Where do we focus our recruiting going forward?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

In which state (or area) do you focus your recruiting efforts to acquire the commitment of the kids by various positions, that end up being 1st through 3rd Round Draft Choices in the NFL Draft? Forget about whether a kid was a 5 star, or 4, 3, 2 or zero star as a recruit, these are the ones (by state or place) who wound up developing and performing at such a high level that they were drafted in the 1st three rounds from 2011-2015 (last 5 years).

DE's                  DT's                 LB's                    DB's
JC-7                  FL-5                GA-8                   FL-17
GA-5                 CA-4                CA-8                  CA-14
FL-4                  TX-3                FL-6                   TX-8
SC-4                  PA-3               NC-4                   LA-7
MO-3                 OH-3               OH-4                  GA-6
CA-3                  MI-3               TX-3                   SC-3
OH-3                                       MS-3                  VA-3

QB's                 RB's                 WR's                   TE's                    OL
TX-7                 FL-7                 FL-10                  TX-5                 CA-10
FL-3                  TX-4                CA-8                   CA-3                 TX-9
CA-3                 CA-3                TX-7                   FL-2                  FL-8
WA-2                IL-3                 AL-4                   NC-2                 GA-5
VA-2                 AL-2                SC-4                   OH-2                 WI-5
                       LA-2                 JC-3                    IL-2                  IL-5
                       MS-2                GA-3                                           JC-4
                       VA-2                LA-3                                            OH-4
                       OH-2                NC-3                                           LA-3
                                              VA-3                                           MD-3
                                              OK-3                                           MI-3

So, no surprise that California, Florida and Texas seem to always be most frequently represented at the top of most position rankings.  After all they produce more players than any other state, but let's keep in mind that this isn't just about the number of high school players produced, but the quality of the players produced that have been drafted in the first 3 rounds from 2011-2015.

What is surprising to me are the number of DE's from JC, the number of highly rated LB's out of Georgia and the number of QB's drafted in the first three rounds from Texas.

Virginia appears most often when it comes to "skilled" players, but not so frequently otherwise.

N. Carolina seems to rate well as a recruiting ground for top performers in terms of LB's, WR's and TE's, but not much else based on this time line.

Ohio is included in 6 of the 9 positions, but mostly in the more physical positions as opposed to the "skill' positions.

What other tendencies do you detect in these numbers from the varying states by position and how should we adjust our recruiting efforts (if at all) in the future?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

If nothing else, this drills home the need for having recruiters on staff that are closely connected with high schools and coaching staffs in Florida, Texas and perhaps to a lesser extent, Caifornia.

But it is also important to note that JC's have been pretty big contributor's to DE's, WR's and O-Linemen as well.

[bennyl08]

QB: It implies Texas's 7 on 7, HS infatuation with football leads to pro ready qb's.
RB: Not much of a trend I can see here relative to others, Alex Collins will likely add to that number... Sort of dispels the notion that rb's aren't valued. Look how many rb's were taken in the first 3 rounds compared to DL and QB's.
WR: Lots of WR's taken in the first 3 rounds. Major bias towards the southern states relative to the other positions.
TE: Looks to just be a numbers game there.
OL: Big 10 area heavy group here. Turns out the stereotype here is reflected in the numbers.

DE: I'd say Missouri is a bit of an outlier here based on the timing of the data. I imagine if this were to span out to 20 years or even 10, MO wouldn't make it. That said, I'd say the take-home point here is that DE's can be late developers. Lots of JUCO's, players from smaller states like SC and MO out ranking places like CA and TX. DE becomes more of a crapshoot and is determined on who can be freakish athletes more than who gets trained.
DT: Surprised at how few DE and DT's there were. Pennsylvania is surprisingly high here. Not sure if this is a lucky draw of the data or if that holds true for the wider set.
LB: Not much really strikes me as odd here. You mentioned georgia surprising you, but defensively and on the OL, georgia has done great. If the data was expanded, I think they'd show up more in the rb and TE section as well.
DB: I'm mostly surprised at how many there are here. Numbers play a role here, but also like WR's, heavy southern bias.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

QB: It implies Texas's 7 on 7, HS infatuation with football leads to pro ready qb's.
RB: Not much of a trend I can see here relative to others, Alex Collins will likely add to that number... Sort of dispels the notion that rb's aren't valued. Look how many rb's were taken in the first 3 rounds compared to DL and QB's.
WR: Lots of WR's taken in the first 3 rounds. Major bias towards the southern states relative to the other positions.
TE: Looks to just be a numbers game there.
OL: Big 10 area heavy group here. Turns out the stereotype here is reflected in the numbers.

