The "Gap" is narrowing

[OB55]

No doubt about it. I have long felt the difference between teams of different divisions is largely mental. Take the same player, put him in a much nicer uniform, in a much bigger and nicer venue, and it is perceived by most, that he is a much better player.

Results of games between the divisions is proving that this year more than ever. I believe it also points to the abundance of good prospects, over and above what the scholarship limits can accommodate in the larger divisions.

Wins by FCS teams over BCS, as well as D-II wins over FCS teams are beginning to tear down the barriers, and instilling belief that these games are possible to win by the less funded teams.

Once thought to be impossible, the four minute mile barrier was broken by Roger Bannister in 1959 and subsequently many times since then, even by high school athletes.

I think we will see many more of these "upsets" in the future.

Thoughts?

[RadMann]

I agree that only part of the barrier is the talent gap. The bigger barrier is the mental perception that the FBS team/program is so much better than the FCS program. If FCS teams go in collectively thinking win as opposed to survive, the results will continue to improve...

[AZGrizFan]

The only thing changing is our perception of the losing teams. We see (after this weekend) that Michigan flat out sucks. We will probably see, through the course of the next several weekends, that Iowa State flat out sucks. We KNOW UNC flat out sucks. THe problem is, and continues to be, that we believe all the hype. Against App State, Michigan was the Emperor with no clothes on. The sham has been exposed. And Oregon went into the Big House fully expexting to wax them and they did. How they fell so far, so fast is the REAL question. And teams will feel the same about Iowa State for the remainder of the season. As pointed out on another thread, Iowa State may not win a game this year, based on their remaining schedule.

As far as UNC-Chadron State, well that game didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. UNC is an embarassment, and most UNC fans on here have said so publicly. Their program is in shambles, and it'll take more than money to fix it. I hope the BSC powers that be are proud of their decision. xsmhx xsmhx xsmhx xsmhx xsmhx xsmhx

[McNeese_beat]

No doubt about it. I have long felt the difference between teams of different divisions is largely mental. Take the same player, put him in a much nicer uniform, in a much bigger and nicer venue, and it is perceived by most, that he is a much better player.

Results of games between the divisions is proving that this year more than ever. I believe it also points to the abundance of good prospects, over and above what the scholarship limits can accommodate in the larger divisions.

Wins by FCS teams over BCS, as well as D-II wins over FCS teams are beginning to tear down the barriers, and instilling belief that these games are possible to win by the less funded teams.

Once thought to be impossible, the four minute mile barrier was broken by Roger Bannister in 1959 and subsequently many times since then, even by high school athletes.

I think we will see many more of these "upsets" in the future.

Thoughts?

I agree. The differences between the divisions are less thanks mainly to scholarship limits that make it more difficult to stockpile talent.

Each level has its advantages. The biggest gap — an enormous chasm — is between the teams in the BCS and everybody else. That's what makes Michigan's loss to App State remarkable. I don't think the gap between, say, the FCS and the BCS has narrowed, however. What happened at Ann Arbor was bound to happen eventually, especially considering the increase in the number of games between FCS and BCS teams in recent years.

But below the BCS level, I think things level off pretty quickly.

Non-BCS FBS (god, I hate all these acronyms!) teams have a 22-scholarship advantage over FCS teams that gives them an overall edge. But the FCS teams have an ability to use the "waiver wire" (aka, FBS transfers) for address immediate needs, something FCS teams generally can't (save JUCOs). Put it like this, there was a much better chance that Rhett Bomar was going to go to Sam Houston State than North Texas because of the year he was going to have to sit out going FBS to FBS.

Similarly, there is a 27-scholarship difference (63 to 36) between FCS and D-II teams. However, there are a lot of players who can meet initial eligibility requirements in D-II, but not D-I. So there are potentially BCS-caliber players who will play for D-II teams instead of FCS or mid-major FBS teams because of the initial eligibility issue. I've seen quality D-II teams where several of the top players were guys who couldn't get into the FCS schools academically (not by the school standards, but by NCAA rules for D-I).

I think the biggest predictor of how successful a non-BCS team will be is its ease of access to talent. In other words, the two questions are, how much talent is there where you recruit and how many rivals do you run against when you recruit those areas?

