This question was posed on a blog post and is a very interesting study in the Recruiting ..."/> This question was posed on a blog post and is a very interesting study in the Recruiting ..."/>

FanSpeak: Discussing the Wazzu Recruiting Visits List


This question was posed on a blog post and is a very interesting study in the Recruiting process, specifically the amount of commits you’ll get out of visits on a yearly basis.

"The ones that got away: What does it mean?WR Jake Roh(AZ) – Boise ST  10/13DT Rod Crayton (AL)- uncommitted  10/13WR – Demarcus Ayers (TX) – uncommitted 10/13DT – Nick Terry (CA) – Boise St 10/13OT – Sean Dowling (CA) – Vanderbilt 10/13DE – Daeshon Hall (TX) – UW soft 10/13MLB – Jeff Camilli (CA) – Fresno St 11/10WR – Sabastian LaRue (CA)- uncommitted 11/10OT – David Knevel (CA) – Nebraska 11/23DT – Marquel Combs (CA) – Kansas  11/23DE – Chris Martin (CA) – Kansas 11/27DE Reggie Meant (FL) -uncommitted 12/7DE Sione Sina (CA) – CAL 12/7DT Kyle Peko (CA) – OSU 12/7WR Tatum Taylor (WA) – uncommitted 12/7WR- Darren Andrews (CA) – uncomitted 1/11WR – Hunter Jarmon (TX) – uncommitted 1/11CB – Darius Allensworth (CA) – CAL 1/18Of the 34 total players that will have visited Pullman through 1/2118 committed elsewhere or are still looking16 verbaled to WSUSome had committed prior to visiting and not sure about those that had come to Pullman uncommitted and then verbally committed on their trip. However, roughly 50% of recruits that visit ended up at WSU. Is this percentage a good one?I was always under the impression that if we could get players to visit Pullman that we had a pretty high commitment rate? Are we over reaching on these players that didn’t commit? Is it a function of when they visited Pullman? (10/13 trip was a disaster considering we hosted 8 players with only 2 verbals) why?Is it better to get guys in later in the season when they have narrowed down their choices and therefore we have a better shot?"

It was later brought up in discussion that schools are allotted something like 56 official visits per year and each class has a limit of 25 scholarships (not including those that commit and enroll early):

Therefore the Cougs really haven’t had that many official visits in comparison to the allotment. Committing 16 of 34 is actually not a bad number and remember several other players have taken unofficial visits too, so this is not a true representation of how many kids have actually had time on the WSU campus.

Another point was brought to the table that Wulff and Co. had a much higher conversion rate:

Folks, take a look at the prospects Wulff was bringing in, compared to the level of prospect that Leach is bringing in. There’s a clear difference in level of player and quality of person, not necessarily so much in the verbals to this point, but more in the non-verbals. Leach is going bigger to get better. Even with a 3-9 season, the Cougars are on track to possibly incur only their second top 40 class since 2004, when they finished at 21 (According to Scout).

When more wins start piling up (hopefully starting next year), you can trust that number will continue to go up the charts, along with the amount of guys that come in for visits. And the difference will be that Leach offers recruits that are “out of their league”, in regards to Washington State’s recruiting interest.

Also remember that 8-10 of these 18 guys are still considering Washington State in their top interests. So the number could go up to 50% or more when all is said and done. With the level of recruits left in that range, if even 2-3 go WSU’s way, it will severely impact their rankings index in a positive manner.