DE: I'd say Missouri is a bit of an outlier here based on the timing of the data. I imagine if this were to span out to 20 years or even 10, MO wouldn't make it. That said, I'd say the take-home point here is that DE's can be late developers. Lots of JUCO's, players from smaller states like SC and MO out ranking places like CA and TX. DE becomes more of a crapshoot and is determined on who can be freakish athletes more than who gets trained.
DT: Surprised at how few DE and DT's there were. Pennsylvania is surprisingly high here. Not sure if this is a lucky draw of the data or if that holds true for the wider set.
LB: Not much really strikes me as odd here. You mentioned georgia surprising you, but defensively and on the OL, georgia has done great. If the data was expanded, I think they'd show up more in the rb and TE section as well.
DB: I'm mostly surprised at how many there are here. Numbers play a role here, but also like WR's, heavy southern bias.

These are merely actual results, not anything derived from bias. Unless of course you assume that the NFL is regionally biased in their choices as opposed to their best possible evaluation of players. The focus of this should be on where the better players that tend to succeed at a higher level are found. Being drafted, also being the highest form of evaluation as opposed to the "stars" methodology.

[PorkRinds]

I say Arkansas for the core of the class.  Guys that have wanted to be hogs since childhood.  Then focus on Louisiana, Texas, and Florida in that order.  I feel like we have much easier chance of getting LA and TX guys, but sprinkle in a few from FL here and there.  I'm also not against Midwest linemen.   

[bennyl08]

Looking at proportions of players drafted,

DE: 29 total/2 starters per team (2 de's for both 3-4 and 4-3) = 14.5 drafted per position
DT: 21 total/1.5 starters per team (4-3 and 3-4) = 14 drafted per position
LB: 36 total/3.5 starters per team (4-3 and 3-4 teams) = 10.29 drafted per position
DB: 58 total /4 starters per team (nickels also play a lot though...) 14.5 per position

Looking at it this way, suddenly the DB numbers don't seem so high. If I made it 4.5 to include the nickel corner, it would be even lower. For LB'ers, it shows how difficult it is to find quality players. Teams are more willing to wait towards the end of the draft.

QB: 17 total/1 starter per team = 17 drafted per position.
RB: 27 total / by 1.5 starters per team = 18 drafted per position
WR: 51 total / 3 starters per team = 17 drafted per position
TE: 16 total / 1 starter per team = 16 drafted per position
OL: 59 total/5 starters per team = 11.8 drafted per position.

What we see here is a heavy bias towards offensive players. The highest drafted per position totals on defense was 14.5. Only the OL was targeted less than that on offense. Further, I imagine if that was broken down to tackle, guard, and center, tackle would be right up there in the 16-18 range, guard in that 14-15, and center would be low down due to their longevity in the NFL.

Some biases in my calculations could also lead to differences. For example, I'm assuming an even split b/w 4-3 and 3-4 teams. Further, how many LB's are drafted to play DE and DE's drafted to play LB roles or DT's drafted to play DE? On offense, we can start with the RB. If you actually look at team's stats, you'll find that the running back by committee stereotype is largely a myth. Only teams that don't have a good runner use two or more backs equally. Otherwise, you typically see situations like we had this year with Collins being the primary back and getting spelled by Walker and RW3. Exceptions to that include injuries. When those happen, you may see in the overall stat column a fairly even distribution, but when you look at the game logs, you'll find that each game still had a back that they featured with the others only playing a complimentary role. Thus, I used 1.5 for the rb position. WR seems pretty straightforward with most teams playing 3 wr sets quite often. OL is similarly straightforward, though as I mentioned before, I believe would look quite different if split up further. TE was another tough one to do. There are some teams that regularly use 2 TE's, but predominantly most teams use 1 TE the most. So I stuck with 1.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I say Arkansas for the core of the class.  Guys that have wanted to be hogs since childhood.  Then focus on Louisiana, Texas, and Florida in that order.  I feel like we have much easier chance of getting LA and TX guys, but sprinkle in a few from FL here and there.  I'm also not against Midwest linemen.   

