"Sark has closed the border."
by benzduck on Feb 2, 2010 1:53 AM PST
32 comments
In another conversation on this site, a UW supporter asserted, rather testily, in response to a comment about a recruit switching from UW to Oregon, that UW was retaining its in-state talent. Sarkisian had "closed the border".
WA has far more top prospects year in year out than OR. UO recritus nationally out of necessity, UW can get by with locking down the top 5-15 guys in state annually and plucking the rest from CA and HI.
-- "B Money"
Seems we've heard this before. Lambright couldn't keep the border closed, so Neuheisel said he'd be making it a priority. As did Gilbertson in his only recruiting class. (Willingham never seemed to mention the border.)
The fact is that most years, UW signs most of the top football players in Washington. This is not debatable. The borders are closed, and have been for years.
And yet, the Huskies continue to underperform.
Analysis of data provided by a premium web site that will not be named (we'll call it "Spout, Hot Mom") shows that the last six years of bottom-tier football at Montlake has been played by teams liberally stocked with the State of Washington's "top talent."
Let's go to the chart...
The graph data is based on analysis of the top 40 players eligible for recruiting from the state of Washington each year, and includes verbal "commits" for 2010. If a player committed to Washington during the signing period, they're part of the purple line, which represents the share of 3 star or higher recruits in the state for each of the top 6 schools.
In only one recruiting season -- 2009, when you really couldn't blame a kid for not wanting to sign onto a sinking garbage scow, and Wulff cleaned up in-state -- did UW not retain a clear majority of three-star-or-better talent from its home state.
Occasionally, UW absolutely cleans up in-state. In 2003, not knowing he was a lame duck, Neuheisel retained an astounding 75% of the top state talent. Willingham's last recruiting season -- the one before the Husky O-fer -- reflected, at 65%, a well-sealed border. Even in Tyrone's leanest years, no school got as much top Washington talent as Washington.
With the elite, 5* talent, UW doesn't fare as well lately -- possibly a factor of their recent also-ran status; why would a top player go to UW if he had a choice? Since 2002 there have been five 5* players in Washington:
2005 Jonathan Stewart RB Oregon
2006 Taylor Mays S USC
2006 Steve Schilling OLB Michigan
2008 Kavario Middleton TE Washington
2010 Jake Heaps QB BYU
(You could say that UW is tied for 1st place among schools competing for elite Washington talent.)
Is Sark improving things for UW? Maybe. It's hard to tell, as this year there isn't a great deal of top-tier talent coming out of the state. Compared to last year, he's working miracles. With only 5 in-state players rated at 4 or 5 stars, UW appears to have landed three of those, and Sark might not have had a real shot anyway with the others (the nation's #1 QB prospect, Jake Heaps, will sign with BYU -- Heaps is LDS, which never hurts when recruiting to Provo -- and 4* TE Aaron Dunn is headed to Wazzu, in his Spokane backyard). Sark has (as of 2/2) a good collection of 4* players on his prospective commit list, but only three are from Washington. And UW gets the bulk of the 2* or lower players they want in-state, which is to be expected considering the local competition.
Overall, though, focusing on in-state talent might be a good way to keep the local media and members of the Tyee Club happy in early February, but it's demonstrably not a recipe for competitive football. Sarkisian certainly realizes this, but he'd be a fool to admit it.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Addicted To Quack Moderators. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon fans.
4 recs |
32 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Of course it's not a recipie for competitive football
Nothing is a recipie for competitive football when you couldn’t coach your way out of a wet paper bag. My assertion is that Sarkisian has begun once again locking down the best in state is true, short of Heaps (who might as well have been commited to BYU already by the time Sark was even hired). Showing that other coaches could retain players in state and lose only shows me that they were a terrible coach. Tyrone Willingham (I feel very comfortable saying this without any proof to back it up) was one of the worst recruiters in all of college football.