I cover McNeese, which is in south Louisiana, maybe the most football-talent rich state in the nation and it borders on Texas, which is similarly football-mad (more total players than La. because more total people). However, McNeese recruits against everybody and his brother because there are tons of college programs down here and EVERYBODY in the country seems to recruit down here. You aren't just going up against La. Tech and La.-Lafayette for that second-tier state recruit (you've conceded the top tier to LSU), but you are also going up against an Arizona State, a Southern Miss, a Memphis, etc., etc. (all schools that have raided Louisiana in the last couple of years).

Conversely, there probably aren't a whole lot of blue-chip prospects in Montana, but the ones they have tend to stay home and play for either the Griz (probably) or the Bobcats.

The same is true in D-II country. I bet Chadron State doesn't run into a whole lot of D-I coaches when they recruit western Nebraska kids or Wyoming, South Dakota and Colorado. I bet the Dakota schools didn't run into too many Gateway, MAC or Big 10 coaches when they recruited their home state. Same with the west Texas D-IIs. The western-most team in the SLC is in San Marcos in central Texas. The only D-I program in all of west Texas is UTEP. So all the SLC Texas teams recruit and play within fairly close proximity of population centers like Houston, Austin, San Antonio and DFW. All these places are in East or Central Texas. The western part of the state doesn't get recruited very heavily by D-I coaches. So it's reasonable to expect a Tarleton State or an Abiline Christian to be pretty competitive.

I tell you who's always been in a pretty nice situation is Georgia Southern. They are in a talent-rich area and there ain't much competition in east Georgia for that second-tier talent they go after once UGA and Tech gets theirs. And to make matters even better for them, at least in the old days, is a lot of prep coaches out there started emulating Erk Russell's offense, so GSU would be able to plug in program players when need be. Of course, they don't run that offense any more...

[AZGrizFan]

I agree. The differences between the divisions are less thanks mainly to scholarship limits that make it more difficult to stockpile talent.

Each level has its advantages. The biggest gap — an enormous chasm — is between the teams in the BCS and everybody else. That's what makes Michigan's loss to App State remarkable. I don't think the gap between, say, the FCS and the BCS has closed, however. What happened at Ann Arbor was bound to happen eventually, especially considering the increase in the number of games between FCS and BCS teams in recent years.

But below the BCS level, I think things level off pretty quickly.

Non-BCS FBS (god, I hate all these acronyms!) teams have a 22-scholarship advantage over FCS teams that give them an overall edge. But the FCS teams have an ability to use the "waiver wire (aka, FBS transfers) for address immediate needs, something FCS teams can't. Put it like this, there was a much better chance that Rhett Bomar was going to go to Sam Houston State than North Texas because of the year he was going to have to sit out going FBS to FBS.

Similarly, there is a 27-scholarship difference (63 to 36) between FCS and D-II teams. However, there are a lot of players who can meet initial eligibility requirements in D-II, but not D-I. So there are potentially BCS-caliber players who will play for D-II teams instead of FCS or mid-major FBS teams because of the initial eligibility issue. I've seen quality D-II teams where several of the top players were guys who couldn't get into the FCS schools academically (not by the school standards, but by NCAA rules for D-I).

I think the biggest predictor of how successful a non-BCS team will be is its ease of access to talent. In other words, the two questions are, how much talent is there where you recruit and how many rivals do you run against when you recruit those areas?

I cover McNeese, which is in south Louisiana, maybe the most football-talent rich state in the nation and it borders on Texas, which is similarly football-mad (more total players than La. because more total people). However, McNeese recruits against everybody and his brother because there are tons of college programs down here and EVERYBODY in the country seems to recruit down here. You aren't just going up against La. Tech and La.-Lafayette for that second-tier state recruit (you've conceded the top tier to LSU), but you are also going up against an Arizona State, a Southern Miss, a Memphis, etc., etc. (all schools that have raided Louisiana in the last couple of years).

Conversely, there probably aren't a whole lot of blue-chip prospects in Montana, but the ones they have tend to stay home and play for either the Griz (probably) or the Bobcats.

