An Important Factor in Accepting an Athletic Scholarship: The Depth Chart

Posted on November 13, 2010 by Al Woods

Football Recruiting Factors in Accepting an Athletic Scholarship, Basketball Recruiting Factors With many senior athletes throughout the country coming to decisions or at least narrowing things down this time of year, I think it is important to break down a number of factors in the decision process. There will be a variety of things that I cover here and in the future so it is something to keep an eye on if you want to learn more about some important aspects in the college decision.

One of the most common things that I hear from an athlete that they are looking for in their future college home is the ability to play early. While the majority of true freshmen, or redshirt freshmen for that matter, do not play as early as they hoped, there are some important steps to try and figure out the depth chart at the school.

Each week during the year, college programs come out with a depth chart that lists the starters and the backups at every position. The problem is that this is just not good enough when trying to get a true depth chart of your future position. The first thing to do is when speaking with the coach at the school, ask him specifically about how many players they currently have there and how old they are. This will give you a good picture of what is going on. See what they say about accepting transfers or junior college players to the school as well.

Also speak with the coach about the potential for a player to move positions (Which happens often during bowl practice for football) or an athlete who can play multiple spots. That could end up limiting your playing time. Another aspect to look at is who are the other players they are recruiting. You can speak with that coach about it or also go to Rivals.com and study who a school has offered and will be bringing in for a visit. While they do not specify every recruit, they are as close as you can get at a major Division I program.

If a coach tells you that you are the only quarterback they are recruiting, and all of a sudden you see on the Rivals.com database that the school has recently offered two players, then you may need to speak with the coaches about this. Like I have said before, recruiting is a game. But with the Internet and the recruiting coverage that is provided throughout the country, it is hard to keep a prospect under the radar these days. But it does happen. I know a lot of parents who spend a lot of time seeing what schools are recruiting what athletes.

I would also study the roster of the schools you are looking at. See how many players they have at your position, their current academic year, and their bio. That bio may tell you that the player’s dad was an All American at the school twenty years before but his son is a walk on and probably can’t play. Just because there are eight quarterbacks listed on the roster does not mean that many received an athletic scholarship offer.

The greatest part about this is that most of it can be done at the comfort of your own home while on the Internet. It does take some time and leg work but can really help you along in the football recruiting process as well as the basketball recruiting process. On top of those sports, it does apply.

Before you make your final college decision, you want to be as well informed as possible. So it will not hurt to ask the coach questions, talk to as many people around the program as you can, and research the university as thorough as you can via the Internet. These will give you a huge step up when you decide to end the athletic recruiting process and make the most informed decision that you can.

Want to help support Recruiting-101? Please consider purchasing one of our E-Books today!
Recruiting-101 has written a 51-page E-Book that helps parents throughout the journey of the recruiting process. This includes an example recruiting profile, a step-by-step time line, and much more. It is currently available for sale for only $ 10.00. Find out more about purchasing the e-book and what else is included by clicking here now!

Recruiting-101 has put together a 25-page e-book on how to Produce a Scholarship Worthy Highlight Video. It breaks down the overall process of creating a Highlight Video and gives step by step instructions for football and basketball recruits. Click here to learn more about the e-book now, which is currently on sale for only $ 7.50!

For position by position help throughout the football recruiting process, Recruiting-101 has put together a 28-page guide to help athletes get a better feel for what college coaches are looking for at each spot. Click here to learn more about the e-book now, which is currently on sale for only $ 5.00!

Scoutme.com

An Important Factor in Accepting an Athletic Scholarship: The Depth Chart

Posted on November 13, 2010 by Al Woods

Scoutme.com » Basketball

An Important Factor in Accepting an Athletic Scholarship: The Depth Chart

Posted on November 12, 2010 by Al Woods

Scoutme.com » Football

Friday Discussion: Preliminary Depth Chart

Posted on October 29, 2010 by Al Woods

It’s far from finalized, but this is how the roster appears to be breaking down at this moment. There are still a lot of “ORs” on the chart but, as Beilein has mentioned, just about every position in the lineup is up for grabs. I think we can pencil in Novak at the two after Beilein called him the team’s only consistent player thus far.

Note: This is a completely unofficial chart. It’s just an estimation of where things stand today.

Position	First String	Second String
One	Darius Morris OR Stu Douglass
Two	Zack Novak	Stu Douglass OR Matt Vogrich
Three	Tim Hardaway OR Matt Vogrich	Zack Novak
Four	Evan Smotrycz OR Colton Christian
Five	Blake McLimans OR Jordan Morgan OR Jon Horford

Who do you see winning the various position battles? What changes would you make to the line-up? Let’s hear your opinions in the comments.