Most teams try to recruit in-state but O-Linemen from their own state isn't necessarily the focus. Look at the SEC from 2003-2015 and how many O-Linemen were taken from in-state and out-of-state.

Alabama-23 of 53
Arkansas-16 of 48
Auburn-11 of 49
Florida-25 of 49
Georgia-33 of 55
Kentucky-16 of 53
LSU-19 of 48
Miss St-32 of 55
Ole Miss-21 of 54

I won't go on. Point being, SEC schools that are successful don't limit themselves to in-state recruits.

[bennyl08]

These are merely actual results, not anything derived from bias. Unless of course you assume that the NFL is regionally biased in their choices as opposed to their best possible evaluation of players. The focus of this should be on where the better players that tend to succeed at a higher level are found. Being drafted, also being the highest form of evaluation as opposed to the "stars" methodology.

I think you misinterpret what I say by bias. Bias isn't inherently something bad. Bias just means that one of the groups is unlike the others. I'm not saying there is bias inherent in the data that needs to be factored out. I'm saying the data is biased towards one area or another. For example if we are flipping a coin and measuring the results, your post seems to indicate that I am talking about there being bias in the flipper towards getting heads or tails. Instead, I'm saying the results indicate the coin isn't perfectly balanced and tends to favor heads or tails. For example, the OL is biased towards the big 10 area. That doesn't mean the data is derived from biased source or that the NFL is regionally biased as OPPOSED to best players available. What it means is that assuming the above aren't factors, that the big 10 area produces more talent in that area compared to what they produce in others. I.e. You don't see a lot of IL, WIS, MI, MD in the other areas. Yet you do for the OL. Thus, the OL is biased to the big 10 area states. Further, most positions have some WA or OH or PA or something in them. However, apart from CA, WR and DB are exclusively southern states. Thus, they are disproportionately southern relative to the other positions and hence have a southern bias.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I think you misinterpret what I say by bias. Bias isn't inherently something bad. Bias just means that one of the groups is unlike the others. I'm not saying there is bias inherent in the data that needs to be factored out. I'm saying the data is biased towards one area or another. For example if we are flipping a coin and measuring the results, your post seems to indicate that I am talking about there being bias in the flipper towards getting heads or tails. Instead, I'm saying the results indicate the coin isn't perfectly balanced and tends to favor heads or tails. For example, the OL is biased towards the big 10 area. That doesn't mean the data is derived from biased source or that the NFL is regionally biased as OPPOSED to best players available. What it means is that assuming the above aren't factors, that the big 10 area produces more talent in that area compared to what they produce in others. I.e. You don't see a lot of IL, WIS, MI, MD in the other areas. Yet you do for the OL. Thus, the OL is biased to the big 10 area states. Further, most positions have some WA or OH or PA or something in them. However, apart from CA, WR and DB are exclusively southern states. Thus, they are disproportionately southern relative to the other positions and hence have a southern bias.

"Biased" may not be the best way to express what you mean to indicate. Perhaps a better way is by just saying that certain areas of the country seem to produce a greater emphasis on the development of athletes in certain position groups over others? The term "bias" or "biased" seems to indicate something purposeful as opposed to something that just seems to occur that may (or may not) be more specific to a particular region of the country.

In any case, what I have presented here is where the better players by position group seem to come from and the question remains, how does this effect our future recruiting focus, if at all?

[PorkRinds]

Most teams try to recruit in-state but O-Linemen from their own state isn't necessarily the focus. Look at the SEC from 2003-2015 and how many O-Linemen were taken from in-state and out-of-state.

Alabama-23 of 53
Arkansas-16 of 48
Auburn-11 of 49
Florida-25 of 49
Georgia-33 of 55
Kentucky-16 of 53
LSU-19 of 48
Miss St-32 of 55
Ole Miss-21 of 54

I won't go on. Point being, SEC schools that are successful don't limit themselves to in-state recruits.

Oh no doubt.  I never meant to suggest that our classes should be comprised of mostly kids from AR.  What I meant was the "heart" of the class.  Even if it's 4-5 players, they are players that truly love the hogs and grew up wanting to play for the hogs.  The Dmac, Henry, Bijhon Jackson, etc type players that flat out love the hogs before we ever even make contact with them.  Then build out from there with the states I mentioned. 

