Here's a link to full article: 10 SEC and ACC recruiting notes after Signing Day, led by Kirby Smart finding Georgia’s highest gear
The whole article was pretty interesting, but especially the sections about Gamecocks and Clemson.
On South Carolina:
"I like what South Carolina is doing. I know its fans think the program should be aspiring to much more than it is, but the facts are that South Carolina is in the midst of its best 15-year stretch ever, which includes 11 bowl appearances. In the previous 100 years, the Gamecocks bowled about once per decade. South Carolina is recruiting to sustain the successful run.
The Gamecocks know they have to pull some elite talent but that they won’t be able to consistently win recruiting battles against elite SEC teams. So the Gamecocks have been able to identify which top recruits they should invest their time with, and then they also do a good job scouting mid- and lower-level gems.
South Carolina seems particularly good at figuring out which players might fit as its Plan A, while being perhaps Georgia’s Plan B or Plan C. They win by showing plenty of love to the player throughout the process and letting the recruit know he is top priority, not just a player of interest.
Going after too many elite players can lead to a roster with big holes. Going after too few can create a roster with good numbers but not enough talent. Will Muschamp’s team has found a sweet spot."
On Clemson:
"Clemson’s approach is risky, but its hit rate has been unreal.
This is not a criticism. It’s just something I’ve been wondering about. ‘
Clemson signed just 17 players on National Signing Day. Part of that is a result of so many elite players returning to school instead of going to the NFL draft. But part of it is Clemson being super selective and not filling its spots.
The interesting thing is that Clemson signed just 14 players in the 2017 class, meaning it has signed just 31 players in the last two classes. That is a shockingly low number, much lower than elite recruiting counterparts like Georgia (52), Ohio State (47), and Alabama (46). It’s even 10 lower than notoriously selective USC (41). Just about the only top football school with fewer is Stanford, with 29.
Of course, this should set up Clemson to take quite a large class in 2019, with departing seniors and attrition.
But this has worked only because Clemson’s hit rate has been unreal. The Tigers sign super-talented recruits. Their prospects have developed rapidly, both physically and mentally. And for the most part, they’ve stayed healthy.
Clemson is no doubt on a great run with its hit rate. But part of me does feel that the Tigers are playing with fire taking so few prospects in a two-year span. When a school does this, any attrition is felt more than it would be at a school that signs more prospects, simply because it represents a greater portion of the whole. I don’t think you’ll see Clemson go this route again in 2019."
The whole article was pretty interesting, but especially the sections about Gamecocks and Clemson.
On South Carolina:
"I like what South Carolina is doing. I know its fans think the program should be aspiring to much more than it is, but the facts are that South Carolina is in the midst of its best 15-year stretch ever, which includes 11 bowl appearances. In the previous 100 years, the Gamecocks bowled about once per decade. South Carolina is recruiting to sustain the successful run.
The Gamecocks know they have to pull some elite talent but that they won’t be able to consistently win recruiting battles against elite SEC teams. So the Gamecocks have been able to identify which top recruits they should invest their time with, and then they also do a good job scouting mid- and lower-level gems.
South Carolina seems particularly good at figuring out which players might fit as its Plan A, while being perhaps Georgia’s Plan B or Plan C. They win by showing plenty of love to the player throughout the process and letting the recruit know he is top priority, not just a player of interest.
Going after too many elite players can lead to a roster with big holes. Going after too few can create a roster with good numbers but not enough talent. Will Muschamp’s team has found a sweet spot."
On Clemson:
"Clemson’s approach is risky, but its hit rate has been unreal.
This is not a criticism. It’s just something I’ve been wondering about. ‘
Clemson signed just 17 players on National Signing Day. Part of that is a result of so many elite players returning to school instead of going to the NFL draft. But part of it is Clemson being super selective and not filling its spots.
The interesting thing is that Clemson signed just 14 players in the 2017 class, meaning it has signed just 31 players in the last two classes. That is a shockingly low number, much lower than elite recruiting counterparts like Georgia (52), Ohio State (47), and Alabama (46). It’s even 10 lower than notoriously selective USC (41). Just about the only top football school with fewer is Stanford, with 29.
Of course, this should set up Clemson to take quite a large class in 2019, with departing seniors and attrition.
But this has worked only because Clemson’s hit rate has been unreal. The Tigers sign super-talented recruits. Their prospects have developed rapidly, both physically and mentally. And for the most part, they’ve stayed healthy.
Clemson is no doubt on a great run with its hit rate. But part of me does feel that the Tigers are playing with fire taking so few prospects in a two-year span. When a school does this, any attrition is felt more than it would be at a school that signs more prospects, simply because it represents a greater portion of the whole. I don’t think you’ll see Clemson go this route again in 2019."