|
printer-friendly |
talk about it |
Football Recruiting - A Different Type of Analysis
Part 2: Geographic Breakdown of Recruiting
by Phil Martin, 6/9/05
Click here for Part 1: Head-to-Head Recruiting
The first article in our series took a comparative look at how Virginia Tech stacked up against its recruiting competition
head-to-head. Now that we have analyzed the competition, the next step is to breakdown recruiting by location. I will
analyze the regional recruiting trends in more detail by breaking down offers from Tech by geographic location.
Virginia Tech's acceptance in the ACC provided the opportunity to compete more easily with the regional schools in
football recruiting. While the Hokies' recruiting focus will always be in-state, Tech began to recruit North Carolina
more heavily, assigning three assistant coaches to this state. In fact, Tech almost offered as many players from North
Carolina (17) as from Virginia (21) last year. Virginia Tech also began to recruit South Carolina and Georgia while
leaving a previous recruiting area, Florida. While the initial success in these new recruiting areas was not
significant, Tech's presence should lead to more signings in the future.
The following table provides the number of Virginia Tech signees and offers by state for the last four years. Note
that players are listed in the state they went to high school, i.e., prep school or junior college players are listed in
the state they attended high school. Also, prep school players that committed as seniors and stayed with their original
commitment are only listed in their high school senior year, e.g., William Wall would be listed in DC for the 2003-2004
recruiting year.
Table 1 - Recruiting by State for the Last Four Years |
State
|
2004-2005 |
2003-2004 |
2002-2003 |
2001-2002 |
Total |
Pct.
|
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
VA |
14 |
21 |
11 |
18 |
14 |
21 |
16 |
25 |
55 |
85 |
.647 |
NC |
1 |
17 |
2 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
38 |
.132 |
FL |
0 |
1 |
1 |
12 |
4 |
7 |
2 |
19 |
7 |
39 |
.179 |
NJ |
1 |
14 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
34 |
.088 |
PA |
0 |
1 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
20 |
.000 |
MD |
3 |
12 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
20 |
.150 |
SC |
1 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
1 |
12 |
.083 |
GA |
2 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
.200 |
DC |
0 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
6 |
.667 |
TN |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
.333 |
NY |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
.000 |
DE |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
.000 |
TX |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
.000 |
OH |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
.000 |
WV |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
.000 |
KY |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
.000 |
MI |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
.000 |
AL |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
.000 |
LA |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
.000 |
WI |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
.000 |
TOT |
22 |
87 |
19 |
70 |
22 |
65 |
19 |
73 |
82 |
295 |
.278 |
In the last four years, Tech has signed an astounding 65% of in-state players that have been offered. Anyone still
wonder why Tech concentrates so much on in-state recruits? Tech's success out-of-state has been more limited, with
only 13% of the players offered signing. In other words, Tech signs approximately 5 out of 8 players in-state that are
offered and only 1 out of 8 players offered from out-of-state.
Does Tech have more success in one part of the state than another? To break down Tech's recruiting in Virginia, I
have divided the state into four regions: (1) East - east of (and including) Williamsburg; (2) North - north of (and
including) Fredericksburg and Culpeper; (3) West - west of (and including) Lynchburg, Staunton, and Harrisonburg; (4)
Central - everything in between the other three regions.
Table 2 - Regional Breakdown of Virginia Recruiting for the Last Four Years |
State
|
2004-2005 |
2003-2004 |
2002-2003 |
2001-2002 |
Total |
Pct.
|
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
East |
6 |
8 |
3 |
5 |
6 |
10 |
6 |
10 |
21 |
32 |
.656 |
North |
5 |
7 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
8 |
15 |
26 |
.577 |
Central |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
12 |
15 |
.800 |
West |
0 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
7 |
12 |
.583 |
Tech has experienced slightly more success in the Richmond (Central) area, but statistically the four regions are
fairly even. The Tidewater region has generally been considered the strongest high school football area in the state,
and these statistics support that conclusion with 38% of Tech's in-state offers coming from the Eastern region. One
interesting piece of information is that the Peninsula District, located in upper Hampton Roads, has as many offers (12)
as the Western region of the state for the last four years.