[bennyl08]

"Biased" may not be the best way to express what you mean to indicate. Perhaps a better way is by just saying that certain areas of the country seem to produce a greater emphasis on the development of athletes in certain position groups over others? The term "bias" or "biased" seems to indicate something purposeful as opposed to something that just seems to occur that may (or may not) be more specific to a particular region of the country.

In any case, what I have presented here is where the better players by position group seem to come from and the question remains, how does this effect our future recruiting focus, if at all?

The person who types points/per game correcting me on the usage of the word bias? My usage here is fine, albeit a bit unorthodox. Essentially I'm starting with the null hypothesis that each position will be distributed evenly within the populations. Thus, from the POV of the null hypothesis, for there to be strong regional discrepancies, there must be a bias in the data for the null to still be true. Obviously here since there are no biases in the data, apparent biases are evidence against the null.

As for where to recruit, I don't think this would really influence anything. For starters, how many athletes come out of each state by position? I.e. if all we had was this data set, then for all we know, while Texas has produced 7 top 3 round draft picks, they may have produced 10,000 D1 qbs in that same time frame. Alaska may have only had 10 d1 qb prospects, but 1 of them was a top 3 round pick. Thus, you be 150 times more likely to get a high talent guy from Alaska than Texas. If you are going to play moneyball with recruiting, you need to play percentages, not total amounts.

Otherwise, you simply take everything on a case by case basis. You recruit players who will fit your team first. Second, you recruit players who are talented. Third, you recruit players who actually have a chance to sign with you. This analysis of yours only fits into the second tier of the decision making. However, again, if you are going to moneyball your recruiting, you need to use the percentages. Maybe you are much more likely to get a top level DB/WR from Nebraska than Florida. Florida produces a heckuvalot more than Nebraska, but if you are randomly reaching in the bag of names from the DB/WR pool, then maybe Nebraska is more likely to have you pull out a top prospect. Okay, what if you aren't randomly picking from a bag but evaluating players? Does it make more sense to look to Florida vs Nebraska? That depends on how you are choosing who to evaluate. Say there are a 1000 DB's in Florida, how are you going to find which ones are the top 17 who will go in the early draft over a period of 5 years? Either you are pulling from a bag randomly, you are going through all 1000 hs tapes, or you have some other means of looking at the top players. Assuming the latter, then you have the means to do that with all states and who you recruit comes down to who fits, who has the talent to play, and who will actually come to campus. Which this analysis won't really influence any of that.

What it can influence is where you have coaches with recruiting ties. However, even then, it isn't going to be position specific. It will be, these are areas that produce a lot of talent in general. You may have a qb coach be good at recruiting Georgia and a LB coach who recruits Texas even though there are more LB recruits in GA and qb recruits in TX. ALL other things being equal, maybe you choose a qb coach who recruits texas and a LB coach who recruits GA. So in that sense, yes, this analysis could influence the recruiting in that manner. However, the odds of that happening are low. Typically, you find the best qb coach and LB coach you can and not worry that their recruiting areas match their positions.

[tophawg19]

basically , your best bet is to stay in the South for the most part although reaching into the Ohio region for certain positions works well. surprisingly few LA kids in that mix

[redeye]

Nice work Muskogee!

What is surprising to me are the number of DE's from JC, the number of highly rated LB's out of Georgia and the number of QB's drafted in the first three rounds from Texas.

Virginia appears most often when it comes to "skilled" players, but not so frequently otherwise.

N. Carolina seems to rate well as a recruiting ground for top performers in terms of LB's, WR's and TE's, but not much else based on this time line.

Ohio is included in 6 of the 9 positions, but mostly in the more physical positions as opposed to the "skill' positions.

What other tendencies do you detect in these numbers from the varying states by position and how should we adjust our recruiting efforts (if at all) in the future?

The Georgia players don't surprise me much.  In fact, if you had used the high school those JC DE's attended, I bet it would have been in Georgia for some of them.  Many players from the Kansas JUCO's seem to come from Georgia and that has made it tougher for us to recruit them.