UM Hoops.com

NL Prospect Values: Climbing the Depth Chart

Posted on October 23, 2010 by Al Woods

The 2010 minor league baseball regular season has come to an end. As with every season, we’ve seen a lot of prospect values both increase and decrease over the long season. Pre-2010 Top 10 prospect lists are sadly out of date and prospect mavens are madly starting to update their rankings for the off-season, which will see a fresh batch of indispensable lists from the likes of Baseball America, Kevin Goldstein, Keith Law, John Sickels, and FanGraphs.

It’s still a little too early to talk Top 10 lists, but let’s peruse the National League organizations for some prospects that have significantly increased their values over the course of the 2010 season. Recently, we looked at the American League prospects.

The Arizona Diamondbacks

Paul Goldschmidt, 1B, A+
Experience: 2 years
Age: 23

Goldschmidt did exactly what a first base prospect has to done: He slugged his brains out with an overall triple-slash line of .314/.384/.606 in 525 at-bats. He posted an impressive .291 ISO and has massive raw power. On the down side to Goldschmidt’s profile, he was playing in a very potent offensive league. He also posted a 30.7% strikeout rate, with a modest walk rate of just 9.5%. With those kind of rates – along with a BABIP of .385 – he doesn’t project to hit for average at higher levels… unless he can make some adjustments.

The Colorado Rockies

Jordan Pacheco, C, A+/AA
Experience: 4 years
Age: 24

Originally a utility infielder, Pacheco’s prospect value took a huge increase when he moved behind the plate in 2008. He made huge strides behind the plate in ’10 but still struggles a bit with his receiving skills and allowed 14 passed balls this season. His throwing is improved and he nailed 36% of base runners in high-A ball. Offensively, Pacheco projects to be at least average offensively for a catcher. He hits for a good average, and shows patience at the plate. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have much power (.123 ISO). His overall triple-slash line at high-A was .321/.407/.444.

The Los Angeles Dodgers

Trayvon Robinson, OF, AA
Experience: 6 years
Age: 23

At worst, Robinson should develop into a fine fourth outfielder. He he can trim his strikeout rate (28.7%), though, he could develop into a solid regular at the MLB level. The .401 OBP is extremely attractive for a leadoff-type. The walk rate has improved from 6.7 in ’08 to 9.5 to 14.0% in ’10. His power numbers dropped from an ISO rate of .194 to .138, which suggests (along with the increase in OBP) that he’s buying into his profile.

The San Diego Padres

Drew Cumberland, SS, A+/AA
Experience: 4 years
Age: 21

Not surprisingly, Cumberland enjoyed playing in the offense-boosting California League in 2010. His .177 ISO was and .365 batting average were definitely impacted by the environment (and his .398 BABIP) so don’t expect those numbers to continue. Still, scouts like his actions in the field – including his range – and his bat should be at least average. Cumberland has the potential to steal 15-20 bases at the MLB level.

The San Francisco Giants

Brandon Belt, 1B, A+/AA/AAA
Experience: 1 year
Age: 22

An adjustment to his batting stance led to massively-improved numbers in 2010. Belt zoomed through the minors after beginning the year in high-A with a triple-slash line of .381/.491/.626 in 270 at-bats. His batting averages at high-A and double-A were aided by high BABIPs. He showed massive power (.260 ISO rate) and kept his strikeout rate below 20%. There are not many holes in his offensive game right now, although he hit just .229/.393/.563 in a 13-game trial at triple-A. He could be in the Majors by mid-2011.

The Cincinnati Reds

Devin Mesoraco, C, A+/AA/AAA
Experience: 4 years
Age: 22

Mesoraco entered 2010 hanging by a thread over the Prospect Bust Pit. He made adjustments and flew through three levels of the minors. He posted a .449 ISO in high-A and .421 in double-A. He slumped a bit at triple-A with a triple-slash line of .231/.310/.462. The 26 homers shows that Mesoraco has a lot of power, but he also shows some good patience. The organization will soon have a very good problem on its hands when 2010 No. 1 draft pick (and fellow catcher) Yasmani Grandal reaches the upper levels of the minor (which shouldn’t take too long).

The St. Louis Cardinals

Joe Kelly, RHP, A
Experience: 2 years
Age: 22

There is nothing I love more than a pitcher with solid ground-ball rates and Kelly backs that up with a fastball that can hit the mid-90s. He simply needs to improve upon his secondary pitches if he’s going to remain in the starting rotation. If not, he could make a dominating closer. It’s a little surprising that the organization left the 22-year-old hurler in A-ball all season but his ERA did look a little mis-leading at 4.62 (3.31 FIP). Ground-ball pitchers tend to struggle in the low minors – especially in terms of hits allowed – because they put so many balls into play with poor defenders (and fields) behind them. Kelly also needs to improve his control (3.92 BB/9).

