Virginia turns up in-state recruiting efforts

By JEFF WHITE
MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE
Published: June 6, 2008

CHARLOTTESVILLE—As signing day for football approached in February, fans and media members across the commonwealth raised this question time and again:

Why can’t U.Va. recruit in-state?

Of the 18 players who signed with the University of Virginia on Feb. 6, only three attended state high schools. Virginia Tech, meanwhile, signed 22 players from the state. Rarely, if ever, had the Cavaliers fared so poorly with state prospects.

“I think it’s just a one-year thing,“ John Shuman said at the time, and Fork Union Military Academy’s longtime postgraduate coach appears to have been correct.

U.Va. added its 11th recruit for 2009 Tuesday when Deep Run defensive end/tight end Jake Snyder committed. With eight months to go until the next signing day, nine recruits are Virginians, including two prospects from Tidewater, a region where Al Groh and his staff hadn’t done well in recent years. The Hokies, meanwhile, have only one commitment for 2009—from Stone Bridge High’s David Wang—though they’re likely to pick up several in-state recruits in the next few weeks.

“I’m surprised, just based on the historical aspect,“ said Zirkle Blakey, editor and publisher of the popular VirginiaPreps.com site. “Last year and even the year before, Tech was way out in front early.

“A year ago if I’d said that Virginia was going to have a big lead in in-state commitments, and two would be from the 7-5-7 [area code], people probably would have asked, ‘What are you smoking?‘“

So what’s different this year? It’s not the Cavaliers’ recruiting philosophy, according to Groh.

“Our approach has been straight-line from the start,“ Groh said. “We’ve never wavered on it. We have a model on what we think is necessary in players to fit into this environment and be successful in all phases, and we always want to start with Virginia players that fit our model.

“That’s always going to be a varying thing. Sometimes the pool of [in-state] players who fit our model is smaller.“

That was the case with the state’s Class of 2008. Recruiting analysts predicted that the Class of 2009 would look more favorably upon the Cavaliers, and things have played out that way.

“Virginia has worked really hard,“ Blakey said, “and the academic profiles of the top 30, top 40 prospects are a better match for Virginia than they were a year ago.“

The loss of defensive coordinator Mike London, who left to become head coach at the University of Richmond, was expected to hinder Virginia’s recruiting efforts in the state. But London’s successor, Bob Pruett, has proved to be an excellent ambassador for the Wahoos in Tidewater, and wide receivers coach Wayne Lineburg, who joined Groh’s staff in 2006, is a relentless recruiter.

Other factors in U.Va.‘s fast start in-state include Groh’s job security and Tech’s scholarship crunch. A year ago, Virginia was coming off a 5-7 campaign, and speculation was rampant that the 2007 season might be Groh’s last at his alma mater. But the Cavaliers won nine games, and Groh was named ACC coach of the year.

Virginia Tech had even more success last season, beating U.Va. and then winning the ACC championship game. But the Hokies signed a huge class—31 players—in February. They have far fewer scholarships to offer in 2009 and so haven’t been able to pursue as many in-state prospects as usual. That’s made life easier for U.Va., too.

In a recruiting year in which Virginia figures to sign at least 22 players, 12 or 13—if not more—could come from this state.

“It’s always a positive,“ Groh said. “If we could do it all within a tight radius, that would be great. Sometimes circumstances are otherwise.“

Contact Jeff White at (804) 649-6838 or .