The CF Recruiting National Championship

[Riddlewire]

Independents

There are only two independent schools that will be participating in the CF Recruiting National Championship (see above for service academies). They're not exactly competing against each other, so here are their results.

Notre Dame: 23 points, 11 white players
Western Kentucky: 3 points, 3 white players (all offense linemen)

I guess I wasn't really paying close attention. I had been hearing how white-friendly Weis had been with recruiting, but I wasn't checking it myself. As it turns out, the Irish had a mediocre signing class. Better than the national average, I suppose. But it certainly wasn't among the elite classes in the country. After all, it was still majority black (23 recruits total). So I'm not impressed.
The 2008 season will be Western Kentucky's last as a 1A independent. They move to the Sun Belt in 2009. I'm not sure if I should be more lenient with them because of this, or if I should criticize them extra harshly. They were recently 1AA, and it's difficult to attract talent when moving up to a new level. However, I recall when Arkansas State made the same move. Their recruiting profile remained pretty much the same. Still, WKU could've at least recruited a white TE or QB in place of one of those linemen, so I'm calling this a lousy class by their coach. Next year he'll have to make up for it.

 

[Riddlewire]

#############NATIONAL CHAMPIONS#############

The winner of the CF Recruiting National Championship is

The Iowa Hawkeyes

Congratulations to Coach Ferentz for being the most intelligent recruiter in college football. This shouldn't come as news to anyone, though, as Ferentz has been putting together classes just like this for years. He was challenged by a tough Wazzu squad this year, though. New coach Paul Wulff gets full credit for his excellent recruiting class at Washington State because he was hired in December of last year.

Here are my Elite Eight:

Iowa32(13)
WashingtonSt: 31(13)
Nebraska 30(13)
Colorado State: 30 (13)
Wyoming: 29 (13)
Western Michigan: 27 (14)
Wisconsin: 27(14)
SMU: 26 (13)

And the conference champs:

SEC:Vandy: 23 (11)
BigEast:Cincy: 26 (11)
SunBelt:Arkansas St: 21(9)
Pac10:WashingtonSt: 31(13)
WAC: BoiseSt: 16(7)
BigTen:Iowa32(13)
ACC:Boston College 23(11)
Big12: Nebraska: 30 (13)
MWC: Colorado State: 30 (13)
CUSA: SMU: 26 (13)
MAC:Western Michigan: 27 (14)
NotreDame: 23(11)

Here are the conference averages (Pts/#WhiteRecruits)

MWC 20pts/9
Big10 16pts/8
Bigeast 16pts/8
MAC 14pts/7
Big12 14pts/8
CUSA 12pts/7
Pac10 13pts/7
Sec 11pts/6
Wac 11pts/5
ACC 10pts/5
Sunbelt 9pts/5

I have two special awards to give out. To Coach Steve Roberts of Arkansas State University, I award the first annual White Star for Courage. Coach Roberts bucked the trend of his coaching counterparts in the most white-hostile conference in the country. And last, and most certainly least, I repeat the announcement of the first annual Tommy West Award, which of course goes to Coach Tommy West of the Memphis Tigers.

 

[Mike]

I've run into a bit of a problem.
While compiling the recruit lists for Army and Navy, I noticed that almost none of their players had signed their LOIs. I went back and checked Air Force and it was the same thing. Does anyone know anything about the service academies that would explain this aberration? Is it common for academy recruits not to sign LOIs until they graduate? It's not all the recruits, just most of them.
Unfortunately, I can't give Air Force credit for their great class if the players aren't official yet. However, this isn't actually the problem it would seem to be. Before I even noticed this, I made the executive decision (it's my competition, after all), to set the service academies aside. They aren't on the same playing field as every other Division 1A school and should be judged on different criteria. Besides, they would naturally win every year, so there would be no point in the competition.

So for the 'non official' service academy results, the winner would be Air Force with 58 points (27 white players). Army was nearly tied with 56 points (also 27 white players, but worth fewer points). I didn't even finish Navy's class. There was no need. It was a small class to begin with and they were mostly minorities. So Navy finishes dead last. I'll even put them into fourth place because they were so bad compared to the other two academies. Again, though, these lists aren't official since the LOIs haven't been signed.

They don't sign LOI's. They can choose to sign an unofficial "commitment," but it's not binding and they can choose to divert from their commitment up until Induction Day in the summer. You have no idea what you're talking about with Navy; they had 71 kids verbally commit, and that's not even counting incoming recruits from the prep school. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Navy might have had 71 verbals, but there's no way they could sign more than 30 or so. For the last several years Navy has been the blackest of the service academies, so I imagine Riddlewire is correct about them being pretty black compared to AFA and Army.