I wish Spout Hot Mom kept a data base before 2002. The Don James school of thought was to keep the best kids (worthy of a Pac-10 scholorship) on board and fill in the blanks from California and Hawaii. The three states combined, can easily sustain a program, even in down years. The difference between James and the aforementioned coaches, is that he could in fact, coach. I’m impressed by your graphs, and your ability to twist something I said into a whole fanpost about how bad UW is, but not by your logic.
This is all so stupid to me, that a fanpost was made stemming from a “testy” retort I made, to a snarky comment I felt required one. I understand that Spout Hot Mom only goes back as far as 2002, but obviously a biased sample size and timeframe is no way to base an assertion such as this.
One more note...
the border hasn’t been closed. Obviously it’s not since Willingham managed just one out of 4 5* prospects. Just because UW signs more in-state talent every year doesn’t make the border “closed”. UW doesn’t need 75% of the in-state talent, they need 100% of the top in-state talent. They need to start winning battles with UO, OSU, Cal and Stanford…and by all accounts have this year.
This whole graph idea is skewed, the other teams can have 75% of their roster from WA if they want to, and they can sign more kids out of WA. The idea is that UW needs to win it’s battles over every target that they legitimately want from WA, and then leave the scraps for other teams to pick up.
Heaps was probably @ BYU from birth.
Plenty of empirical evidence remains to show Willingham was a poor coach. Anyone who can take his school from routine top-20 in recruiting to bottom tier in two years has a real talent.
The point of the post, besides irritating you, was to show that the “circle the wagons” mentality can’t provide for a sustainable program. These days you have to go out and get the best players first regardless of state. When you’re good, the good players from your state are more likely to give you a second look.
“Lock down the local talent and then get what you can in California” might have worked 20 years ago, but I doubt its effectiveness in 2010; the market’s too globalized. The only states that can survive with a parochial recruiting model are California, Texas and Florida. And maybe Pennsylvania and Ohio. That’s it. The other states don’t have enough good football played in high school to sustain a base.
That’s why I always laugh when I hear someone spouting about locking down the borders. They’re preaching to the choir, but these days, they don’t mean it.
everything is history, eventually.
The only states that can survive with a parochial recruiting model are California, Texas and Florida. And maybe Pennsylvania and Ohio. That’s it. The other states don’t have enough good football played in high school to sustain a base.
This is true, and why it’s more important to lock down the best in-state.
If you go look nationally, sure you can snag some good ones (as you guys have shown). However when, for example, UW doesn’t solidify the Puget Sound talent, they suddenly battle 4 other major programs in California for their prizes. As many good players are in California, there is not enough for 5+ schools to sustain a base. California has all of the Pac-10 and about 20 other top programs vying for it’s players, UW is a small fish in a big pond right now. We need the easy pickups so we don’t have to worry when we whiff on the big names that go to the hometown schools or elsewhere.
It’s a tried and true philosiphy that still works (see: Michigan/Michigan State, LSU). Like I stated before, I’m not arguing the merits of either method as they both have their pros and cons. UW has and can continue to do this because in general the level of prospects is higher than Oregon.
And yes I’m bitter, because this all got ripped out of context to the point of a fanpost trying to debunk things I didn’t say. Although I can see how they were implied, that was not my intent. The “UO does so out of necessity” was probably out of line, as your strategy is a calculated gamble rather than a last ditch option.
So, can we put this to bed and agree to disagree. I’m just tired of going in circles.
“When you’re in a hole, son, the first thing to do is stop digging.”
everything is history, eventually.
Now it's going to keep going...
because I’m not in a hole. You have done nothing to prove anything I’ve said wrong. I’m not even sure that you can, since it’s merely my opinion on how UW needs to recruit. Although, I’d love to debate the merit of my argument, because I feel it’s strong. Instead, you keep dropping charts and one liners.