The same is true in D-II country. I bet Chadron State doesn't run into a whole lot of D-I coaches when they recruit western Nebraska kids or Wyoming, South Dakota and Colorado. I bet the Dakota schools didn't run into too many Gateway, MAC or Big 10 coaches when they recruited their home state. Same with the west Texas D-IIs. The western-most team in the SLC is in San Marcos in central Texas. The only D-I program in all of west Texas is UTEP. So all the SLC Texas teams recruit and play within fairly close proximity of population centers like Houston, Austin, San Antonio and DFW. All these places are in East or Central Texas. The western part of the state doesn't get recruited very heavily by D-I coaches. So it's reasonable to expect a Tarleton State or an Abiline Christian to be pretty competitive.

I tell you who's always been in a pretty nice situation is Georgia Southern. They are in a talent-rich area and there ain't much competition in east Georgia for that second-tier talent they go after once UGA and Tech gets theirs. And to make matters even better for them, at least in the old days, is a lot of prep coaches out there started emulating Erk Russell's offense, so GSU would be able to plug in program players when need be. Of course, they don't run that offense any more...

I agree with 99% of everything you said...I'm not sure how many "blue chip" recruits Montana keeps (think Ryan Leaf, etc), but football is serious business in rural Montana, so that second level is pretty well stocked (considering the population density)....and you're right: most of THOSE kids do tend to play for either the Griz or the Cats.

[McNeese_beat]

I agree with 99% of everything you said...I'm not sure how many "blue chip" recruits Montana keeps (think Ryan Leaf, etc), but football is serious business in rural Montana, so that second level is pretty well stocked (considering the population density)....and you're right: most of THOSE kids do tend to play for either the Griz or the Cats.

Let me suggest this. Sometimes who recruits a kid defines the kid's perceived level of ability. You guys have some real-deal FBS talent, especially up front, and a lot of it's home grown. If some of your big, 6-5, 6-6 offensive linemen grew up in Mississippi, they'd probably have been recruited by Ole Miss, Southern Miss and Miss. State along with Tulane, UAB and maybe even Alabama, Auburn or LSU based on their length and agility. Because they would have had all those programs recruiting them, Rivals or Scout would have a bunch of these guys rated 3-star or 4-star recruits. But because they are hidden in Montana and don't get seen by bigger schools, they don't get hyped.

My point is, I would bet Montana has more blue chip players than people think, a lot more than what you hear about. It's just that a lot of them prove it while playing for the Griz instead of playing for a Colorado or a Washington.

[Black and Gold Express]

The thing is that if there is one thing the ASU win will do, it will affect recruiting, especially on the defensive side. We've become the latest team with the spread offense to stop and make people look twice. It's an offense that more and more mid-major I-A and I-AA programs are going to. And it's going to lead to more mismatches against schools that don't recruit speed on defense.

Knowing that, I bet you that the BCS teams will start rethinking giving up on the smaller corners that can run. They see the trends as much as we do. I think it's only a matter of time before the spread offense is the dominant offense in all of college football. WVU proves that you don't have to be pass happy to run it great either on the BCS level.

This will translate down to the rest of college football. Players that were considered second-rate because of size may get scooped up now because of speed. There will always be some programs that do not have to compromise, they'll get the best of the best that have both size and speed. But there are a lot of I-A schools that can get in the doors of recruits that I-AA schools cannot simply because of the TV exposure they offer. That's still a big thing to a lot of players, and we are moving into an era where the tweeners may become less available for us than they have been recently.

[McNeese_beat]

The thing is that if there is one thing the ASU win will do, it will affect recruiting, especially on the defensive side. We've become the latest team with the spread offense to stop and make people look twice. It's an offense that more and more mid-major I-A and I-AA programs are going to. And it's going to lead to more mismatches against schools that don't recruit speed on defense.

Knowing that, I bet you that the BCS teams will start rethinking giving up on the smaller corners that can run. They see the trends as much as we do. I think it's only a matter of time before the spread offense is the dominant offense in all of college football. WVU proves that you don't have to be pass happy to run it great either on the BCS level.

