I just looked at some data

[Longestday]

So, I decided to look at Virginia’s 2010 coaching change. Mike London took over and recruited top 25 classes until 2013, top 30 2014, and then a 50th rank in 2015.

Recruiting will only be part of the equation. Does anyone know why he failed with outstanding recruiting?

 

[AE 87]

So, I decided to look at Virginia’s 2010 coaching change. Mike London took over and recruited top 25 classes until 2013, top 30 2014, and then a 50th rank in 2015.

Recruiting will only be part of the equation. Does anyone know why he failed with outstanding recruiting?

I don't have anything to respond to your question.

However, I think it is a really important question.

Mike London had a really solid resume imo. I thought he was an excellent hire. I watched his recruiting classes look really solid. Yet, he could not get the wins which I had expected. His experience contributed to my perspective that gameday coaching (incl. prep) is a bigger part of football success than is often appreciated.

To be clear: If you have a 3-deep that is more talented than most any team you face, you can be pretty successful regardless. However, as the talent becomes more comparable, the mind of the play-callers becomes more important, imo.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Coaching hires succeed and fail for various reasons, some of which we may never know. He took a big jump going straight from FCS to P5. But who knows, really? Comparisons are good discussion fodder, but not much else. No two people or situations are alike. Collins isn't Lewis or London, nor is he Dabo or Ross. He is Geoff Collins and he will succeed, fail or land somewhere in the middle, based on a lot of factors. We dont know yet. Only thing to do is give him a fair chance and hope for the best.

 

[4shotB]

So, I decided to look at Virginia’s 2010 coaching change. Mike London took over and recruited top 25 classes until 2013, top 30 2014, and then a 50th rank in 2015.

Recruiting will only be part of the equation. Does anyone know why he failed with outstanding recruiting?

I am starting to ignore the total class rank in favor of a maybe yet uninvented stat for class synergy. What I mean by this is say that you get 9 highly rated 5 star recruits at the skill positions but all your lineman are 2 star guys who don't pan out and develop. Your program is rated better at recruiting than the team that potentially signs and develops 3 star guys across the board. Key misses at critical positions are hidden in the overall blended rankings. Recall how our offense looked against Wake in the ACCCG even with Calvin and Tashard Choice because we missed badly at other key positions? Or look at our defense the last umpteen years....there have been many fine players in the secondary. But as you reflect back on all the people you have seen on the flats over the decades, how many of our front 7 in the last 10 years can you recall.

Bottom line, I don't put much weight in average class recruiting rankings. I think balance at all positions is more important than overall class ranking.

How does this relate to Mike London? I don't have the foggiest idea. I can only share what I have seen at GT in my lifetime.

 

[bke1984]

I am starting to ignore the total class rank in favor of a maybe yet uninvented stat for class synergy. What I mean by this is say that you get 9 highly rated 5 star recruits at the skill positions but all your lineman are 2 star guys who don't pan out and develop. Your program is rated better at recruiting than the team that potentially signs and develops 3 star guys across the board. Key misses at critical positions are hidden in the overall blended rankings. Recall how our offense looked against Wake in the ACCCG even with Calvin and Tashard Choice because we missed badly at other key positions? Or look at our defense the last umpteen years....there have been many fine players in the secondary. But as you reflect back on all the people you have seen on the flats over the decades, how many of our front 7 in the last 10 years can you recall.

Bottom line, I don't put much weight in average class recruiting rankings. I think balance at all positions is more important than overall class ranking.

How does this relate to Mike London? I don't have the foggiest idea. I can only share what I have seen at GT in my lifetime.

What you’re talking about is a statistic called variance, and although it’s not new people love to ignore it when talking about averages. This is not a phenomenon limited to football recruiting.

 

[4shotB]

What you’re talking about is a statistic called variance, and although it’s not new people love to ignore it when talking about averages. This is not a phenomenon limited to football recruiting.

I don't think it is quite as simple as variance. For example, let's say you recruited 20 kids....19 all 4 star Calvin Johnsons and the ilk at the WR position and 1 2 star OT. That's a calculated mean of 3.9 and variance of .19. However you already have a roster full of WR's.

Your competitor signs 20 kids but spreads them out to fill graduation losses...4 OL, 4 DL, 2 offensive skill position, 1 QB, 3 LB's, 1 TE, 4 DB's and 1 K. His class averaged 3.3 stars with a variance of .40 for example.

4 years down the road, which class do you want as seniors? I know this is a hypothetical example but illustrates why I think variance isn't the descriptor that I am looking for.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Mike London failed for a number of reasons, but first and foremost because he failed to successfully recruit enough good linemen on both sides of the ball.