I get your point, and it’s a good one to an extent. You can’t rely on local kids to build a program…and this is true. I’m not suggesting that UW build it’s future with WA kids, because there aren’t enough to do it. I’m suggesting that it’s vital to lock down the best in the area as a base for the class, not as the base of your program. I’m also suggesting that UW is in a better spot to do that than UO.
oh the horror
but I’m actually going to defend B Money a bit here. Any state sans CA/TX/FL doesn’t have enough talent to sustain a top tier program. But you have a distinct advantage with most recruits in-state. Everything out of state is going to be a battle. If you can lock down the in state kids that you want, your margin of error out of state is a bit greater. A lot greater? Not insurmountable (and the relationship is inverse when you have very little in-state talent, like Oregon). But its definitely to Washington’s advantage to lock up in state kids that can ball. They still have to go elsewhere for the meat of their class, but its good to get as much as you can as easily as you can.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
Thank you...
I will put this to bed now. You took some of the words from my mouth. I suppose this is why you write (semi?) professionally.
I wasn’t trying to start a fight, I just really like debating about random useless things. We can go the route I went with Cougcenter and just start talking about beer. Rogue beers (and awesome gin) is my favorite thing in Oregon (besides my Grandmother).
Well… now I have a hard time hating you after mentioning Rogue.
its spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-N-O-B-A-L-L-S"
It takes a hell of a man
To stand down and digress for the greater good. I’m willing to admit that I might be that great. Also, Rosebowlsayswhat?
That help?
On the real, Rogue’s “Adult Beverage Engineers” are head and shoulders above the rest of the west coast when it comes to creativity and taste:value ratio. I’ve had better beers, but I have yet to have anything I’ve given less than an 87 (I brew, so yes I keep a beer rating journal) to from them. I just found about their gin last year in Astoria, I hate gin, but theirs is excellent.
by B Money on Feb 2, 2010 2:13 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The worst part about being RIFd out of the hospital in Newport, and having to move to the valley because there are no jobs in Lincoln County, is missing out on afternoon tastings at the Rogue’s brewery pub upstairs. They do some amazing zymurgy over there.
I haven’t tried their gin. Spendy?
everything is history, eventually.
I don't recall
I had been drinking most of the day when it was purchased. I wanna say about $23-27 for a 750ml. Don’t quote me on that.
It’s got great lemon and almost floral/hop notes…and it doesn’t taste like it was made in my brother-in-law’s bathtub.
by B Money on Feb 2, 2010 2:31 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Speaking of bathtub gin..
I had an Italian neighbor when I was a kid, who owned a bowling alley. He let me mow his lawn using his riding mower for $5 and taught me how to steam crab and eat it with drawn butter, good skills for a ten year old.
Anyway. One year he decided he’d make wine. Got the grapes, some yeast, mashed them up in a tub. Put it in the corner of his garage with a top on it. Checked it out a few months later.
The tub was galvanized. Or, at least, it was, until he fermented wine in it. Between the mass clouds of fruit flies and globs of wine must floating amongst zinc-chip icebergs, it was quite the tempting libation.
The guy seriously asked, “Do you think we could filter it out?”
everything is history, eventually.
The state trooper
In line for the ferry thinks I’m a jackass for laughing by myself in my truck.
I’ve been experimenting with distilling (watet of course, since booze is illegal), and made a dirty moonshine. The original mash included such fine ingredients as del monte catsup and 3 year old brown sugar. It was the most horrible liquer I’ve ever consumed. Although at 160 proof I managed to get rid of it all…I have poor friends. I’ve since stuck to better recepies.
Amatuer alcohol production is generally not a good idea.
by B Money on Feb 2, 2010 3:36 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah. I saw that just started a distillery. I saw Rogue Dead Guy Whiskey (Bourbon?) a couple months ago.
its spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-N-O-B-A-L-L-S"
Technically
Whiskey can only be called bourbon if it’s produced in the TN/KY region where all the main american whiskey distilleries are located. I believe it has to do with the water coming from some river there.
I would guess it’s a “bourbon style” whiskey though.
I haven’t seen any Rogue liquers up here in the Seattle area. I must find some next time I head to Oregon. I’m big on bourbon and scotch.
by B Money on Feb 2, 2010 3:42 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Whiskey can only be called bourbon if it’s produced in the TN/KY region where all the main american whiskey distilleries are located.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Wikipedia’s not a source! Doesn’t count!
