Class Ranking Question

[TonyStalloni]

While some would base most of the value of a class on star ranking, I think there are other points to assess. If our class comes in at #15 but fails to fill key needs in some areas of weakness, then the overall health of the team hasn't improved drastically. A bit like going to the grocery and buying a dozen of the best oranges you've ever seen but since you bought oranges yesterday as well and you went to the store for apples to make a pie today you haven't accomplished anything. Many of the oranges will spoil and you won't get a pie out of the deal. By the same token if our ranking comes in at 22-25 but our areas of need are filled, then the health of the team is improved.

 

We need quality linemen on both sides of the ball, but if we recruit 7 great WR's and only 4 total linemen, it will look good on paper by average star ranking but the team won't be upgraded that much. Our coaches do I think keep this in mind (i hope) as they swing for the fences on talented skill positions. Also important is finding kids who are coachable and willing to play for the team.

[Making Chimichangas]

I always find the debate/discussion regarding star ranking and talent fascinating, and I am not sure why.

 

Maybe it is because of the all the unknowns that go into recruiting. Coaches are looking at kids playing in school and trying to project how they'll progress in 3-5 years.

 

Maybe it's because there are so many different metrics for determining talent. For example, Moiraine and Tony Stalloni pointed out that not signing one particular area of need could lower a recruiting class's ranking. They both mentioned filling needs as a metric they would take into account. To me, that seems like a fair point. Then again, with football players being able to switch positions, for example a CB moving to S, that often does address any misses or gaps in a class.

 

Maybe it's because some people just look at where the team is ranked after national signing day. Logic being, if you're in the top 10 to 20, you're probably going to be pretty good.

 

Maybe it's because of the numerous examples every year where 3 star rated kids and lower play like high 4 and 5 stars.

 

Or, finally, maybe it's because with recruiting, you typically don't know what you really have until at least 1-2 years later.

[I am GLORIOUS]

Honestly I'm tired of heading the "stars don't matter" argument. Sure there are some exceptions, but for the most part stars definitely matter, and the statistics have proven that they do. The past 12 national champions have all had multiple Top 10 classes including at least one Top 5 class in the 3 years prior to winning it all. Barely making the Top 25 isn't gonna do much for us.

[GBRFAN]

It seems that there are 4 compenents to a "solid class":

40% Star rankings (either player average or team total) - when averaged out over 4 years it is about the same

30% Position needs - do we have starters and depth on the roster

15% Do the recruits fit NU

15% Are they team players with minimal baggage

 

So recruiting services are just telling 40% of the story. I feel TEXAS is a great example of a school that has always been star driven and feel Bo did well in his classes however didn't do the best in the second 30% (position needs)

 

Based on the first couple classes that MR has signed and his long-term approach with redshirting guys that could have had "some" impact - I feel he is doing good in 3 of the 4 above areas. The 15% for do the recruits fit NU will be hard to determine until we see how much turnover we get in the next couple years.

[Making Chimichangas]

Honestly I'm tired of heading the "stars don't matter" argument. Sure there are some exceptions, but for the most part stars definitely matter, and the statistics have proven that they do. The past 12 national champions have all had multiple Top 10 classes including at least one Top 5 class in the 3 years prior to winning it all. Barely making the Top 25 isn't gonna do much for us.

 

Stars absolutely DO matter.

 

But that's my question...if we go strictly by class ranking, we're 30th accordingly to scout right now.

 

However, as I said in my OP, if we filter our class by star average, we're sitting at 17th nationally. To be sitting at 17th, in terms of average star ranking, with only 13 commits, seems like we're doing some things right.

[I am GLORIOUS]

We're ranked 17th right now, but if we have to "reach" just to fill the class, our star ranking is going to drop significantly.

[Making Chimichangas]

We're ranked 17th right now, but if we have to "reach" just to fill the class, our star ranking is going to drop significantly.

 

True. We've got about a month and a half before NSD. We're still very much in the mix for some very elite, high end talent which could raise our star average and overall class ranking significantly.

[I am GLORIOUS]

Such as? Just curious who you think we have a realistic shot at landing.

[Making Chimichangas]

Such as? Just curious who you think we have a realistic shot at landing.

 

Well, Chuck Filaga just announced his final 3 and Nebraska is one of them, with OU and Michigan being the other two.

