Recruiting Winners & Losers

[TheRobotDevil]

I haven't ever liked points totals even when James was here and UW was higher in that category.

I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you how to get the list I came up with. It's kind of easy and takes maybe 2 minutes of time. 247 doesn't have a nice little button to do it for you like Rivals did. You have to actually use your brain for a second.
2017 Pac-12 Football Team Rankings
Look at the AVE for each and order them from highest to lowest and you get the list I posted.

Who gives a shit about composite this or that? It wouldn't substantially change. The fact you do get variation in all of the major sites is proof ranking isn't an exact science. If you want to waste your time running down that from every site go for it. It was someone else that brought up 247 as one they liked more than scouts or rivals and most hate ESPN so that's the one I listed.

Sorry if I think Stanford had far and away the best class if it bothers you that much, but that's how I see it.

From your original link.

Tbh even if you want to run the numbers of all 4 sites.And come up with a composite.Its really nothing more than a way to skew numbers.To show the perspective that suits you but thats understandable.I'll stick to the actual rankings .As well as what teams did. And I'm very happy with what SC did definitely a winner.Alabama won hands down as far as over all. I also liked what Nebraska did too tho

 

[WizardHawk]

From your original link.

Tbh even if you want to run the numbers of all 4 sites.And come up with a composite.Its really nothing more than a way to skew numbers.To show the perspective that suits you but thats understandable.I'll stick to the actual rankings .As well as what teams did. And I'm very happy with what SC did definitely a winner.Alabama won hands down as far as over all. I also liked what Nebraska did too tho

No, I originally told you to get the list yourself off 247. I only added Rivals later because (and I've already said this) they do their ave math for you if you click the sort for it.

And if we go by average Ohio State beat Bama and Clemson ends up like 4th where they belong.

Going by points severely punishes teams that don't take 25 kids. It's not an accurate reflection of the quality of kids they took, only the quantity and doesn't compare them evenly. It's a problematic system at best. And people have pointed that out for as long as there has been recruiting ranking.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

No, I originally told you to get the list yourself off 247. I only added Rivals later because (and I've already said this) they do their ave math for you if you click the sort for it.

And if we go by average Ohio State beat Bama and Clemson ends up like 4th where they belong.

Going by points severely punishes teams that don't take 25 kids. It's not an accurate reflection of the quality of kids they took, only the quantity and doesn't compare them evenly. It's a problematic system at best. And people have pointed that out for as long as there has been recruiting ranking.

I gave you the composites that matter before feel free to click the link. Get back to me when you do the math with scout and espn.And give me a composite average. Im not interested in average tho.Im interested in elite Fight On V

 

[WizardHawk]

I gave you the composites that matter before feel free to click the link. Get back to me when you do the math with scout and espn.And give me a composite average. Im not interested in average tho.Im interested in elite Fight On V

And why should I do anything based off what you are interested in?

Again, the only way you would look at average rank per recruit is if it benefited your view of your team while I have had that as a philosophy for decades.

You asked how I came to that and I answered it. Doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not. Won't change my philosophy in any way.

 

[Virginia Gamecock]

I see Ole Miss found out what it's like to recruit without paying players

Yes! Exactly! Everyone in the SEC knew their top 5 recruiting classes were BS.

Gotta toot my school's horn. South Carolina having top 20 class after Spurrier dropped the ball on recruiting is a big turnaround.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

And why should I do anything based off what you are interested in?

Again, the only way you would look at average rank per recruit is if it benefited your view of your team while I have had that as a philosophy for decades.

You asked how I came to that and I answered it. Doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not. Won't change my philosophy in any way.

Actually I wouldn't want you to. I prefer my data thorough. Im happy it makes you feel better tbh.

 

[Codaxx]

Those were just the guys from Texas I was mentioning. It's not like UT is bound to the state borders. Outside of Pouncey, he didn't seem to go after anyone that didn't live within a state away from Texas. He needs to start dipping into the Florida and California markets more if Texas is dried up. Then again, maybe he'll pull up the drawbridge and keep the top kids from leaving moving forward.

Take a look at the 2018 offers. Herman has gone nation wide. To be honest he made more 2018 offers than 2017, since he was hired. I think that was done for a reason. Unless you are sitting at the top of CFB, you aren't going to win over many national recruits by jumping in late to the game. I think he wanted to fill some holes (TE) and take a small class knowing he had the small stack at the table. Hopefully that means he is planning on be aggressive in 2018, when the playing field is much more level. Given all the 2018 offers extended, that appears to be the case

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Aside from what was expected, here is my list of teams who over/under performed recruiting...

