thing
I really didn't see Scooter Harrington flipping to Stanford. There's no doubt the Cardinal has an enormous national brand and Harrington had sort of hinted that Stanford would be a great option. But Stanford draws from a huge pool of smart, talented kids all over the country. First, it's a bad beat when they target one of your guys, particularly when it's a guy who's independent and able to be away from home. They steal kids from all parts and all programs without discrimination. But second, Harrington seemed genuinely at ease with BC. He almost seemed to be above the on-field struggles and some of the consternation over recruiting particularly after the coaching changes.
Obviously things weren't what they seemed. Here was a BC legacy, committed for a long time and targeted for even longer, who wasn't really hinting for long that something was up. It's a testament to Stanford's brand (which is surely the envy of BC, Virginia and prestigious schools everywhere who wonder why they can't channel the same qualities with recruits and on the field) but it's also a testament to the unpredictable character of recruiting. I don't think BC really could have done anything differently other than maybe win more games.
BC's got to win some bigger battles
Everybody at BC is working overtime to bring the best possible kids into the program. From what I know, from the glimpses I've been given behind the scenes, they have some really talented people as part of the recruiting operation. This is not ascribing fault, blame or taking anything away from them. It's just a simple fact. You've gotta be able to get a couple of four-star kids from the region. Sure, you have to win the in-state kids, the legacies, the BC fans, the devout Catholic families and Catholic school kids, the kids with brothers and sisters at school at Harvard, etc. Those are the kinds of links that every program looks for in players. Looking for the right match. The right fit. Those things coupled with a blue collar work ethic and grades, irrespective of size (because BC has shown a linebacker's height isn't a disqualifying mark against him; same for centers, guards, and defensive backs) are the makeup of the kinds of players that can legitimately form the nucleus of all BC teams. The best of BC will always be what the best of BC has always been. The image that comes to mind when you imagine the program. Great linebackers, scrappy defense, no-nonsense approach, physical football, a fearsome offensive line, discipline.
But that's only going to take you so far. Until now the staff would very fairly say that they achieved the No. 1 defense ranking and two winning seasons (tough to argue with, given what he inherited) with Spaziani and even Addazio classes that weren't exactly praised by pundits. They found good fits. They made good, nontraditional additions. The teams were good at a couple of things, not a lot of things, and they played the game to their strengths better than most ACC teams floundering without an identity.
Let's be fair and acknowledge that you can win seven or eight games in the ACC with the kinds of classes BC just signed. You can. Duke's now recruiting better, but they've won ten games in the ACC with unspectacular classes. Get a quality quarterback, protect the football, play sound defense, don't screw up kicking the ball -- history says those ACC teams can win more than they lose.
However, the ACC is improving. No doubt. Better coaches most places. Less margin for error. There will be less "out-disciplining you" into wins (i.e. sometimes that has meant the team, of the teams with average talent, which makes the least mistakes wins). The baseline of talent required for league competitiveness is clearly being raised. The ACC had four or five top 25 classes and programs like UNC, Pitt and others are recruiting well, with the new hires likely to change the game.
I'm not saying BC has to recruit a Rivals100 quarterback, win over kids with SEC offers from Atlanta right and left, have a satellite camp in Florida and pull four kids on the last day or even finish with four or five kids rated four stars. That doesn't have to be the formula for success. But BC does have to start winning at least some of the recruiting battles for the best players in the region outside of Massachusetts. Not a criticism so much as a fact. Still, work those little angles like the St. Peter's pipeline, friendships with current players, legacies and those connected to legacies, etc. However they do it they've got to build the regional brand a little more.
Comfort close to home; going big out west
BC is doing two seemingly contradictory things recruiting-wise right now. They're trying to make a splash in California, by offering a lot of kids on the west coast. Most of them are going to finish with lots of offers and Pac-12 offers at that. The staff doesn't have any illusions about their chances with most of those kids, although you work like anything's possible with the knowledge that you only have to get a couple.
While they're trying to make a splash and buck convention out west, they're sort of retrenching into a comfort zone with local recruiting. This is related to the last point. More and more the emphasis is on guys who camp, guys the staff is very familiar with, guys whose character meshes with the program, system fits, etc.
That's just this guy's assessment. As I said elsewhere this morning, I think the staff has increasingly become convinced (or maybe a little jaded) about the realities of recruiting in 2015. That is not to say 2020's reality will be the same, because in this universe Baylor, yes Baylor, is becoming a brand. Things change. Nothing's fixed. Even the Big Ten had a resurgence this year. Against all demographic odds and modern history they pulled, I believe, five Top 25 classes with more that were close.
But the BC staff seems to be more focused on devoting early time, energy and resources towards players who clearly demonstrate their interest. How? Early visits, attending games, attending camps before their junior season, junior days, etc. Those four-star kids who might not camp and haven't visited by this time of year? I'm sure they're still recruiting some of them, but I think they're mostly recruiting them while they're recruiting the former kind of kid as well.
It's the result of a heavy dose of realism. Where the region's four-star players have gone in recent years is a matter of public record. The emphasis that I'm hearing is more about coming to terms with reality and finding the best 'fits' than it is trying to do something drastic to change the brand in the hopes of getting those kids they haven't been getting.
Size isn't all-important
We've talked about this for a long time, several years now, but this staff is really not obsessed with a player's size. I know for a fact that they like longer, taller players in the secondary. You'd be dumb not to in today's game because you can coach a lot of things but not that.
But more than some schools BC is throwing conventional wisdom to the wind.
LB Max Richardson: Under 6-feet
DB Hamp Cheevers: Under 6-feet (not too uncommon)
OL Shane Leonard: 6'1 - 6'2
Looking at the current roster:
- Only one defensive lineman above 6'4.
- Of the 11 linebackers listed on the official roster just two are 6'3, none taller.
- Most surprisingly, only three offensive lineman are more than 300 pounds.
- Two of the three RB's, respectively, are 5'8 and 5'9.