 

[jared]

Good stuff Riddlewire, thanks for all the hard work. It's nice to see things from a bird's eye view sometimes. I'm pretty disappointed in the WAC though.

 

[Mike]

Navy might have had 71 verbals, but there's no way they could sign more than 30 or so. For the last several years Navy has been the blackest of the service academies, so I imagine Riddlewire is correct about them being pretty black compared to AFA and Army.

Like I said, they don't "sign" players. SA's have, essentially, unlimited scholarships. Someof those 71 guys will be there at I-day, some guys will be at the prep school, and some will have chosen not to come, but that does not change the situation as it stands now, especially consideringthe other two SA'swill go through the same process.It does nothing to make blanket statements on incorrect information, especially regarding a program you don't seem to know much about to begin with. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


You say Navy is the "blackest" SA and automatically assume it's due to institutional factors the program (ie coaching staff) controls. That's an incredibly presumptuous and oversimplified answer though, especially considering the kinds of kids who've flat out quit the team and left the Academy over the past few years. One thing I've noticed here is that in the absence of direct information, there is a tendency to automatically blame the coaching staffs. Sometimes though, it's the individual athletes who don' take advantage of the opportunities they've been given.

 

[Van_Slyke_CF]

Mike: Thanks for the information about the service academies.I didn`t know that, either.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Mike, how many times have you looked at Navy's players in depth over the last few years? I have previewed their team and watched them carefully since 2005 to look for any white starters I have missed and to see how black the whole team is getting. I don't care how many white players chose to go elsewhere, with the numberof players you say they have who could end up on the team, it still wouldn't explain the decline in white starters we have seen over the last 3 seasons. You may accuse someone else of being ignorant about the program, but that someone cannot be me. Here's some correct info for you.


Number of white starters at Navy:


2005-13


2006-10


2007-9


In the abscence of whatever info youclaim to have butdon't seem to be able toshare, I will always blame the coaching staff. In doing so, I will almost always be right. It may be presumptuous but its darn accurate. You look at Navy's sidelines this year compared to Army and especially Air Force and tell me they aren't the blackest team. If you willprovide the list of white players who have not taken advantage of the opportunity and declined to play for them over the last 3 years and it can adequately account for the decreasing role of whites at Navy, then I'll give youfull credit. Until then, your criticisms are without merit.

 

[reclaimsocal]

I'm really excited about Washington State. They aren't normally a team I pay a lot of attention to, but I sure will now. As a Pac 10 fan, USC, Oregon and Washington (the three teams I follow closest) have all gone the way of the afflete. Here's to hoping Wazzu can turn this trend into annual success to provide a template for other coaches out here to follow. With the amount of White High School talent in California alone, you would think at least one D1 FBS school out here would scoop them up. Not even a San Jose State or a San Diego State has been able to figure that out yet.

 

[Riddlewire]

Mike, here is a website which seems more suited to your tastes.
Black QB
I figure you'll find more like-minded people there.
If you're not interested in the original intent of this competition, then stay the Hell out of my thread.

 

[Mike]

I gladly will. But regardless of whether or not you want to argue a particular point you did cite incorrect numbers and posed a question which I answered.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I don't get what all this talk of Mike as a caste whore is about. This is the second thread I have seen people refer to him as not on board with our cause. I don't get that sense. I just get the sense that he wants fairness in sports, but isn't anti-black enough for some of you.

I like to think of this site as an un-PC site to help all non-black athletes who have to fight stereotypes, with an emphasis on white athletes because the posters are white. We should be pro-active and pro-white and not dishing out hate and extreme anti-black rhetoric. I'm not trying to accelerate this argument I'm trying to resolve it b/c this site has already lost a lot of valuable posters recently who agree with us, but got sour tastes in their mouths. This site will not have an influence unless we grow it.

Yes, I have seen some signs from Mike that he may not believe the caste system is as strong as most of us, but I was one of those people before I started researching more. I went from believing that 30% of NFL RBs and 40% of NFL WRs should be white, to my current estimates of 60% (RB) and 75% (WR) which is pretty close to the 70% white American population. Regardless of whether we think Mike shows the veteran posters enough respect, which is another issue, I see Mike as someone who wants to fight the caste system which makes him one of us.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[jaxvid]

I like to think of this site as an un-PC site to help all non-black athletes who have to fight stereotypes, with an emphasis on white athletes because the posters are white. We should be pro-active and pro-white and not dishing out hate and extreme anti-black rhetoric.

