clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

What are we doing?

here's been some debate about RU's approach lately.

1. No official visits during the season. They bring kids for unofficials all the time, to the sidelines of games, etc... and do all the other common stuff, but this is a major stickling point. Yes, **** and ***** recruits wanted to visit during the season and they were told no. By the time December comes around, many had already committed elsewhere.

2. Very, very hesitant to offer early, even in cases where it's almost a certainity that the player will end up with an offer anyway. I don't care if it's about grades, but there were several players this year and in past years that the staff probably cost themselves by not jumping on early. There is some evidence that this is changing. Partially out of necessity. NJ looks week next year, so a ton of offers have gone out to MD, VA, and West PA so far.

3. The staff goes for the blunt approach. They're going to be clear about what position you're going to play, and they're going to encourage you to take your visits. There are certain cases where you do need to do the hard sell. This is not to say that the staff is lazy. Far from it. Susan and Demarest work as hard as anyone. Anyway, this has directly led to losing several recruits. Two went to Maryland last year, and there's no way that Tony Logan will stick at QB or Lansford Watson at WR, but that's what the Fridge sold them on to get them to campus. They're honest about the depth chart too, which is how Syracuse nabbed Parker Cantey a few years ago.

The point of being dishonest is to get to a level where it doesn't matter anymore. Relationships matter, especially if you're still a fledging program. I've read about Davie becoming persona non grata. On the other hand, I wonder if anyone would have cared if they (or other blacklisted programs) were more successful. Perhaps it's not a risk worth taking at this point. But the "we'll try you on offense, to start" line is so common that it's hard to fathom that being a complete dealbreaker down the line.

That Syracuse situation I was talking about, it was kind of weird because Rivals had us listed as taking 8 LBs that year and that player would have technically been the ninth. Another reason to hold a grudge against Farrell is that he refused to change the positions of certain players that year who were known to be moving to other positions, or reclassify two players who were going to grayshirt. And Syracuse of all teams points to a Rivals commit list of evidence of a crowded depth chart.