This will translate down to the rest of college football. Players that were considered second-rate because of size may get scooped up now because of speed. There will always be some programs that do not have to compromise, they'll get the best of the best that have both size and speed. But there are a lot of I-A schools that can get in the doors of recruits that I-AA schools cannot simply because of the TV exposure they offer. That's still a big thing to a lot of players, and we are moving into an era where the tweeners may become less available for us than they have been recently.

I don't think the bigger schools needed ASU to show them that. All they have to do is look at who's been winning national titles — Florida (the Urban Meyer offense and the Ole Ball Coach's spread offense), LSU, USC — these are all teams based on speed, speed and more speed. LSU made Va. Tech look absolutely snail's pace slow Saturday. That was shocking to me, considering Va. Tech is a school that can recruit speed hotbeds like the Tidewater area.

The Big 10 is just a little stubborn in that way. I think the Pac-10 is a little stubborn in its de-emphasis on defense too.

[AZGrizFan]

Let me suggest this. Sometimes who recruits a kid defines the kid's perceived level of ability. You guys have some real-deal FBS talent, especially up front, and a lot of it's home grown. If some of your big, 6-5, 6-6 offensive linemen grew up in Mississippi, they'd probably have been recruited by Ole Miss, Southern Miss and Miss. State along with Tulane, UAB and maybe even Alabama, Auburn or LSU based on their length and agility. Because they would have had all those programs recruiting them, Rivals or Scout would have a bunch of these guys rated 3-star or 4-star recruits. But because they are hidden in Montana and don't get seen by bigger schools, they don't get hyped.

My point is, I would bet Montana has more blue chip players than people think, a lot more than what you hear about. It's just that a lot of them prove it while playing for the Griz instead of playing for a Colorado or a Washington.

But Beat, college coaches aren't stupid. 14 straight playoff appearances. 5 NC appearances. 2 NC's. At some point, college coaches are going to say "where the he** are they gettin' these guys? We gotta recruit that area harder!". I truly believe that your theory might have held 10-12 years ago, but with the power of technology and the internet, I guarantee you that the secret is out. I do, however, believe that most players from Montana on the "margin", if given the choice between being 2nd/3rd string at UW or Oregon State, or starting at Montana, choose the in-state school. Don't know if that makes them "blue-chippers" or not. xpeacex

[Franks Tanks]

But Beat, college coaches aren't stupid. 14 straight playoff appearances. 5 NC appearances. 2 NC's. At some point, college coaches are going to say "where the he** are they gettin' these guys? We gotta recruit that area harder!". I truly believe that your theory might have held 10-12 years ago, but with the power of technology and the internet, I guarantee you that the secret is out. I do, however, believe that most players from Montana on the "margin", if given the choice between being 2nd/3rd string at UW or Oregon State, or starting at Montana, choose the in-state school. Don't know if that makes them "blue-chippers" or not. xpeacex

Good points. I also think McNeese beat made some great points, but I do just have one issue. I dont think there is as much "hidden talent" out there as he may assert. FBS schools are all over the place and will find the talent. Mant of the hidden talent however in FCS or D-II comes from guys who are late bloomers. The FBS schools evaluated them, and deemed them so slow or small at the time. They then go to FCS and get bigger, stronger, more confident and learn how to play the game and become a stud. Then its like wow Ohio State is stupid for letting this guy walk, but the reality is he wasnt that player 4 years ago during recruiting. So I think overall its less the hidden jem theory and more the late bloomer thing as the reason many great players end up in FCS.

[texcap]

I know that in week 1 the record of FCS vs. FBS was 2-22. What was the record for week 3?

How about DII vs. FCS in both weeks 1 and 2?

[texcap]

In answer to my own question here are the results after I quickly looked at ESPN.com. Obviously I might have overlooked some, and instead of FCS vs. DII, I looked at FCS vs. all non Div I and NAIA schools:

Week 1:
FCS vs. FBS 2-22
FCS vs all others: 20-5

Week 2:
FCS vs. FBS 2-9
FCS vs all others: 21-6

Roughly 10% vs FBS and 80% vs non Div I competition.