Obviously, in-state loyalty is extremely important for Tech's recruiting, but is location a significant factor
overall in Tech's recruiting strategy? In other words, is the likelihood of a player selecting the Hokies inversely
related to the distance from Blacksburg? A quick look at the signing probability in states adjacent to Virginia would
indicate that a definite relationship exists. The following table looks at the signees and offers from states bordering
Virginia:
Table 3 - Recruiting by Adjacent States to Virginia for the Last Four Years |
State
|
2004-2005 |
2003-2004 |
2002-2003 |
2001-2002 |
Total |
Pct.
|
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
Sign |
Offer |
NC |
1 |
17 |
2 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
38 |
.132 |
MD |
3 |
12 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
20 |
.150 |
DC |
0 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
6 |
.667 |
TN |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
.333 |
WV |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
.000 |
KY |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
.000 |
TOT |
4 |
32 |
5 |
17 |
4 |
16 |
1 |
9 |
14 |
74 |
.189 |
The percentage of out-of-state players signing with Tech from adjacent states is about twice the rate from
non-adjacent states (18.9% compared to 9.6% from non-adjacent states). Geography certainly appears to be a factor in
Tech's recruiting strategy. I would expect that the percentage of players signing from adjacent states would continue
to increase, particularly in North Carolina where Virginia Tech is placing an increased emphasis.
Looking at the information from the first article on head-to-head recruiting and this article on regional recruiting,
the next obvious question is who is Tech's biggest competition in-state and against whom do the Hokies have the most
problem competing out-of-state? Obviously, UVA is VT's main competition in-state, but what other schools recruit
Virginia heavily and how does Tech fair against those schools? The following table provides the head-to-head recruiting
records in-state for the last four years:
Table 4 - Head-to-Head Recruiting Records In-State for Last Four Years |
School |
2004-2005 |
2003-2004 |
2002-2003 |
2001-2002 |
Total |
Pct. |
W |
L |
W |
L |
W |
L |
W |
L |
W |
L |
ACC |
Virginia |
8 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
8 |
5 |
25 |
15 |
.62 |
Maryland |
6 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
23 |
0 |
1.0 |
UNC |
7 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
17 |
2 |
.89 |
N.C. State |
6 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
1.0 |
Clemson |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
1.0 |
Wake Forest |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
1.0 |
BC |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
.71 |
Florida State |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
.83 |
Duke |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
1.0 |
Miami |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
1.0 |
Ga. Tech |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total ACC: |
121 |
20 |
.86 |
SEC |
Tennessee |
5 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
17 |
1 |
.94 |
Florida |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
7 |
2 |
.78 |
Georgia |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
1.0 |
S. Carolina |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
LSU |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total SEC: |
31 |
3 |
.91 |
BIG TEN |
Penn State |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
.75 |
Michigan |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
1.0 |
Ohio State |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
1.0 |
Mich. State |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1.0 |
Purdue |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1.0 |
Iowa |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Indiana |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Northwestern |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total Big Ten: |
25 |
2 |
.93 |
BIG EAST |
WVU |
7 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
20 |
1 |
.95 |
Syracuse |
7 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
1.0 |
Pittsburgh |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
11 |
1 |
.92 |
Connecticut |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
1.0 |
Rutgers |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
Cincinnati |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total Big East: |
53 |
2 |
.96 |
BIG 12 |
Nebraska |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
1.0 |
Oklahoma |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
Kansas State |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
Colorado |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total Big 12: |
9 |
0 |
1.0 |
PAC 10 |
UCLA |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
.67 |
Southern Cal |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total PAC 10: |
3 |
1 |
.75 |
OTHERS |
East Carolina |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
1.0 |
Marshall |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
1.0 |
Notre Dame |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
.50 |
Army |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
Kent State |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
1.0 |
Akron |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1.0 |
Temple |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
Toledo |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Ohio |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
C. Michigan |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
W. Michigan |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total Others: |
35 |
2 |
.95 |
TOTAL |
111 |
7 |
65 |
7 |
66 |
7 |
90 |
9 |
332 |
30 |
.92 |
Obviously Tech does exceptionally well in-state since no other school has a winning record against the Hokies in
Virginia. UVA appears to be the only real competition that VT has for in-state players, with the Wahoos signing half of
the players that Tech has lost in the last four years. In fact, many schools have stopped recruiting the Commonwealth of
Virginia because of the success that Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia have had keeping players in the state.