I'm not trying to accelerate this argument I'm trying to resolve it b/c this site has already lost a lot of valuable posters recently who agree with us, but got sour tastes in their mouths. This site will not have an influence unless we grow it.

Why does a virtual newcomer post on an important thread attacking a tiny portion of the information provided? The work riddlewire has done is enormous. So what if the service acadamies, because of their unique programs, don't fall into the exact same catagories as the other school? That's splitting hairs and the basic point: Navy is blacker then Army or Air Force is true, which is the important thing for anyone interested in going there to know.

As for your assertion that the site "has already lost a lot of valuable posters recently who agree with us, but got sour tastes in their mouths" who would that be and how would you know why they left?

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I didn't mean to make it seem like I was taking sides, I am not and I am not dissing Riddlewire's work. I thought this thread was a tremendous thread that put in tremendous effort and I found it very interesting, which I actually already complimented him for. It just annoys me when other posters, (not just Riddlewire, a handful actually in the Woodhead thread) start calling another poster basically "a castewhore" when he virtually agrees with most of what we are doing on this site. We have lost several regular posters in the last year which I will mention by name right now.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

jcolec02 &nbs p;
JoeV
PitBull&nbsp ;; ;
Sark6354201 & nbsp;
scheyer30 &nb sp;
White Mike &n bsp;
whiteafflete15

There are others as well, that I can't remember off hand.
Several of these guys were regular posters, but I haven't seen them post recently.

Now, if I remember correctly White Mike went on some sort of mission, so he may be back. But I get the sense that we sometimes don't make posters feel welcome when they don't share all the views of others. I was basically trying to mediate the argument not take sides, b/c I want to see this site grow b/c I am tired of seeing white athletes getting screwed and I feel our influence is limited. I probably picked the wrong thread to mention this in b/c of the tremendous amount of work Riddlewire put in, but I have seen several threads where various people have claimed Mike is "basically" a caste clown when I don't see that at all. I'm not trying to take the new guys side I'm just trying to welcome him in=More people on board= More influence for our site. If you'd like to hear my theories as to why these guys aren't posting anymore based on when it happened I will send them to you via PM
Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[jaxvid]

If you'd like to hear my theories as to why these guys aren't posting anymore based on when it happened I will send them to you via PM

Yes please do.

As for the list of guys you mentioned, I don't know if people stop posting for the reasons you mentioned. I think I saw a Pitbull post recently and I doubt if any extreme attitudes towards blacks had anything to do with his reduction in posts.

I do agree that guys tend to jump on newbies quickly and give them a hard time if they sense any pro-black sentiments. I have asked guys to back off a couple of times, unfortunately many times the people really are trolls which contributes to a mistrust of newcomers.

This is a tough site, discussing tough issues, it's not for the feint hearted.

 

[Van_Slyke_CF]

After reviewing the posts, my two cents` worth is that Mike gotout of line with his criticisms of Colonel Reb, especially considering whether Navy is the "blackest" of the service academiesor not , and why. He should`ve been more careful with his language.


However, I think Colonel Reb and Riddlewireavoided Mike`s main point about theservice academies and letters-of-intent.


Mike said:


They don't sign LOI's. They can choose to sign an unofficial commitment,ÂÂ￾Ebut it`s not binding and they can choose to divert from their commitment up until Induction Day in the summer. You have no idea what you`re talking about with Navy; they had 71 kids verbally commit, and that`s not even counting incoming recruits from the prep school.


Colonel Reb responded:


Navy might have had 71 verbals, but there's no way they could sign more than 30 or so. For the last several years Navy has been the blackest of the service academies, so I imagine Riddlewire is correct about them being pretty black compared to AFA and Army.


<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>


Mike countered:


Like I said, they don't "sign" players. SA's have, essentially, unlimited scholarships. Someof those 71 guys will be there at I-day, some guys will be at the prep school, and some will have chosen not to come, but that does not change the situation as it stands now, especially consideringthe other two SA'swill go through the same process.It does nothing to make blanket statements on incorrect information, especially regarding a program you don't seem to know much about to begin with. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><O></O>


You say Navy is the blackestÂÂ￾ESA and automatically assume it`s due to institutional factors the program (ie coaching staff) controls. That`s an incredibly presumptuous and oversimplified answer though, especially considering the kinds of kids who`re flat out quit the team and left the Academy over the past few years. One thing I`ve noticed here is that in the absence of direct information, there is a tendency to automatically blame the coaching staffs. Sometimes though, it`s the individual athletes who donÂÂ￾Etake advantage of the opportunities they`ve been given.