[McNeese_beat]

But Beat, college coaches aren't stupid. 14 straight playoff appearances. 5 NC appearances. 2 NC's. At some point, college coaches are going to say "where the he** are they gettin' these guys? We gotta recruit that area harder!". I truly believe that your theory might have held 10-12 years ago, but with the power of technology and the internet, I guarantee you that the secret is out. I do, however, believe that most players from Montana on the "margin", if given the choice between being 2nd/3rd string at UW or Oregon State, or starting at Montana, choose the in-state school. Don't know if that makes them "blue-chippers" or not. xpeacex

It's a cost-benefit situation. Recruiting out of your area isn't free and if you are going to recruit out of your area, you better get a lot of return foryour investment. In the case of where you are, out-of-state schools would be spending a lot of money, going way out of the way and for what? A couple of guys a year? The money is better spent going out to California or Arizona, or even in Florida, even though you are bumping up against more competition. You have 4.something million people in Houston and probably 30-40 high schools with enrollments of 3,000 or more that play sophisticated brands of football there. If I'm, say, a WAC school or a northeastern school looking for skill guys, I'm going to spend my money down there and take my chances on second-tier guys that the Aggies and Longhorns (or LSU) haven't taken.

The point is, in Montana, there might be a guy in Butte worth recruiting , then another way out in Eastern Montana and another in Missoula (if you are a major FBS program, that is. I'm sure there are many more than that who are competitive mid-major FBS or FCS players). That's a lot of travel. If you establish contacts in LA, Miami, Houston, etc., you can literally go a few blocks here and there and run into the same number of prospects you can realistically recruit that it would take you searching the far reaches of Montana to find.

It could happen though.

I actually had an interesting conversation with an FCS coach about that. Without giving away who he is or where he coaches, he told me he was pulling out of a recruiting hotbed area because there was too much competition and placing an emphasis on an area where he once coached as a D-II coach. His angle is that he's been getting his butt kicked in the hotbed by more established FCS rivals and by out-of-area BCS schools raiding the hotbed for skill players. Instead, he's going to recruit an area he knows because he's been a coach out there and has a lot of established contacts. It makes it easier to recruit a far-off place if you have long-time, trusted friends and colleagues you can lean on. And he knows he won't have to beat his conference rivals for players, just a couple of D-IIs.

But if he hadn't ever coached out there, it would be costly, both in terms of time and money, to try to establish the relationships necessary to effectively recruit an area.

I suppose ex-Montana coaches could use their old relationships to get players out of Montana. But would it make sense for schools like Nebraska and Colorado to try to do it without an established network of people in the state? Or, for that matter, is it worth it for a Wyoming with an ex-Montana coach to try to convince a Montana kid to pass on a winner to try to help a not-so-good mid-major FBS turn the corner?

[AZGrizFan]

I suppose ex-Montana coaches could use their old relationships to get players out of Montana. But would it make sense for schools like Nebraska and Colorado to try to do it without an established network of people in the state? Or, for that matter, is it worth it for a Wyoming with an ex-Montana coach to try to convince a Montana kid to pass on a winner to try to help a not-so-good mid-major FBS turn the corner?

All excellent points. And I'd say the vast majority of the time, given the choice between a Wyoming-type and Montana (or MSU), the kid is going to go with the school with the winning tradition.

I guess my presumption has always been (especially in recent years) that the "blue chippers" are being recruited regardless of location, because of the advancements in technology that allow them to be "there" in the coach's office with video, or on-line video, etc....I would think that if a kid is good enough, and wants to play Pac-10 or SEC, they'll find him.

I've been known to be wrong a time or two, though. ;) :o

[McNeese_beat]

Good points. I also think McNeese beat made some great points, but I do just have one issue. I dont think there is as much "hidden talent" out there as he may assert. FBS schools are all over the place and will find the talent. Mant of the hidden talent however in FCS or D-II comes from guys who are late bloomers. The FBS schools evaluated them, and deemed them so slow or small at the time. They then go to FCS and get bigger, stronger, more confident and learn how to play the game and become a stud. Then its like wow Ohio State is stupid for letting this guy walk, but the reality is he wasnt that player 4 years ago during recruiting. So I think overall its less the hidden jem theory and more the late bloomer thing as the reason many great players end up in FCS.

