• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

A Comprehensive Review of Coach Tressel's Recruiting Classes

ArmyVet83;2128876; said:
Great write-up LJB. I think your "ratings" were hard but fair.

I have to ask, do you contribute the "performance" of most of the recruits during Tressel's reign to be that of poor evaluation by the coaching staff during the recruiting process or the quality of coaching during the athletes tenure at tOSU?

I understand injuries and attrition will happen but it appears to me there was a combination of both during the Tressel years especially the quality of discipline amongst the student/athletes as a whole.

What is your perspective?

I'm not LJB, but I don't necessarily think that his ratings suggest poor evaluation. IMO, the only area where tOSU actually suffered on the field, was in relation to the offensive line....where we had some busts, but also just simply didn't offer enough. The thing I take from this is that there are ALWAYS going to be more busts than booms simply because of the sheer numbers involved. Meanwhile, in spite of all the failures or those that didn't live up to the lofty expectations, we had a 10 year run, that I can only hope to see again in my lifetime.
 
Upvote 0
When you think about it, that's a lot of zeroes.
Really, what's striking to me, is that only 3 of Tressel's classes were qualified as being 2.5*'s or greater in terms of on and off-field performance according to LJB's very objective view. I'd say 2.5 stars is what most would consider pretty average, yet barely any of the classes met that criteria, and the average (2.08 stars) is actually pretty lackluster performance in recruiting success.

Yet, he was largely one of the most dominant coaches over his, or any 10 year, span. That, to me, really speaks to 1) How good a manager he was at winning his way and 2) how low the Big Ten was. There were certainly some good Buckeye squads, but I think we'd be lying if we couldn't look back, as LJB has done, and wonder how good they were really were.
 
Upvote 0
Without something to compare it to, I'd say that we really have no idea what the average star ratings for each class mean.

LJB, when you get a couple minutes, can you do the same thing for UM, USC, UF, Texas, Bama, and LSU? Thanks in advance! :lol:
 
Upvote 0
Bucky Katt;2128925; said:
Without something to compare it to, I'd say that we really have no idea what the average star ratings for each class mean.

LJB, when you get a couple minutes, can you do the same thing for UM, USC, UF, Texas, Bama, and LSU? Thanks in advance! :lol:

Particularly since Mangold was certainly a 5 star recruit when considering that designation is handed out to 3-7 seniors at most positions. Then there's the issue of rivals being selective with five stars versus scout muddying the water with five star ratings for players in the 30s and 40s who are indistinguishable from the next forty prospects in terms of potential.

I second the review of all other elite classes and I'm going to assume I need it right away.
 
Upvote 0
Whew, what a job you did in putting this together and analysing. Made me think about the rivalry and that lead to:

Cooper 2 - 10 - 1 Against Michigan,

Tressel 9 - 1

Cooper put the Buck's back into recruiting contention after it began to slip. From the middle nineties until his last year I thought his teams had the better players, but he just couldn't beat Michigan.

I think that the difference was at QB. Until Tressel came along the Buckeyes seldom matched Michigan at that position. That reversed itself during the Tressel years.
 
Upvote 0
Bucky Katt;2128925; said:
Without something to compare it to, I'd say that we really have no idea what the average star ratings for each class mean.

LJB, when you get a couple minutes, can you do the same thing for UM, USC, UF, Texas, Bama, and LSU? Thanks in advance! :lol:

jwinslow;2128929; said:
Particularly since Mangold was certainly a 5 star recruit when considering that designation is handed out to 3-7 seniors at most positions. Then there's the issue of rivals being selective with five stars versus scout muddying the water with five star ratings for players in the 30s and 40s who are indistinguishable from the next forty prospects in terms of potential.

I second the review of all other elite classes and I'm going to assume I need it right away.

I'm surprised and disappointed that LJB didn't have the foresight to do this in the first place. :shake:
 
Upvote 0
ArmyVet83;2128876; said:
Great write-up LJB. I think your "ratings" were hard but fair.

I have to ask, do you contribute the "performance" of most of the recruits during Tressel's reign to be that of poor evaluation by the coaching staff during the recruiting process or the quality of coaching during the athletes tenure at tOSU?

I understand injuries and attrition will happen but it appears to me there was a combination of both during the Tressel years especially the quality of discipline amongst the student/athletes as a whole.

What is your perspective?
That's a great question, and I don't know if there is a single answer, as I think that a combination of factors was at work.

I am not alarmed by the fact the 27.5% of Tressel's recruits have busted out so far. I suspect that most schools have a similar bust rate.