And thenColonel Reb responds with some information concerning the declining number of white starters at Navy the pastfew seasons and makessome other statements about the influence of coaching staffs on the choice of players etc.


Riddlewirefinally jumps in tokick Mike out of his thread by inviting him to go to some black QB site.


Mike says o.k. butclaims tohave been on the money withthe gist ofhis comments.


Mike should have toned down some of his comments to Colonel Reb-true. And he still has not supplied any verifiable information to some of the points Colonel Reb asked about.


However, the main point Mike makes is that the service academies don`t sign LOIs.


Is this true or not, Colonel Reb?Youanswered this point of Mike`s by saying "Navy mighthave had 71verbals, but there`s no way they could sign more than 30 or so.And then you went off in a completely different direction about which SA is the blackest etc.


I think you should answer Mike`s main point, Colonel Reb. Is he right or wrong?


I`d like to know, too.

 

[reclaimsocal]

I was going to go into a long winded essay on the above topic, but I'll try to keep it short and simple.


Some people see things differently, and that should never be forgotten, on both sides of the argument. I am under the belief that a lot of people see that something is amiss when it comes to race and sports, but they are unwilling or unaware of the bigger picture that drives it. I think those people should be informed, not attacked.


That being said, on a site like this you are bound to get some trolls that just like getting a rise out of people. You are also going to have people that just try to throw misinformation into threads to drive away curious visitors. These people need to be identified and dealt with, because once they get into the "core" of the posting community, they can do a lot of damage.


Mike hasn't made an impression on me, either way, but lets not start down the road that is going to lead to a division amongst valuable members. We can all learn from one another if we keep an open mind.

 

[Riddlewire]

But regardless of whether or not you want to argue a particular point you did cite incorrect numbers and posed a question which I answered.

Actually, you made a faulty inference.
Look again. I posted NO numbers for Navy.
And I was completely correct. Navy's white recruit numbers will be lower than Air Force and Army when the final player numbers are summed. And that was the whole point of this competition. So I was right to put them last among the service academies.

To TJR,
My experience with Mike is that he doesn't contribute to the spirit of this website. In fact, his very first post on these forums was an attack on a member (me). In it, he tried to trash one of the players we regularly support. He was later proven incorrect when numbers were published. Also, this particular thread was a topic of great interest to most of the members. And I'd say it's definitely important information for our cause. Yet his first and only post in the thread comes immediately after my final results. And what is his post about? To tell me I "have no idea what I'm talking about". He certainly doesn't appear to have any actual interest in white recruiting numbers in Division 1A football.
Look what has happened. I worked my ass off for more than a month putting this information together and the VERY f**kING INSTANT I finish, Mike derails the thread. That's the very definition of a troll. We should be discussing the coaches who did well or poorly in recruiting. Instead, we have completely ignored the results.
I will waste no more words on Mike. I'm done with him.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Van_Slyke_CF, why don't you call Navy Monday morning and ask them if you want to know so badly? Your question of me about Mike being correct or not on the SAs using non-bindingverbals is beside the point of the argument. I don't know if Mike is right or wrong. I'll take his word for it aboutNavy having 71 verbal commits until I can call Navy myself and hopefully find out for sure how they do things.The problem withMike'sargument is that for it to make sense requiresa knowledgeof how many of those 71 verbals were white and how many were non-white. He hasn't provided that, sowhether he is correct about the way Navy does things or not is irrelevant. Mike, in his posts, is implicitly assuming that the vast majority of those 71 are white and that they are opting out of their verbal committment for various reasons. The vast majority of them would have to be white for Mike's argument to hold water. Untilwe find out how many of the 71 are white, I won't hold to his theory as to why they haven't had as many white starters. Even if the vast majority are white, itwill still be true that the coaches have influence in deciding who starts and who doesn't or who gets to keep their scholarship.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

As far as the posters who have left, that is their freedom. I don't know the reasons, so I won't comment any further. Tell you the truth, I hadn't noticed a huge drop off. Tough's list does remind me of a few who have left, but I've seen whiteathlete15 on here lately, and I know for a fact that White Mike's departure has nothing to do with the behavior of anyone on the site. I recently learned that he just doesn't have access to a computer right now. I could see how some might get tired of the behavior of a few posters here, butI alsoagree with jaxvid in that peoplewho post hereneed to realize it is a tough issue to discuss and that we aren't always going to agree with everyone. At the same time, I think it is the responsibility of veteran posters (myself included) to extend as warm of a welcome as we can to the new posters, as we need many more on our side than we currently have.