What does surprise me a little is that there were 3 from Missouri.  And I've been an advocate for recruiting Missouri harder, too.  Like you, I'm also surprised that there were 7 QB's from Texas.  I'm not a bit surprised that Texas produced more then anyone else, but more then twice as many is a little surprising.

[redeye]

DT: Surprised at how few DE and DT's there were. Pennsylvania is surprisingly high here. Not sure if this is a lucky draw of the data or if that holds true for the wider set.

Pennsylvania produces some good players.  SEC-E teams get some good ones from up there.

[Hawghiggs]

   Arkansas     4-8 recruits
   Louisiana     6-8 recruits
   Texas          6-8 recruits
   Missouri       2-4 recruits
   Kansas        1-3 recruits
   Illinois         2-3 recruits
   Oklahoma    1-2 recruits
   New Mexico  0-1 recruits
   

[PorkRinds]

   Arkansas     4-8 recruits
   Louisiana     6-8 recruits
   Texas          6-8 recruits
   Missouri       2-4 recruits
   Kansas        1-3 recruits
   Illinois         2-3 recruits
   Oklahoma    1-2 recruits
   New Mexico  0-1 recruits

Take out NM and add Florida.

[ceegar]

Take out NM and add Florida.

Take out NM and add Florida.

Arkansas     4-8 recruits
   Louisiana     6-8 recruits
   Texas          6-8 recruits
   Missouri       2-4 recruits
   Kansas        1-3 recruits
   Illinois         2-3 recruits
   Oklahoma    1-2 recruits
   New Mexico  0-1 recruits  (Florida here with 2-3)
  Add Georgia with 1-2

[GalaHawg]

1. In-state
2. Texas
3. Louisiana
4. Georgia
5. Florida
6. Missouri/Kansas/Illinois
7. Memphis/Mississippi/Alabama
8. Oklahoma
9. The other states in the US
10. International

[Muskliketusk]

Buncha talent in OK the next few years. Can't keep getting skunked there. Two big time CBs this year and ones even in Tulsa and we ain't got no shot. Really good QB and tackle in Moore next year that we need to get on to.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I believe that our staff is doing their due diligence in searching for the talent that they need to make this program successful. That said, some recruits are always going to go under-evaluated and may wind up being overlooked. Keep in mind that there were 89 of these types of players (2 and zero star players) that were drafted in the first three rounds of the 2011-2015 NFL Drafts.

Still, if I were going to focus recruiting based on averages I think I would primarily target the following states outside of Arkansas for these particular positions.

For DB's I think you have to have a strong presence in Florida but I would continue to place emphasis on Texas and Louisiana due to their close physical proximity. California can always be a source but it may be more difficult to get kids to move that far from home to play ball. Not impossible, but more difficult.

For LB's, those drafted most often in the first three rounds since 2011 have come from Georgia, Florida and California, but Texas and Mississippi are worth our time as well. Surprisingly, Louisiana hasn't produced a single top three rounds draft choice at LB in the last 5 years. That doesn't mean that there aren't good LB's to be found out of Louisiana, just that there doesn't seem to be as many highly evaluated by the NFL that have come out of there in the last 5 years.

DT's-Florida, Texas and California again but there seem to be a lot of really good DT's that come out of the Midwest and I think we have seen and heard of this staff's desire to make some inroads in that area as well.

For DE's, I'd be scouring the JC ranks. I'm not sure what it is that makes the JC DE's seem to perform at higher levels as opposed to other JC positions but we definitely need to go find these kids, as we did with Jeremiah Ledbetter. Florida and Georgia also produce significant numbers of good players at this position.

QB's-Texas and Florida. Texas seems to be churning out these high performers.

RB's-Florida, Texas, California and oddly enough, Illinois.

WR's-Florida, California, Texas and as far as being adjacent to Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma have each produced 3 WR's in the past 5 NFL Drafts that have gone in the first three rounds. I'm not as big of a fan of bringing in JC WR's as some (unless they have 3 years of eligibility remaining) because it just seems to require too much time for them to learn the offense.

TE's-Though it seems that Arkansas has started producing a bumper crop of really good TE's of late, Texas seems to have produced quite a few that the NFL values greatly.

OL-Texas first and foremost, then Florida, California and the Midwest.

We always need to nail down the best players in Arkansas at the positions that we need to fill and we should be able to pull in a few select players from the adjoining states, but we also need the ability to go and compete for the high performers in the states I listed above. Just my opinion.