To provide a different look at Tech's recruiting competition for in-state players, the following table shows the
number of common offers from schools for players from Virginia in the last four years:
Table 5 - Common Offers for In-State Players for the Last Four Years |
School |
2004-2005 |
2003-2004 |
2002-2003 |
2001-2002 |
Total |
Virginia |
14 |
7 |
10 |
16 |
47 |
Maryland |
10 |
6 |
11 |
13 |
40 |
WVU |
11 |
5 |
7 |
14 |
37 |
UNC |
11 |
8 |
4 |
7 |
30 |
Tennessee |
6 |
7 |
6 |
10 |
29 |
Syracuse |
10 |
5 |
8 |
5 |
28 |
N.C. State |
7 |
4 |
7 |
9 |
27 |
Pittsburgh |
3 |
3 |
5 |
9 |
20 |
Clemson |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
Wake Forest |
6 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
16 |
Florida |
6 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
15 |
Penn State |
4 |
0 |
4 |
7 |
15 |
BC |
3 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
14 |
East Carolina |
1 |
3 |
7 |
3 |
14 |
Mich. State |
3 |
0 |
4 |
6 |
13 |
Michigan |
3 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
11 |
Duke |
3 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
10 |
Georgia |
3 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
10 |
Marshall |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
10 |
Nebraska |
6 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
9 |
Ga. Tech |
2 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
9 |
Notre Dame |
0 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
Miami |
3 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
8 |
Florida State |
2 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
8 |
Ohio State |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
7 |
Kent State |
1 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
Oklahoma |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
Connecticut |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
UCLA |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
Purdue |
0 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
Northwestern |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
Kansas State |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Army |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Akron |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Rutgers |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
Stanford |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Indiana |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
Southern Cal |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
Temple |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
S. Carolina |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Kentucky |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
LSU |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Navy |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Iowa |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Colorado |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Cincinnati |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Toledo |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
W. Michigan |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
C. Michigan |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Vanderbilt |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Alabama |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Ohio |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
TOTAL |
165 |
107 |
132 |
202 |
606 |
No real surprises, at least for me, in looking at the schools that are recruiting Virginia the most. Probably the
most interesting statistic from this data is the schools that are not recruiting the state, such as Louisville,
Kentucky, South Carolina, Auburn, Alabama, and Mississippi.
Another aspect to this data is evaluating the recruiting classes for the state. Assuming that a correlation exists
between the number of offers for players in-state and the quality of the recruiting class, 2001-2002 (Ahmad Brooks,
Marcus Vick class) looks to be the strongest class followed by 2004-2005 (Victor Harris, Elan Lewis class), 2002-2003
(Xavier Adibi, Vince Hall class), and lastly 2003-2004 (Eddie Royal, Chris Long class). Intuitively, that would be my
ranking of the in-state recruiting classes as well.