I think it's possible and not so hard for coaches to find out about kids, but I think it's harder for them to really evaluate kids. For example, there are a lot of kids out there who are 6-foot, 190 pounds and run a 4.6 40. There are kids who have that makeup in D-II. There are kids with that makeup in the Pac-10 and the SEC. How do you separate them? That's where relationships, evaluating, etc., come into play.

If the state of Montana produces a guy who's 6-7, 350, runs a 4.7 40 and has a 40-inch vertical leap, no way he gets hidden. He'll get recruited by every major school in the country. However, the 6-foot, 190, 4.6 40 guy is just like 40 prep seniors in a city like Houston. If you have recruiting contacts in Houston who can help you form an opinion and can watch the kid play to evaluate his intangibles (probably against several other similar prospects) then why would you go to the more sparse area to see a similar kid play against, by and large, lesser competition?

Like I said in the previous post, it's a cost-benefit analysis.

[Retro]

All of you are speaking about something i've been thinking about a lot since last week and i expected to happen once we had about 5 good years or so after the scholarship limits were firmly in place..

To add, i believe it has a lot to do with instant gratification.. My favorite term to describe today's younger generation in general...

For many recruits, they want to go to a big name school, play a certain position or play right away or at least feel they are good enough to start right away.. With this in mind, i see more players taking a closer and harder look at the rosters of teams who recruit them and thus with the likelyhood of them riding the bench for a couple of years, if not redshirted, they may look at a different school...

In doing that, there are a lot of factors that come involved of course, the familarity of the school by the individual, the facilities, the coach, the location, the success, etc... I think in recent times a top tier Playoff Division school has been more successful in landing better recruits over a lower tier Bowl Division all other things being equal because of their success on the field and the ability to win an actual championships and the fact that the player feels he will have a better chance of playing sooner..

The lack of tv exposure may seem to be a minus, but with technology today, players are going to be noticed if they are good as far as NFL potential, aka Marques Colston..

App state did a lot to change the perception of casual fans and future recruits in college football and Nicholls and SIU also helped their cause because the won in their backyard basically againest what was perceived to be a better team. Regardless of how Michigan's season turns out, App still beat a team with much better facilities, more money, more fans, more tradition, more coverage (by far) and more pampered (maybe that is part of their downfall).

[footballfan11]

I think the gap is closing because a lot of the recruiters have not adjusted to the times. They are looking for players that look good in their uniform and the ones that play good are getting overlooked more because their size or 40 times maybe. Its starting to be a hit and miss game because a lot of prospects are "projects" that coaches believe they can make great, and the players that are knocked for everything except for how good they really are falling to the smaller schools and the small schools are expeirencing more success against the big schools because of that.

[McNeese_beat]

All excellent points. And I'd say the vast majority of the time, given the choice between a Wyoming-type and Montana (or MSU), the kid is going to go with the school with the winning tradition.

I guess my presumption has always been (especially in recent years) that the "blue chippers" are being recruited regardless of location, because of the advancements in technology that allow them to be "there" in the coach's office with video, or on-line video, etc....I would think that if a kid is good enough, and wants to play Pac-10 or SEC, they'll find him.

I've been known to be wrong a time or two, though. ;) :o

Well, I do think there are blue chippers out there who are blue chippers because, well...like Shaquille O'Neal was a blue chipper and who couldn't see it? But then there are guys who are blue chippers because somebody says they are...

[Doc QB]

McNeese Beat commented..."For example, there are a lot of kids out there who are 6-foot, 190 pounds and run a 4.6 40. There are kids who have that makeup in D-II. There are kids with that makeup in the Pac-10 and the SEC. How do you separate them?" This is an excellent point. The difference comes from the systems that produced those 6-0, 190 lbs guys, and if they were a part of winning programs that went deep into state play-offs. I was a similar kid in the early 90's, 6-1, 190, 4.6 at Penn State's camp, but played for a 6-5 HS team. I got nibbles from Rutgers, BC, Maryland and UNC because of coach connections. Ended up in 1-AA where I probably belonged. Same dimensions of a QB from my HS last year, multi year starter on two-time state runner-up in PA, well, he's in a Northwestern uniform this fall. Can never count out the impact of state playoff caliber guys as an added dimension.