The Milwaukee Brewers

Jake Odorizzi, RHP, A
Experience: 3 years
Age: 20

The organization has used kids’ gloves with Odorizzi, who spent two years in rookie ball and then a full season in low-A despite some good success. The right-hander saw his strikeout rate jump to 10.07 K/0 while his walk rate remained respectable at 2.98 BB/9. He posted an average ground-ball rate at 46% and his overall numbers were aided slightly by a BABIP of .299. Odorizzi has the makings of a No. 2 starter.

The Houston Astros

Tanner Bushue, RHP, A
Experience: 2 years
Age: 19

Bushue is a highly-projectable pitcher who has tons of potential. He struggled with the long ball (1.21 HR/9) but had a respectable strikeout rate (7.68 K/9) and walk rate (3.23 BB/9). Still, a ground-ball rate of 39% needs to improve if he’s going to have success in the upper levels of pro ball. Age is on his side.

The Pittsburgh Pirates

Bryan Morris, RHP, A+/AA
Experience: 5 years
Age: 23

Injuries and make-up issues have marred Morris’ career to this point but he seemingly turned the corner with the Pirates organization in 2010. The right-hander projects as a solid No. 3 starter, which is welcomed news for a club that has struggled with pitching depth for years. At double-A in 2010, Morris posted a 3.87 FIP with a +50% ground-ball rate in 89.0 innings. I’d like to see Morris continue to pitch well in 2011 at triple-A before I truly buy into his turnaround.

The Chicago Cubs

Chris Archer, RHP, A+/AA
Experience: 5 years
Age: 22

A former Indians draft pick, Archer has struggled with both his command and control throughout his career, which has caused him to move slowly through the system. His game took a big step forward in 2010. His control was improved in high-A when he posted a 2.85 FIP. Unfortunately, it rose from 3.24 to 5.01 BB/9 with a promotion to double-A. There is work to be done but all the pieces are coming together.

The Atlanta Braves

Brandon Beachy, RHP, AA/AAA/MLB
Experience: 3 years
Age: 24

Beachy has gotten a lot of press for his impressive season but the hype is a little unjustified right now. Yes, he had a very good minor league season but his overall repertoire is fairly average and he dominated minor league hitters with good command and control of his stuff. His ground-ball rate is also a tick below average. He’d probably be a middle reliever in the American League but will probably survive as a No. 3 or 4 starter in the National League.

The New York Mets

Cesar Puello, OF, A
Experience: 3 years
Age: 19

Puello produced promising numbers for a teen-aged speedster in 2010. The right-handed batter produced a triple-slash line of .292/.375/.359 in 404 at-bats, while also stealing 45 bases. He continues to make adjustments and his walk rate has improved in each of his three seasons and was at 6.8% in 2010, which is OK but not great. Although he hasn’t shown much power in his ISO rate, Puello has seen his line-drive rate increase dramatically since 2008 (9 to 13 to 15%). Defensively, he made some over-aggressive errors but shows good range.

The Washington Nationals

Brad Peacock, RHP, A+/AA
Experience: 4 years
Age: 22

A position player college, it’s taken Peacock some time to get his feet underneath him on the mound in pro ball. He has a solid fastball that can touch the mid-90s and his secondary pitches are developing nicely. His strikeout rate jumped to 10.28 K/9 in 103.1 high-A innings. His walk rate was good at 2.18 BB/9 but it jumped to 5.12 BB/9 in 38.2 double-A innings. Peacock has shown flashes of an above-average ground-ball rate but it was average in 2010.

The Philadelphia Phillies

Trevor May, RHP, A/A+
Experience: 3 years
Age: 21

May had a very nice beginning to the season with a FIP of 1.94 in 65.0 A-ball innings. He moved up to high-A and saw his FIP jump to 4.76, mainly due to a walk rate that skyrocketed to 7.74 BB/9 despite a strikeout rate of 11.57 K/9. If May can get the ball over the plate consistently, he could be a dominating starter thanks to a mid-90s fastball and two other solid pitches (curve, changeup).

The Florida Marlins

Brad Hand, LHP, A+/AA
Experience: 3 years
Age: 20

Hand isn’t flashy (although his fastball velocity is above-average for a southpaw) but he reached double-A at the age of 20. He posted a 3.37 FIP in 140.2 high-A innings despite a .352 BABIP. His walk rate of 3.14 BB/9 was solid and improved over ’09′s rate of 4.65 BB/9. He projects to be a No. 3 starter who can provide a lot of innings.

Baseball Analysts

PSU v. Illinois – drive chart

Posted on October 23, 2010 by Al Woods

BSD - Easily bumped!

Same drill as last week, except we’ve got a few more stats this time around. I hope people are still willing to think about the Illinois game, even though the Minnesota game is nearly here and the Illinois game is not very fun to think about. I’ll be better about getting these out shortly after when the game happens. I’m getting faster each time, it’s just work got in the way last week.