Losers:

Clemson- WTF? You win the natty in dramatic fashion and recruit at #22? Now, that said, they only have 14 players and 3 are 5-stars so maybe this one isn't a loser after all.

9 of the 14 are in ESPN's top 300. Small class full of quality. Loser? GTFO! This was a great class for it's size.

 

[Chewbaccer]

With Chubb and Michel returning, and Eason with a full season under his belt, on top of this amazing recruiting class, there is no reason that Georgia shouldn't win the SEC East...fairly easily IMO. Tennessee should be down a notch or two (plus they play @Alabama and LSU from the West, while UGA plays Miss St and @Auburn), Florida doesn't seem to be able to match up that well with Georgia, but that hasn't stopped them from beating them the past few games.

Bottom line, UGA has WAY too much talent in a weaker SEC East to not win it next year IMO. This class should help make them pretty stout.

Down Florida teams have ruined a lot of seasons for Georgia.

I'm cautiously optimistic. What worries me a good bit is those freshman are gonna be needed on offense on the line and at receiver.

Hopefully Eason won't have a defender in his face immediately every time he drops back this season, and hopefully he;s developed some touch on his passes. Not every throw needs to be 100 MPH. Drove me cray in a way in that he seemed to be more accurate with the deep ball than the short to intermediate routes.

 

[Great Dayne]

Aside from what was expected, here is my list of teams who over/under performed recruiting...

Winners:

Oregon- Team in disarray. New coaching staff from Florida. Started with terrible PR. Still, took was probably going to be a class around 40th and worked it to 18th. And, secured O/D-lines well. All things considered, maybe the #1 winner of the year.

Miami- This team was down a couple of years ago and now they are back recruiting very well. Excellent turn around.

Maryland- Never thought I'd see them in the top 20. Excellent job.

Utah- Considering how well many of the other PAC-12 teams did, this was a surprise at #25.

Losers:

Clemson- WTF? You win the natty in dramatic fashion and recruit at #22? Now, that said, they only have 14 players and 3 are 5-stars so maybe this one isn't a loser after all.

Washington- Made the playoffs. Tons of national exposure. Very well regarded head coach. How the hell do you end up 23rd and 5th in the Pac-12???? Disappointing.

Texas- I have always like Texas. But it's surprising to see them slide into the 30's in recruiting. I think one strong season and that will turn around.

Wisconsin- 35th seems very disappointing for this program that has been strong year in and year out. I expected to see them in the top 20.

Wisconsin's overall average ranking per player was higher than it's ever been according to 247 plus they had 5 4 star recruits which is the most they've ever had. Their overall ranking was lower than last year since they had less scholarships to offer but per player ranking this year was higher.

Wisconsin has probably never had a top 20 recruiting class. They're predicated on developing and coaching up players and finding players that fit into their system. Also, they have many diamonds in the rough that they find. JJ Watt is the perfect example as he wasn't even ranked yet became one of the greatest defensive players of all time in the NFL. They like to find late bloomers as well. Due to high academic standards, geographic/climate reasons, and the overall university demographics Wisconsin will never have consistent top ten or even top 15 classes. It's just not realistic. I think they could have a few top 25 but that's not the point. They recruit based on players they believe fit their system and don't get caught star gazing.

 

[Great Dayne]

9 of the 14 are in ESPN's top 300. Small class full of quality. Loser? GTFO! This was a great class for it's size.

View attachment 154503
View attachment 154504

Scout has you with 9 4 star recruits and 2 5 star recruits with a 92 overall average which would make you guys 5th based on per player ranking. That's an excellent class. It should be another playoff appearance at the very least with those guys as juniors and seniors.

 

[Great Dayne]

I would say PSU and Stanford are the biggest winners while the biggest losers might be MSU and Colorado.

The biggest overachiever had to be Rutgers. By far the worst team in the BIG and one of the worst in the country yet they still a #42 ranking on 247.

 

[Virginia Gamecock]

9 of the 14 are in ESPN's top 300. Small class full of quality. Loser? GTFO! This was a great class for it's size.

View attachment 154503
View attachment 154504

As much as I would love to bash Clemson for being behind in the recruiting rankings, you are kind of right. The only reason they are that low is because they didn't get a lot of recruits in, but the recruits they did were four and five stars. Still, though, I'm pretty happy with USC's ranking and the number of recruits we got in. Muschamp's Five Hour Strategy works and keeps the kids home.

 

[socaljim242]

I don't think I said UW has a bama level team did I?

But Petersen clearly has moved the team into a very high level of competition given he still had a lot of Sark's kids (also not top 10 classes) and played a lot of underclassmen because his first few classes had better players.

I'm on record as not really buying into his OKG stuff and have brought it up since they announced his hire, but this is what he's about and he gets kids that look at things his way. So far his results have been solid. Will he hit a ceiling and find a point he can't grow past? Possibly/probably, but he isn't there yet.