 

[Van_Slyke_CF]

Colonel Reb: Sorry, I`m not going to call the Naval Academyfrom overseas because I can`t find a toll-free number. However, I`ll save you the trouble of calling them yourself.I mailed the Associate AD in charge of football and asked him ifthe service academies sign playersto letters-of-intent. His prompt reply was:


No, some go directly to school and some go to the prep school if they
need another year of academic development. About half go directly to
the Academy and half go to the prep school. If they graduate from the
prep school then they come to the Academy the next year.


I`m going to interpret the response this way, Colonel Reb. Mike is correct in making the simple statement that the SAs do not sign players to letters-of-intent. Therefore,the SA recruits and the racial breakdown of their numbers should be considered separately from the other D1 schools for comparisons hereas there are simply to many variables to accurately comparethem.


You obviously have a good point, Colonel Reb, about the Navy roster becoming blacker in recent years and, more specifically, its starting lineup.(I`ll take you at your word on the numbers.)


Being a Navy vet and knowing something about the process of getting into the Naval Academy because of myenlisted job in the service, I`m going to go out on a limband say that the reason there are more blacks of latemay have more to do with the prep schoolgraduates than anything else. I`ll bet you there is a disproportionate number of blacks being inducted into the prep school and then matriculating to the Academy upon err...graduation the next year. This mayvery well be the reason you are seeing more blacks playing forNavy these days. But then again, the coaches may very well have aninterest inrecruiting as many blacks as possible. I don`tknow, of course, and we only have the numbers on the Navy roster totake at face value.


Considering the nomination process necessary to get an appointment to the SAs, I don`t know how much they can truly control the numbers of white and black players.I`m not saying they don`t have some influence, however, until I see a lotmore rock-solid information stating otherwise, I think, as I said before, the SA numbers each year should beconsidered separately from other D1schools.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Thanks for finding out about that, Van_Slyke_CF, but you didn't address the issue of whether or not the vast majority of the 71 who verbally committed are white or not. That is where the whole argument hinges, in my opinion. Mike's assertion, and his reason for saying Navy is losing white starters is that they opted out. We still need the racial breakdown of the 71 to determine if that is correct. You can go back in the archives and look at the numbers of white starters I found on the Navy team if you doubt them. You can see that I updated them as I learned more about their team each year and as other posters provided info as well. I never accused Mike of being wrong about whether or not SA players signed LOIs or not. I did write that I didn't think they had enough scholarships to give to all those kids. If half of 71 go on to play, then that means they give scholarships to around 35 a year, assuming this is an average recruiting year. 35 scholarships is not much different from other schools or different from the number I said they probably give out each year. You also ignored the reality that these kids are still made offers and recruited. In my mind, using the simple fact ofSA playersnot signing LOIs is not enough to warrant them being considered differently fromother colleges when it comes to racial makeup.That is what the disagreement was over.

 

[Van_Slyke_CF]

"the issue of whether or not the vast majority of the 71 who verbally committed are white or not. That is where the whole argument hinges, in my opinion. Mike's assertion, and his reason for saying Navy is losing white starters is that they opted out. We still need the racial breakdown of the 71 to determine if that is correct."


A very valid point, Colonel Reb. The argument may very well hinge on this, but you still made a mistakepreviouslythat Ipointed outthat elicited a certain response from Mike that you haven`t commented on. I give up on this because this is Riddlewire`s thread and he has done a great job with it.


"You can go back in the archives and look at the numbers of white starters I found on the Navy team if you doubt them."


You misinterpreted my language, Colonel Reb. I wasn`t doubting you,I simpIyhadn`t seen them myself andwas giving you the benefit of the doubt as a respected person on CFwho contributes so greatly to its mission.


Some of you senior members need to take a chill pill every now and then a quit getting so bent outof shapewheneversomeone newer questions you. If you guys donot, you`re going to find that CF will increasingly become a site for a few dozen Old Boy members to pat themselves on the back for always being right, instead of listening toothers who might at times be able to contribute something of value here.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Please tell me exactlywhat my mistake was.