[AZGrizFan]

McNeese Beat commented..."For example, there are a lot of kids out there who are 6-foot, 190 pounds and run a 4.6 40. There are kids who have that makeup in D-II. There are kids with that makeup in the Pac-10 and the SEC. How do you separate them?" This is an excellent point. The difference comes from the systems that produced those 6-0, 190 lbs guys, and if they were a part of winning programs that went deep into state play-offs. I was a similar kid in the early 90's, 6-1, 190, 4.6 at Penn State's camp, but played for a 6-5 HS team. I got nibbles from Rutgers, BC, Maryland and UNC because of coach connections. Ended up in 1-AA where I probably belonged. Same dimensions of a QB from my HS last year, multi year starter on two-time state runner-up in PA, well, he's in a Northwestern uniform this fall. Can never count out the impact of state playoff caliber guys as an added dimension.

In states known as "hotbed" for football: Cali, Texas, PA, FL, Ohio, etc. I'm not sure how much press making the AA playoffs in Montana gets you.... xeyebrowx

[NE MT GRIZZ]

I'm not sure how much press making the AA playoffs in Montana gets you.... xeyebrowx


Especially when 8 out of 13 or 14 teams make the playoffsxnonono2x

[Franks Tanks]

McNeese Beat commented..."For example, there are a lot of kids out there who are 6-foot, 190 pounds and run a 4.6 40. There are kids who have that makeup in D-II. There are kids with that makeup in the Pac-10 and the SEC. How do you separate them?" This is an excellent point. The difference comes from the systems that produced those 6-0, 190 lbs guys, and if they were a part of winning programs that went deep into state play-offs. I was a similar kid in the early 90's, 6-1, 190, 4.6 at Penn State's camp, but played for a 6-5 HS team. I got nibbles from Rutgers, BC, Maryland and UNC because of coach connections. Ended up in 1-AA where I probably belonged. Same dimensions of a QB from my HS last year, multi year starter on two-time state runner-up in PA, well, he's in a Northwestern uniform this fall. Can never count out the impact of state playoff caliber guys as an added dimension.


Good points. I had a high school coach who was connected as well and I spoke to a lot of coaches at bigger schools. Maybe could have went somewhere "bigger" but went to Lafayette and got much more playing time, which is what I was looking for.

[McNeese_beat]

McNeese Beat commented..."For example, there are a lot of kids out there who are 6-foot, 190 pounds and run a 4.6 40. There are kids who have that makeup in D-II. There are kids with that makeup in the Pac-10 and the SEC. How do you separate them?" This is an excellent point. The difference comes from the systems that produced those 6-0, 190 lbs guys, and if they were a part of winning programs that went deep into state play-offs. I was a similar kid in the early 90's, 6-1, 190, 4.6 at Penn State's camp, but played for a 6-5 HS team. I got nibbles from Rutgers, BC, Maryland and UNC because of coach connections. Ended up in 1-AA where I probably belonged. Same dimensions of a QB from my HS last year, multi year starter on two-time state runner-up in PA, well, he's in a Northwestern uniform this fall. Can never count out the impact of state playoff caliber guys as an added dimension.

Good post, Doc. I know McNeese gets a lot of quality skill kids from small Louisiana high schools where you play both ways and don't develop at a particular position. For example (and I've used this example before) a Laron Landry plays at a Class 5A school (Hahnville) where he played safety in a defense that played a lot of cover two, man, some half-and-half, used blitz packages, zone blitzes, safety blitzes, etc. All things you'd use in college. All things coaches can watch and get a good feel for a kid beyond his height and weight and 40.

McNeese has a couple of brothers (mean that literally, not because they are black, ha.) who played at a Class 2A school. They are similar in size and speed to LSU recruits, but they both played running back, DB, linebacker, wide receiver and quarterback at various times in their prep career. It's hard to get a feel for them as a player in that situation. Plus, when they played their eventual position (DB) they would play a base free safety that literally played deep center field the whole game. When you have a bunch of players going both ways, it tends to simplify what you try to do.

FCS schools tend to have to dig deeper and find guys like that.