to be a fantastic recruiter.
Many probably expected to see an immediate and stark difference in recruiting "results".
But being realistic, this is not so realistic.
My bias against hiring a zero experience HC aside, I do think Freeman is doing a great job in recruiting. If you really look at it, there is a very noticeable uptick in the caliber of athletes he is bringing in from top to bottom and his recruiting effort is leaps, bounds, heads and shoulders above his predecessor. But effort only carries so much weight...for a guy who the primary qualifier for hiring a HC, was pushed aside in favor of recruiting acumen (which is only one of the many things that combine to make a great HC), it is all about recruiting results.
Being able to have great recruiting "results" relies on 3 basic fundamentals 1) having good natural recruiting ability, which I believe Freeman does 2) being a tireless worker AT recruiting, which I believe Freeman also checks off this box in spades 3) the third one however relies on one of the most basic all-time laws in college football (especially for the big boy programs) when you have a great looking product on the field and start winning at a high level, recruiting success WILL follow.
The more he wins the better his recruiting results will be, the more Marshall, Stanford and Navy like performances we see the more his results will trail off.
To expect more 5 star success from him at this point is not super realistic, which is why I was against the hire. You hire a guy who can WIN because then recruiting will follow, because even the best recruiter will have some struggles until the product on the field is more desirable to elite recruits.