I Keep hearing about your coaches OKG players that he thinks are good fit for his program/ system . He must think highly of USCs recruiting class. He offered 15 of them.

 

[Rolltide94]

No, I originally told you to get the list yourself off 247. I only added Rivals later because (and I've already said this) they do their ave math for you if you click the sort for it.

And if we go by average Ohio State beat Bama and Clemson ends up like 4th where they belong.

Going by points severely punishes teams that don't take 25 kids. It's not an accurate reflection of the quality of kids they took, only the quantity and doesn't compare them evenly. It's a problematic system at best. And people have pointed that out for as long as there has been recruiting ranking.

So what you're saying is, Alabama would have had a better recruiting class if we hadn't offered a 2-Star long snapper ranked 2400 in the nation a scholarship? Even though that was a need for us and he will likely be on the field for a dozen snaps or so when we play Florida State in Sept.

Not saying that the current ranking isn't flawed, but saying that going by average cures all is equally a fallacy.

 

[WizardHawk]

I Keep hearing about your coaches OKG players that he thinks are good fit for his program/ system . He must think highly of USCs recruiting class. He offered 15 of them.

Not shocking you want to make this about you, but I never suggested he doesn't have guys he would call OKG's that went with other teams and in fact have said that's my problem with this mantra didn't I? He wants a level of dedication and near fanaticism with his program that is likely less attractive to the highest level players so he is going to get less of them. By default that means more of those are going to go to other high ranked programs including USC. I'm not sure what part of this gives you problems but it's another weak trolling attempt that bears no fruit.

So what you're saying is, Alabama would have had a better recruiting class if we hadn't offered a 2-Star long snapper ranked 2400 in the nation a scholarship? Even though that was a need for us and he will likely be on the field for a dozen snaps or so when we play Florida State in Sept.

Not saying that the current ranking isn't flawed, but saying that going by average cures all is equally a fallacy.

You only read part of what I originally said. Before clarky went off on his inability to read I said both ways of looking at it have their merits and both tell you something different, but important. If either were perfect there wouldn't be any need to look at it any other way, but they aren't.

Which team did better in recruiting: A team with 2000 points with 25 kids or a team with 2000 points on 15 kids? On paper the one with 10 less kids got as much value with less bodies, but the other one has more chances to find/develop starters because they have more raw numbers of players. One has more higher ranked kids obviously and so with less bodies they have higher potential for finding super stars, but far less depth of that class. How do you fairly and evenly evaluate both at the time of signing? I mean it's easy to go back years later and fairly evaluate them based on performance.

One of UW's was a rugby style punter from Australia. We all have those players of need that add to those values.

Obviously most of the world cares about that points total or else it wouldn't be all that the services use for their ranking. I just find it less informative than the average for me. Just me for personal evaluation. Entirely fine with being alone on an island with it.

 

[socaljim242]

Not shocking you want to make this about you, but I never suggested he doesn't have guys he would call OKG's that went with other teams and in fact have said that's my problem with this mantra didn't I? He wants a level of dedication and near fanaticism with his program that is likely less attractive to the highest level players so he is going to get less of them. By default that means more of those are going to go to other high ranked programs including USC. I'm not sure what part of this gives you problems but it's another weak trolling attempt that bears no fruit.

So he offers the same kids every program at his level does. The ones who take his offer are OKG high character kids. lol. Now that makes sense.

 

[WizardHawk]

So he offers the same kids every program at his level does. The ones who take his offer are OKG high character kids. lol. Now that makes sense.

Who said that?

It takes more than game film for them to offer. Many who have gone through his system tell us that afterward, as well as those that pass on his offers. They have to be football junkies (not just talented) and be outstanding in the class room as well as just be a fit personality wise.

There are tons of kids that meet those that don't end up also wanting to be at UW. I don't think anyone has ever said everyone who gets an offer from them is so honored they jump on it. They sure do pass up on plenty of 4 and 5 * kids that don't meet all those requirements as well.

Every coach has their own way of finding their kids. Not sure why you are so hung up on his. I'd say almost obsessed with it as much as you have brought it up the last couple of weeks.

 

[tducey]

Strange to see Clemson at #22. Figured defending champs they'd have a higher recruiting class than that.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

As much as I would love to bash Clemson for being behind in the recruiting rankings, you are kind of right. The only reason they are that low is because they didn't get a lot of recruits in, but the recruits they did were four and five stars. Still, though, I'm pretty happy with USC's ranking and the number of recruits we got in. Muschamp's Five Hour Strategy works and keeps the kids home.

Welcome aboard.