Most kids who become busts have character issues, which can broadly be classified as academics, criminality, and motivation, often with plenty of overlap. It is difficult to determine which kids will be character risks, especially because character issues often do not arise until after a kid leaves home for the first time and goes off to college. I think that Tressel recruited a few obvious character risks (Maurice Clarett, Jamel Turner, and Jaamal Berry come immediately to mind), but not an unusually high number.

I think that the staff reached on too many kids. Probably 25-30 of the kids who received low ratings (2.5 stars or less) really didn't have the talent to play at Ohio State; there are probably 10-15 kids on the current roster who would fall into the same category. While it is sometimes difficult to identify character risks, it should be a lot easier to gauge a kid's talent level. The Tressel staff missed on 20% of its talent evaluations, which is way too high. I doubt that Meyer-Pantoni will miss on that many kids.

The staff did not recruit enough superior athletes on the lines. And once they got the linemen into the program, the staff bulked them up, which reduced their athleticism even further. Robert Rose is a great example. Rose was probably the most athletic lineman who signed with Ohio State. The kid entered school at 260 pounds, and he was a beast. The staff bulked him up to 295, and he couldn't move. Don't expect to see this happen under Meyer -Marotti.

The Tressel staff were never particularly dynamic recruiters, and I believe that they got lazy at times, which explains quite a few of the talent misses. Tressel's inability/unwillingness to discipline certain players led to some of the more egregious character issues.
t_BuckeyeScott;2128753; said:
Looking at the big picture it's clear why OSU had problems: the lines. We had no 5* defensive or offensive lineman. And especially a paucity of 4* offensive lineman.

I was never really a Bollman basher, but this makes the Oline recruiting and development fairly clear. He was not up to Ohio State standards when compared with the rest of the team.
Well, there we're only twelve players who graded out at 4.5* or 5.0*, and two of them were on the offensive line. The bigger problems were: (1) that there were only two 4.0* OL; (2) most of the 3.5* OL (Boone, Adams, Shugarts) should have had better careers; and (3) most of the 3.0* OL got their jobs by default because there were inadequate numbers of OL to compete with them. However, I do think that it's fair to blame Bollman for the overall underachievement of the OL during the Tressel era.

Buckeye86;2128718; said:
What I wouldn't give to see this defense together in their prime at Ohio State for a season or two.

:yow1:
And that's the real key to success. With rare exception, every starter is going to be at least a 3.0* player; the problem is getting a group of great players together at the same time. If you look at the 2002 team, the Buckeyes had six 4.5-5.0* performers playing together - Mike Doss, Will Smith, Mike Nugent, Michael Jenkins, Chris Gamble, and Maurice Clarett (for that one year). Add in a 4.0* quarterback (Craig Krenzel), middle linebacker (Matt Wilhelm), nickel back (Will Allen), and punter (Andy Groom), plus 3.5* performers such such as Tim Anderson, Darrion Scott, Kenny Peterson, Dustin Fox, Donnie Nickey, Cie Grant, Alex Stepanovich, and Shane Olivea, and you can see why that team won a national championship.

OHSportsFan;2128893; said:
Really, what's striking to me, is that only 3 of Tressel's classes were qualified as being 2.5*'s or greater in terms of on and off-field performance according to LJB's very objective view. I'd say 2.5 stars is what most would consider pretty average, yet barely any of the classes met that criteria, and the average (2.08 stars) is actually pretty lackluster performance in recruiting success.

Yet, he was largely one of the most dominant coaches over his, or any 10 year, span. That, to me, really speaks to 1) How good a manager he was at winning his way and 2) how low the Big Ten was. There were certainly some good Buckeye squads, but I think we'd be lying if we couldn't look back, as LJB has done, and wonder how good they were really were.
The thing is, you don't need a whole recruiting class to do well. What you really need for 1/2 of each class to do well. That way, during any given four-year period, you should have 40-45 players who can play, which is really all you need to succeed.
 
Upvote 0
"I think that the staff reached on too many kids."
I didn't want to say this, but I have thought this for some time. This was a problem which put a ceiling on some OSU teams. I am hopeful we'll see less of this.
 
Upvote 0
Taosman;2128975; said:
"I think that the staff reached on too many kids."
I didn't want to say this, but I have thought this for some time. This was a problem which put a ceiling on some OSU teams. I am hopeful we'll see less of this.

Despite that, I think OSU was at least a top 10 program under JT, maybe top 5.
 
Upvote 0
Bucky Katt;2128925; said:
Without something to compare it to, I'd say that we really have no idea what the average star ratings for each class mean.

LJB, when you get a couple minutes, can you do the same thing for UM, USC, UF, Texas, Bama, and LSU? Thanks in advance! :lol:

I was thinking the same thing. We need an apples to apples comparison. Double thanks.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top