(Our stats against Iowa are in parentheses for comparison)

(1) Average pass attempt length — 8.3 yards (11.0). It’s surprising that against a crappier defensive front, and an all around crappier defense, we weren’t taking more shots down the field. Why go to the shorter stuff when the paper says you should be airing it our more?

(2) Average completion length — 10.8 yards (6.6). Interesting. The average attempt was shorter, but the average completion was longer. This suggests to me Bolden was missing a lot of short throws (which we’ll have something additional to say later in the post).

(3) Average YAC per completion — 7.0 yards (3.9). If you take away the Moye bomb, this drops to an abysmal 2.6 yards. Given that the ball was underthrown and Moye should have been tackled on the spot, or the pass broken up, this isn’t an unrealistic scenario to consider. I wish I knew more about football to understand why certain others teams like Oregon, Boise State, and the SEC can produce whacky YAC.

(4) Percent thrown to the side of the field (conservative) — 57% (71). While this stat suggests we were less conservative in the playcalling, the shorter yards per attempt say otherwise. Most of these over the middle passes were short, with the exception of the Moye bomb.

(5) Completion % for attempts under 10 yards — 33% (77). Holy hell this is bad. Six for eighteen on passes below 10 yards!? Yikes!

(6) Completion % for attempts 10 yards and over — 40% (19). Man, I know it’s a small sample size, but this is weird. Completing more passes on longer throws?

(7) Yards per playaction pass attempt — 13.3 yards (3.3). There were six playaction attempts, and Bolden completed the one long bomb to Moye. Without that, this is 0.

(8) Yards per standard pass attempt — 2.7 yards (4.8). Man, all these passing statistics are making me sad.

New statistics this week! (and forever more)

(9) Yards per shotgun pass attempt – 0.9 yards.

(10) Yards per under center pass attempt – 9.0 yards. Again, if you remove the bomb to Moye, this is only 2.9 yards and doesn’t differ from the shotgun average. I still agree with most people Bolden does better in the shotgun, particularly when there is pressure coming. Can someone explain what the purpose of putting the quarterback under center is?

(11) Overall rushing playcall % – 45%. This seems balanced to me. I’d be interested to see how this compares against other opponents with inferior/superior lines.

(12) Rush % in own half of field – 40%.

(13) Rush % in opposing half of field – 58%. Okay, these stats seem completely backwards. We throw more frequently in our own half of the field when we should be thinking more cautiously? I think we all have redzone frustrations, and this propensity to run in their half of the field could be part of the problem.

(14) Average rush yards outside tackles – 4.0 yards.

(15) Average rush yards inside tackles – 2.6 yards. Looks like we should not be running up the middle as much as we are, although to the extent the run to the outside is an exception rather than the rule, it will show better results because it catches them off guard. Still, I think the cries for some off-tackle running are reasonable.

(16) Percent of RB iso’s – 26%. This statistic represents the percent of offensive playcalls that are runningback isolation plays, up the gut. This does not include anything to the right or left, but still within the tackles. This is solely that single play that makes us all cringe. I hope this numbers falls each week and asymptotically approaches zero.

Commentary:

This week I made an effort to identify “critical” plays on which the team failed (highlighted in red in the data). I wanted to see if the team was failing because of playcalling or because of execution. I was hoping it would be execution, because that is an easier thing to correct week to week, and is less permanent than the coaching staff.

I concluded there were four playcalling blunders and nine execution failures. These weren’t small issues like just a dropped pass, or every single RB iso playcall. These were drive stalling drops, or red zone playcalls that cost us chances at touchdowns.

My four playcalling blunders were four runs up the middle in the red zone (two of which were with Redd/Green, which seems totally troublesome). The nine execution failures were 6 terrible throws by Bolden, two possessions where the offensive line didn’t block anyone, and one Zug drop.

I am generally optimistic that the failures of this team are mostly player-specific, and not rooted entirely in the coaching stuff. I say this makes me optimistic because I believe these things can be corrected later this season and for 2011 and 2012.

As always, let’s be proud our team is staying (mostly) out of trouble and the coaching staff takes a hard line on discipline to keep our reputation clean. Literally half of the headlines on ESPN’s college football page involve some player being charged with stalking (Florida), DUI (Michigan State), agent trouble (Oklahoma & UNC), or theft (Auburn). You think Joe Paterno would put winning ahead of morals and try to get these guys back on the field as soon as possible? I wouldn’t trade any amount of wins for a scummy program like a lot of the “elite” programs these days.

*Notes about data. (1) Pass length is the ball through the air distance. A 10 yard screen would be pass length of zero, with YAC of 10. (2) When sacked, I guessed whether he was trying to throw to the side or middle. (3) Does not include the Newsome drive at the end. Total yards are low for that reason also.