01-25-2025, 11:35 AM
Thanks for the question, StanUSwagU. Yes, I do think it's important and possible to look at other things that may be leading indicators, as you say. Some stabs:
High school recruiting (using 247 composite because it's a relatively venerable aggregation of service views): #20 in 2019, #21 in 2020, #43 in 2021, #19 in 2022, #44 in 2023 (first class Taylor signed though built by Shaw), #31 in 2024, #46 in 2025. Not a good trajectory or encouraging as a leading indicator, all the more the case because high school recruiting rankings overstate our talent acquisition the last few years as the sport shifts to transfers (i.e., the #31 class in 2024 was a lot worse when accounting for transfers, as you'll see below).
Transfer recruiting (using On3 because they attempt to account for both incoming and outgoing transfers, but keep in mind this is only a ranking of Power Five teams): #60 in 2022, #69 in 2023, #62 in 2024, #59 so far in 2025. We are on a positive trajectory in competing in the transfer portal but it's modest and we are still taking on strong headwinds in this area. For instance, our current 12 person transfer class with some quality DBs, OL, and WRs is 59th of 70 Power Five programs (though in the ACC more competitive, 12th of 17).
Overall recruiting (247 tries to account for both high school and transfer recruiting in one ranking so sharing that for what it's worth): #27 in 2022, #59 in 2023, #49 in 2024, and #48 in 2025 (in the years before that transfers weren't a significant enough factor to change the picture of what I shared in the high school recruiting snapshot). It's clear our incoming talent has plateaued at a level significantly below where it was in the Shaw era.
NIL: This is a very opaque area and I don't think there is yet a good way to measure it, if there ever will be. My guess is we are kind of middling and maybe trending in the right direction but, again, this is opaque.
All in all, I don't think leading indicators provide any optimism for the program that would counteract any impressions provided by the on-field results. If we're going to turn this around IMHO it will have to be on the backs of significantly improved QB play or a coaching staff change.
High school recruiting (using 247 composite because it's a relatively venerable aggregation of service views): #20 in 2019, #21 in 2020, #43 in 2021, #19 in 2022, #44 in 2023 (first class Taylor signed though built by Shaw), #31 in 2024, #46 in 2025. Not a good trajectory or encouraging as a leading indicator, all the more the case because high school recruiting rankings overstate our talent acquisition the last few years as the sport shifts to transfers (i.e., the #31 class in 2024 was a lot worse when accounting for transfers, as you'll see below).
Transfer recruiting (using On3 because they attempt to account for both incoming and outgoing transfers, but keep in mind this is only a ranking of Power Five teams): #60 in 2022, #69 in 2023, #62 in 2024, #59 so far in 2025. We are on a positive trajectory in competing in the transfer portal but it's modest and we are still taking on strong headwinds in this area. For instance, our current 12 person transfer class with some quality DBs, OL, and WRs is 59th of 70 Power Five programs (though in the ACC more competitive, 12th of 17).
Overall recruiting (247 tries to account for both high school and transfer recruiting in one ranking so sharing that for what it's worth): #27 in 2022, #59 in 2023, #49 in 2024, and #48 in 2025 (in the years before that transfers weren't a significant enough factor to change the picture of what I shared in the high school recruiting snapshot). It's clear our incoming talent has plateaued at a level significantly below where it was in the Shaw era.
NIL: This is a very opaque area and I don't think there is yet a good way to measure it, if there ever will be. My guess is we are kind of middling and maybe trending in the right direction but, again, this is opaque.
All in all, I don't think leading indicators provide any optimism for the program that would counteract any impressions provided by the on-field results. If we're going to turn this around IMHO it will have to be on the backs of significantly improved QB play or a coaching staff change.