It's spelled "R-E-D-V-I-N-E-S"
I support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Addicted to Quack, the home of Tako Tuesdays
No argument from me on this one.
You have to know that this was somewhat tongue-in-cheek from the beginning.
A “distinct advantage with most recruits in-state” is necessary, but clearly insufficient based on UW’s recent results.
I just chuckle when, year after year, going back to Jim Lambright, the first thing these guys say is how they’re going to “close the borders.” It’s playing to the crowd, makes for a good quote, but isn’t going to get you more than 4 or 5 wins a year if you whiff on the national front.
everything is history, eventually.
I get the tounge-in-cheek part
but it became less about what I said and more about calling me out. Anyhow, it’s dead. In other news, Dungy huh?
Sensitive much?
OK, it’s dead.
Not the first time I’ve beaten the living shit out of a point. It’s good exercise.
Eric Dungy.. uh, yeah.. wonder if his name was Eric Wajberlinski and he didn’t have a superstar father, would he have gotten a second look from Kelly? It’s not as though he was highly recruited — only the 2nd tier schools in Florida offered him.
My guess is he’s being signed for the “intangibles”, in more ways than one.
everything is history, eventually.
Of course UW's in a better spot than Oregon.
Oregon: Population Ranked 27th in the US
- Total 3,825,657 (2009 estimate)
Washington: Population Ranked 13th in the US
- Total 6,664,195 (2009 estimate)
With a population some 70% larger, it’s a given that there will be more athletes in Washington high schools than in Oregon high schools. In fact there damn well better be more good players out of Washington, or someone isn’t doing their job.
As for this..
I’m suggesting that it’s vital to lock down the best in the area as a base for the class, not as the base of your program.
Seems that if each of your classes has the best in the area locked down, your program by logical extension will have that as a base as well. Obviously I’m too stupid to deduce your reasoning on this one.
everything is history, eventually.
Hey benzduck, I’ve got this spare rec, I figure you can use it.
It's spelled "T-H-E-I-M-P-A-C-T"
I support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Addicted to Quack, the home of Tako Tuesdays
One more tidbit regarding that 2003 UW recruiting class:
The two top players that Washington didn’t get that year?
- Johnny DuRocher (who eventually transferred to UW)
- Jordan Carey (who was dropped from the Oregon team due to drug issues, eventually wound up at Portland State).
So you could say Neu picked the right guys to whiff on.
everything is history, eventually.
This ain't rocket science.
There’s nothing complicated about all this.
UW should – and will – almost always get the lion’s share of in-state talent. The only thing that can hold UW back from getting back to something more than respectable (I’ll give them credit for moving beyond “punchline” in 2009) is stability in the coaching staff. If they can keep Sark and key assistants around more than another year or two, you can count on the Dawgs regaining their bite. If Sark jumps ship, then everything is in flux again. Maybe they’d come out okay if he leaves, or maybe it’s another decade of Harmless In Seattle.
"...the noise is one aspect, but you can feel the intensity of their crowd." - Pete Carroll on Oregon's Autzen Stadium.
I for one welcome our future violet overlords
Not really, but things are much more entertaining in the NW when there’s more than one or one-and-a-half decent teams.
20 years ago, I had one of those “Working for a Husky-Free Northwest” bumper stickers. Surprisingly, it’s not as much fun when you routinely stomp a team by three touchdowns. I guess now we know how they felt back in the 80s. It’s more fun to beat a team when you get credit for it.
So, I kind of hope Sark sticks around at least long enough to get them to something above mediocrity, but less than donimant. Which probably makes me some kind of heretic around these parts, but hell, I’m old and don’t give a damn.
everything is history, eventually.
I think the reason for UW fans' bitterness is more of the whole 6 straight losses against the Quack Attack variety.
I'm just a humble servant of the almighty Juju.
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Feb 2, 2010 5:51 PM PST reply actions
Sark has closed the Bar door
I'm going to the beach to bury metal objects that I've written "Get a Life" on.
Addicted to Quack
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Addicted To Quack
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