 

We're still in the mix with Foster Sarrell

 

There a CB, from California I believe we still got a shot at who's an extremely high 4 star, borderline 5 star.

 

As far as which ones we have a realistic shot at landing? Not sure. But being in an elite recruits top 3 with 1.5 months until NSD is huge.

[NoLongerN]

Anyone taken the time to look at where we are ranked in recruiting for DL and OL? When we are Top 5 in those two categories and have strong pipelines, I'll feel real good about any class regardless of how many players and stars are signed.

 

My guess is we are ranked 40-50 I'm those two categories over a period of 4-5 years. It would be some interesting research data for sure. I'd love to be wrong on this view. In performance I'm guessing I'm guessing that's about "spot on".

[Scratchtown]

Gotta have a guy develop players into winners first. Them Recruiting follows.

 

Clemson recruits really well. Why? Cuz they win and play hard and have a great culture. Despite campus being next to a town smaller than 33% smaller than North Platte. Campus is out in the middle of nothing. I've been there. It's beautiful but you have to be able to recruit to Clemson.

[Red Five]

Gotta have a guy develop players into winners first. Them Recruiting follows.

 

Clemson recruits really well. Why? Cuz they win and play hard and have a great culture. Despite campus being next to a town smaller than 33% smaller than North Platte. Campus is out in the middle of nothing. I've been there. It's beautiful but you have to be able to recruit to Clemson.

 

lol

 

Clemson is 100 miles from Atlanta, 400 miles from Orlando, 500 miles from New Orleans. They are close to a hell of a lot of talent.

[I am GLORIOUS]

 

 

Such as? Just curious who you think we have a realistic shot at landing.

Well, Chuck Filaga just announced his final 3 and Nebraska is one of them, with OU and Michigan being the other two.

 

We're still in the mix with Foster Sarrell

 

There a CB, from California I believe we still got a shot at who's an extremely high 4 star, borderline 5 star.

 

As far as which ones we have a realistic shot at landing? Not sure. But being in an elite recruits top 3 with 1.5 months until NSD is huge.

Come on, man. We're not getting Filiaga or Sarrell. And we're not getting any consolation prizes for being in a guy's top 3. I couldn't care less how many guys we host -- we've gotta be able to land them. Harbaugh and Meyer have that ability; Riley doesn't. And until we get a guy that has that ability, we'll remain languishing in mediocrity.

[theknife]

 

 

Such as? Just curious who you think we have a realistic shot at landing.

Well, Chuck Filaga just announced his final 3 and Nebraska is one of them, with OU and Michigan being the other two.

 

We're still in the mix with Foster Sarrell

 

There a CB, from California I believe we still got a shot at who's an extremely high 4 star, borderline 5 star.

 

As far as which ones we have a realistic shot at landing? Not sure. But being in an elite recruits top 3 with 1.5 months until NSD is huge.

Come on, man. We're not getting Filiaga or Sarrell. And we're not getting any consolation prizes for being in a guy's top 3. I couldn't care less how many guys we host -- we've gotta be able to land them. Harbaugh and Meyer have that ability; Riley doesn't. And until we get a guy that has that ability, we'll remain languishing in mediocrity.

See Lamar Jackson last year. I don't expect to land all of top guys we are finalists on but to assume we miss on all of them is just as irrational at this point.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

Such as? Just curious who you think we have a realistic shot at landing.

Well, Chuck Filaga just announced his final 3 and Nebraska is one of them, with OU and Michigan being the other two.

 

We're still in the mix with Foster Sarrell

 

There a CB, from California I believe we still got a shot at who's an extremely high 4 star, borderline 5 star.

 

As far as which ones we have a realistic shot at landing? Not sure. But being in an elite recruits top 3 with 1.5 months until NSD is huge.

Come on, man. We're not getting Filiaga or Sarrell. And we're not getting any consolation prizes for being in a guy's top 3. I couldn't care less how many guys we host -- we've gotta be able to land them. Harbaugh and Meyer have that ability; Riley doesn't. And until we get a guy that has that ability, we'll remain languishing in mediocrity.

 

 

Does the sun EVER shine where you live?

 

We actually do have a 33.333333333333333333333% chance to land Filiaga.

 

From what I am hearing we also are in Sarrell's top 3 (no idea if that is true). So that means we have a 33.333333333333333333333% chance at Sarrell also.

 

And at this stage in the recruiting process, to have a chance, is really all you can ask for.