2020 Top 50 New Orleans Recruits

[tjtlja]

https://crescentcitysports.com/top-50-n ... s-of-2020/

[djh]

https://crescentcitysports.com/top-50-n ... s-of-2020/

Saw many times the name TULANE on these kids list.

[tulaneoutlaw]

Seems like we are at least looking at 24/50.

[Wave Revival]

Our goal should be to get 10 of the Top 40. Very reasonable. Fritz so far has had minimal success with local recruiting.

[PeteRasche]

Our goal should be to get 10 of the Top 40. Very reasonable. Fritz so far has had minimal success with local recruiting.

Our goal should be to get the best 20 to 25 recruits we possibly can to fill our specific needs. Where they are from is irrelevant.

[TUPF]

Our goal should be to get 10 of the Top 40. Very reasonable. Fritz so far has had minimal success with local recruiting.

Our goal should be to get the best 20 to 25 recruits we possibly can to fill our specific needs. Where they are from is irrelevant.

Don’t waste the keyboard taps.

[Wave Revival]

Our goal should be to get 10 of the Top 40. Very reasonable. Fritz so far has had minimal success with local recruiting.

Our goal should be to get the best 20 to 25 recruits we possibly can to fill our specific needs. Where they are from is irrelevant.

No, I think it is relevant, especially since Louisiana is Top 5 in producing NFL talent and you should have a local connection. Tulane struggling to tap into the local talent is a huge failure. I'd rather have a three star from NOLA than Podunk, Georgia.

[long green]

Class #3 was a success broadly and on the local front. It can be done.

I don’t think any staff should think in terms of quotas when it comes to recruiting near by and inside the state but I do think this staff should strongly consider changing its approach to local and in-state recruiting. This can take many forms, the most common being putting stronger recruiters here.

Local recruiting, when it comes to talent pool like this one, is not irrelevant. Especially in football, where you have more scholarships to fill. Frankly it’s nuts that we haven’t signed a good dual threat QB out of South Louisiana in four classes.

As to the article linked at the top, signing ten of the Top 40 as a benchmark is nuts. For one thing, it’s way too early to say who all the best players are in the metro area. I can think of one guy not on this list who should be and who could very well be a Tulane recruit.

[PeteRasche]

So in the (recent) past we've established that:

1. LA recruiting is totally F'ed up because high school coaches are running everything, taking payments for delivering kids to power schools, demanding scholarships for certain kids in exchange for access to other more in-demand ones, in some cases creating "package deals", turning away certain college coaches, and generally influencing both players and their parents. If you don't do what they want, they'll make it very difficult for you to recruit their kids, and they apparently are very vindictive and power-hungry.

2. Tulane has the reputation among many locals as being "rich white kids from up north" and many in-state kids won't consider it because they feel they won't fit in, or their peers will ridicule them for going there.

3. Tulane has been so bad for so long that the top kids won't consider us when ANY P5 offer is on the table (granted, in many cases, it has nothing to do with Tulane and is just a "G5/P5" thing - but our record in the past 30+ years doesn't help).

4. Tulane has had a difficult time with academics with regards to many top in-state kids.

Yet locals continue to wonder why we don't just get local kids, as if we never even ask and they'd all come (and stay eligible) if we'd only call.

[long green]

Damn locals. Except of course for the guy from New Jersey who made the most recent complaint.

[ml wave]

So in the (recent) past we've established that:

1. LA recruiting is totally F'ed up because high school coaches are running everything, taking payments for delivering kids to power schools, demanding scholarships for certain kids in exchange for access to other more in-demand ones, in some cases creating "package deals", turning away certain college coaches, and generally influencing both players and their parents. If you don't do what they want, they'll make it very difficult for you to recruit their kids, and they apparently are very vindictive and power-hungry.

2. Tulane has the reputation among many locals as being "rich white kids from up north" and many in-state kids won't consider it because they feel they won't fit in, or their peers will ridicule them for going there.

3. Tulane has been so bad for so long that the top kids won't consider us when ANY P5 offer is on the table (granted, in many cases, it has nothing to do with Tulane and is just a "G5/P5" thing - but our record in the past 30+ years doesn't help).

4. Tulane has had a difficult time with academics with regards to many top in-state kids.

Yet locals continue to wonder why we don't just get local kids, as if we never even ask and they'd all come (and stay eligible) if we'd only call.

1. I don't think we've established that at all...certainly some of that has been rumored, but reeks of excuse making--other schools don't seem to have these problems recruiting here.

2. This has basically always been the case, but all of a sudden affects FB recruiting now? Nope, sorry.

3. Fair, but any decent recruiter on staff would be able to sell Fritz's record plus bowl last year over Tulane's historical record. I expect a decent sized bump in our recruiting based on last season.

4. Certainly relevant, but all reports are that we take all NCAA qualifiers. Unsure exactly what you mean here, but I think the issue is that academics is one of our main selling points (the "40 year decision") and that just doesn't resonate with many top kids these days.

[PeteRasche]

So in the (recent) past we've established that:

1. LA recruiting is totally F'ed up because high school coaches are running everything, taking payments for delivering kids to power schools, demanding scholarships for certain kids in exchange for access to other more in-demand ones, in some cases creating "package deals", turning away certain college coaches, and generally influencing both players and their parents. If you don't do what they want, they'll make it very difficult for you to recruit their kids, and they apparently are very vindictive and power-hungry.

2. Tulane has the reputation among many locals as being "rich white kids from up north" and many in-state kids won't consider it because they feel they won't fit in, or their peers will ridicule them for going there.

3. Tulane has been so bad for so long that the top kids won't consider us when ANY P5 offer is on the table (granted, in many cases, it has nothing to do with Tulane and is just a "G5/P5" thing - but our record in the past 30+ years doesn't help).

4. Tulane has had a difficult time with academics with regards to many top in-state kids.

Yet locals continue to wonder why we don't just get local kids, as if we never even ask and they'd all come (and stay eligible) if we'd only call.

1. I don't think we've established that at all...certainly some of that has been rumored, but reeks of excuse making--other schools don't seem to have these problems recruiting here.

2. This has basically always been the case, but all of a sudden affects FB recruiting now? Nope, sorry.

3. Fair, but any decent recruiter on staff would be able to sell Fritz's record plus bowl last year over Tulane's historical record. I expect a decent sized bump in our recruiting based on last season.

4. Certainly relevant, but all reports are that we take all NCAA qualifiers. Unsure exactly what you mean here, but I think the issue is that academics is one of our main selling points (the "40 year decision") and that just doesn't resonate with many top kids these days.

*I* didn't mean anything (sorry to disappoint you). I was simply recapping everything that's been said at times on this forum by locals as excuses why we can't or won't recruit locally. I certainly have no knowledge of how things work down there.

That said, I can believe all of it. And I'd guess that which of the four is the biggest factor probably varies from year to year, regime to regime. Even kid to kid.