People want to pretend that it's not true, but in 2019, football is still a game won by big strong men in the trenches.

The glory boys outside make the catches and do the dances and preen and posture, but linemen decide football games.

 

[4shotB]

People want to pretend that it's not true, but in 2019, football is still a game won by big strong men in the trenches.

The glory boys outside make the catches and do the dances and preen and posture, but linemen decide football games.

anyone that doesn't believe what this man says as truth needs to watch GT games this year!

 

[MWBATL]

Mike London failed for a number of reasons, but first and foremost because he failed to successfully recruit enough good linemen on both sides of the ball.

People want to pretend that it's not true, but in 2019, football is still a game won by big strong men in the trenches.

The glory boys outside make the catches and do the dances and preen and posture, but linemen decide football games.

QFT

As usual, @ilovetheoption hits the nail on the head.....and we are deficient in this category for a variety of reasons....

 

[bobongo]

Mike London failed for a number of reasons, but first and foremost because he failed to successfully recruit enough good linemen on both sides of the ball.

People want to pretend that it's not true, but in 2019, football is still a game won by big strong men in the trenches.

The glory boys outside make the catches and do the dances and preen and posture, but linemen decide football games.

Absolutely. So there's your answer. Get all the "skilled" guys you want but if you don't have the horses up front you'll be all dressed up with nowhere to go.

 

[gtrower]

Mike London, despite never beating VT, had a large hand in tearing that program down. He started stealing the top players in the state that VT had traditionally owned during there run of 10+ wins for like seven or eight straight seasons in the 2000s. They lost their foothold and started declining after that. I can remember an elite DB and DE that he took from VT one cycle that really stood out. Think both were 5* guys. Harold I think was one of them.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

uvag has never won a thing in football. I think they have played in One major bowl game.

Who gives one dump about uvag?

This is a great part of our problem, dumbing down our expectations to compete with the Never have beens.

 

[jchens_GT]

Mike London failed for a number of reasons, but first and foremost because he failed to successfully recruit enough good linemen on both sides of the ball.

People want to pretend that it's not true, but in 2019, football is still a game won by big strong men in the trenches.

The glory boys outside make the catches and do the dances and preen and posture, but linemen decide football games.

Thanks for this perspective. I was going to ask if those high ranked classes were due to skill players or linemen, but you answered my question.

 

[gtg391z]

Look no further than the Falcons. Spend all the money on QB, receivers and none on the line. Stupid.

 

[InsideLB]

People want to pretend that it's not true, but in 2019, football is still a game won by big strong men in the trenches.

Anybody who played college or higher knows this. Yes other weapons are important, but they are unusable consistently if u r whipped in the trenches.

 

[Sidewalking]

Anybody who played college or higher knows this. Yes other weapons are important, but they are unusable consistently if u r whipped in the trenches.

I think it's a football truism at any level, including high school on down. I guess a Bo Jackson in high school is a bigger difference maker than he is in college or the NFL but he still needs some blocking. Hershell is another example. He had a very good Oline blocking for him that never gets any credit for his success. Both had insane yards after first contact but I'm digressing. It's a truism at all levels.

 

[Ibeeballin]

Mike London, despite never beating VT, had a large hand in tearing that program down. He started stealing the top players in the state that VT had traditionally owned during there run of 10+ wins for like seven or eight straight seasons in the 2000s. They lost their foothold and started declining after that. I can remember an elite DB and DE that he took from VT one cycle that really stood out. Think both were 5* guys. Harold I think was one of them.

That would be Andrew Brown and Quin Blanding

 

[SteamWhistle]

So why did it take Dabo so long? Is he just now coaching them up, or did Clemson pony up and starting spending money and effort on recruiting?

 

[takethepoints]

This is an interesting thread, but I think it is still overlooking the main question.

London failed because he, while he could recruit, he couldn't coach a lick. Let's look at the anti-London: Bill Snyder at KSU. He built a superior program there despite being out-recruited by almost everybody. You think Paul's national recruiting rankings were bad? Go over to 247 and look at Kansas State under Synder. He specialized in a run heavy shotgun spread (as I believe I've mentioned here before) with a cast of 2 and 3 star players that almost no one else wanted mixed in with the occasional 4 star player. I compared his recruiting with Paul's in a previous post. KSU had higher average stars in one year out of the 11. Synder ended up 215-117-1. It ain't all recruiting by a long shot.

 

[RonJohn]

So why did it take Dabo so long? Is he just now coaching them up, or did Clemson pony up and starting spending money and effort on recruiting?

Clemson does spend a lot on recruiting. They also spend a lot on top notch coaches. They also spend a lot on multiple times the support staff that GT has. They also spend a lot on facilities.