[Mike_e]

It seems to me that our focus is fine and that we just need to keep building relationships with HS coaches.

Having a player or three that wind up getting drafted in the top three rounds every year would be great but it's likely that I'd be just as happy with 6 or 8 that just made the combine.

CBB's blue collar approach looks like it's better served with guys that come to work and bring their lunches than having a star or two having to hold the roof up.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

It seems to me that our focus is fine and that we just need to keep building relationships with HS coaches.

Having a player or three that wind up getting drafted in the top three rounds every year would be great but it's likely that I'd be just as happy with 6 or 8 that just made the combine.

CBB's blue collar approach looks like it's better served with guys that come to work and bring their lunches than having a star or two having to hold the roof up.

I think that you have to have both and eventually, if we win often enough, we will get there. But this is more about which aisle you push your shopping cart down to go find the best talent and where you best direct your efforts. As I pointed out above, there were 89 players drafted from 2011-2015 that were 2 stars or below, so the talent is out there, rated or not. It's just that those kids seem to be harder to find than those that are more visible and more highly rated.

[WooPig90]

Does anyone know when Junior day is?

[tophawg19]

i think we are going to hit the OHIO region pretty hard with this staff

[bphi11ips]

Within a 5 hour drive of Fayetteville.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Within a 5 hour drive of Fayetteville.

I don't think that is going to cut the mustard bp, if we ever want to be better than middle of the pack in the SEC.

[Mike_e]

I think that you have to have both and eventually, if we win often enough, we will get there. But this is more about which aisle you push your shopping cart down to go find the best talent and where you best direct your efforts. As I pointed out above, there were 89 players drafted from 2011-2015 that were 2 stars or below, so the talent is out there, rated or not. It's just that those kids seem to be harder to find than those that are more visible and more highly rated.

I hear you and see your point.  But, I don't agree that college superstars are made by the water they drink or the ground they were reared upon.  There may be something in a region having better HS coaching (texas for example).

The thing is though that if CBB is building the program --and I understand it properly-- in a way that attracts uncommon young men to it then those who support those young men will help to get them noticed by the program.  From there is goes back to CBB's ability to recognize talent and to develop it.

This approach, I think anyway, will allow us to be more of a national brand somewhat like UT is and has been.  Cherry picking is easier and with limited numbers better than farming what may be hard scrabble from year to year.

[jackflash]

for me its any state we can get a kid interested in us

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I hear you and see your point.  But, I don't agree that college superstars are made by the water they drink or the ground they were reared upon.  There may be something in a region having better HS coaching (texas for example).

The thing is though that if CBB is building the program --and I understand it properly-- in a way that attracts uncommon young men to it then those who support those young men will help to get them noticed by the program.  From there is goes back to CBB's ability to recognize talent and to develop it.

This approach, I think anyway, will allow us to be more of a national brand somewhat like UT is and has been.  Cherry picking is easier and with limited numbers better than farming what may be hard scrabble from year to year.

Of course that they aren't made better simply because of the water that they drink, but they are made better by better coaching, programs that are more developed that help them develop to a greater degree physically and athletically and the sheer greater number of athletes in those areas, as well as higher levels of competition to play against as they grow as players.

If you are looking for the best quality coal miners in the country, you probably don't look in the panhandle of Texas. You go to where the coal is being mined to the greatest degree, regardless of the reason.

I don't care why the states indicated produce the better athletes that turn into high performers at the college level and as a result, are more frequently drafted in the early rounds of the NFL Draft. What I care about is starting to make inroads and get our share.

If you aren't solely dependent on getting as many of those kids as others because you devote more time and effort to overall player evaluation and you can occasionally find those kids that are under-evaluated and somewhat overlooked and you can develop those kids, then that is great. But that requires a whole lot more time than most programs want to devote to that kind of thing.

A lot of times, programs just get lucky because a quality athlete that has been overlooked wants to take a walk-on chance at a school that they truly respect and are driven and motivated by being the underdog. It obviously happens but if this is the kid you are searching for, it takes a lot more time than the normal recruiting process. But embracing a solid walk on program as we do, can certainly help.

Still, I think that you have to recruit and compete where the talent has been proven to come from most often...you can't just ignore that.