Now that we have examined Tech's success in recruiting in-state in the recent past, how have the Hokies done
out-of-state against our competition? The following table displays the head-to-head recruiting records out-of-state for
the last four years:
Table 6 - Head-to-Head Recruiting Records Out-of-State for the Last Four Years |
School |
2004-05 |
2003-04 |
2002-03 |
2001-02 |
Total |
Pct. |
W |
L |
W |
L |
W |
L |
W |
L |
W |
L |
ACC |
Virginia |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
3 |
.67 |
Maryland |
4 |
7 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
12 |
12 |
.50 |
N.C. State |
2 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
17 |
.35 |
UNC |
4 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
10 |
9 |
.53 |
Florida State |
2 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
6 |
12 |
.33 |
Clemson |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
7 |
5 |
.58 |
Miami |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
12 |
.14 |
Wake Forest |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
3 |
.62 |
BC |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
.80 |
Duke |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
1.0 |
Ga. Tech |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total ACC: |
67 |
74 |
.48 |
SEC |
Tennessee |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
8 |
.43 |
Florida |
2 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
5 |
9 |
.36 |
S. Carolina |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
.50 |
Georgia |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
.20 |
Alabama |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
.71 |
LSU |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
.60 |
Auburn |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
.33 |
Mississippi |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1.0 |
Vanderbilt |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
.75 |
Kentucky |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
.50 |
Miss. State |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1.0 |
Arkansas |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total SEC: |
40 |
38 |
.51 |
BIG TEN |
Penn State |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
11 |
.31 |
Michigan |
1 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
9 |
.36 |
Ohio State |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
6 |
.14 |
Mich. State |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
.60 |
Purdue |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
.20 |
Iowa |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
.50 |
Wisconsin |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
.60 |
Indiana |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
Minnesota |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1.0 |
Illinois |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
.67 |
Northwestern |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total Big Ten: |
28 |
37 |
.43 |
BIG EAST |
WVU |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
.50 |
Syracuse |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
1 |
.88 |
Pittsburgh |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
.50 |
Rutgers |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
.80 |
Connecticut |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
.67 |
Louisville |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
.67 |
USF |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
Cincinnati |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total Big East: |
24 |
9 |
.73 |
BIG 12 |
Nebraska |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
.50 |
Oklahoma |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
6 |
.00 |
Kansas State |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Missouri |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Texas A&M |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
.00 |
Total Big 12: |
5 |
10 |
.33 |
PAC 10 |
Southern Cal |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
.33 |
Arizona |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
Oregon |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Washington |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Wash. State |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Stanford |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
.00 |
Total PAC 10: |
6 |
3 |
.67 |
CUSA |
East Carolina |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
1.0 |
Marshall |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1.0 |
UCF |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Memphis |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
.00 |
Total CUSA: |
8 |
1 |
.88 |
OTHERS |
Notre Dame |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
8 |
.00 |
UNLV |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Temple |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
1.0 |
Kent State |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Akron |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Toledo |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Ohio |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
C. Michigan |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Ball State |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
E. Michigan |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
MTSU |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.0 |
Total Others: |
13 |
8 |
.62 |
TOTAL |
73 |
57 |
45 |
43 |
91 |
36 |
9 |
44 |
218 |
180 |
.55 |
From these results, we can see that Virginia Tech has had mixed results in recruiting out-of-state. The 2002-2003
recruiting class was quite successful outside of Virginia (James Griffin, Tripp Carroll, Mike Brown, Mike Hinton, Corey
Gordon, etc.) while the 2001-2002 recruiting year only produced three signees from out-of-state, none of whom had
productive careers at Tech (Big Jimmy Williams, Antoine Rutherford, Demetrius Hodges). Tech improved recruiting
out-of-state last year, but the Hokies still finished second for too many players, such as Melvin Alaeze, Jamie
Robinson, J.C. Neal, Jonathan Hannah, Dakota Walker, Dennis Landolt, Garrett Reynolds, Jon Walko, Jamari McCollough,
Brandon Ghee, Luqman Abdullah, and several more.
To reach the level of being a consistent national title contender, Tech is going to need to land more of these elite
out-of-state players in the future.
The next article takes a different angle and analyzes recruits by number of offers and provides a positional analysis
of Tech's success in recruiting.
TSL Pass Home
TSL Home
|
|