Jump to content
BigRedBuster

Comparing Recruiting Classes

Recommended Posts

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating # of recruits

05 .8523 31

06 .8493 22

07 .8241

08 .7903

09 .7883

10 .7801

11 .8832 21

12 .8674 18

13 .8334

14 .8472 25

15 .8170

16 .8702 (So far) 15

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

I edited to put in class size. I was looking at 247 and realized that for some reason some classes have some walk-ons listed and some don't. Not sure why

Edited by Mavric
Split to it's own thread.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting info.

 

Would you want to add number of commits to that?

Are you talking to the list from each year?

 

I could. But, I purposely left them off because my point was to look at the quality of recruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting info.

 

Would you want to add number of commits to that?

Are you talking to the list from each year?

 

I could. But, I purposely left them off because my point was to look at the quality of recruit.

 

 

Yeah, I agree that the average rating is the thing to look at. The reason having the number of commits would be a good footnote is because it's easier to get a higher average rating in a class of 17 than it is in a class of 25. There is a roster-management part of that as well but we might be getting the same number of four-star guys each year but some years we have to "fill in" more than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I hadn't noticed this before but the class average listed at the top included the total number of players in that class, including unrated walk-ons. The 2012 class actually averaged .8772 if unrated Chris Long isn't included - adds to the divisor but not the dividend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting info.

 

Would you want to add number of commits to that?

Are you talking to the list from each year?

 

I could. But, I purposely left them off because my point was to look at the quality of recruit.

 

 

Yeah, I agree that the average rating is the thing to look at. The reason having the number of commits would be a good footnote is because it's easier to get a higher average rating in a class of 17 than it is in a class of 25. There is a roster-management part of that as well but we might be getting the same number of four-star guys each year but some years we have to "fill in" more than others.

 

Agree. From 2005 till 2015, we were anywhere from 2 to 9 4* recruits. The highest was in 2011 with 9 and 2010 with 8.

We had drastically dropped off from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I hadn't noticed this before but the class average listed at the top included the total number of players in that class, including unrated walk-ons. The 2012 class actually averaged .8772 if unrated Chris Long isn't included - adds to the divisor but not the dividend.

yeah...I noticed that too. Frustrating and not sure why 247 did that in some years and not others.

 

I'm sure as hell not going to go through and add up and divide 10 years of recruits when I'm not even sure if any non rated recruits were on scholarship or rated recruits were walk-ons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

 

 

Yet to be answered as in how good do the players turn out to be? That's a separate - but related - discussion.

 

If we're just trying to compare recruiting, the only question to answer is how to weight each factor - average, number of 4*s, number of commits, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

 

 

Yet to be answered as in how good do the players turn out to be? That's a separate - but related - discussion.

 

If we're just trying to compare recruiting, the only question to answer is how to weight each factor - average, number of 4*s, number of commits, etc.

 

Well, that's why I was looking at average player rating.

There is no way legally we are going to have a class of 28 players. So....when comparing the quality of the job our staff has done, to me, it doesn't make sense to compare them to classes that have 28 players and include number of players as a factor.

 

To me, we have a group of pretty dang good players in our 15 commits. We are in on some more very good players that we just need to close on. Combine those together, and I think we have a pretty good class as it relates to most of the classes over the last 10 - 11 years......when you don't take into account number of players that we aren't going to be able to get to anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

 

 

Yet to be answered as in how good do the players turn out to be? That's a separate - but related - discussion.

 

If we're just trying to compare recruiting, the only question to answer is how to weight each factor - average, number of 4*s, number of commits, etc.

 

Well, that's why I was looking at average player rating.

There is no way legally we are going to have a class of 28 players. So....when comparing the quality of the job our staff has done, to me, it doesn't make sense to compare them to classes that have 28 players and include number of players as a factor.

 

To me, we have a group of pretty dang good players in our 15 commits. We are in on some more very good players that we just need to close on. Combine those together, and I think we have a pretty good class as it relates to most of the classes over the last 10 - 11 years......when you don't take into account number of players that we aren't going to be able to get to anyway.

 

 

But it's easier to have a higher average at 15 than 28. That's why simply looking at the average doesn't tell the whole story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

 

 

Yet to be answered as in how good do the players turn out to be? That's a separate - but related - discussion.

 

If we're just trying to compare recruiting, the only question to answer is how to weight each factor - average, number of 4*s, number of commits, etc.

 

Well, that's why I was looking at average player rating.

There is no way legally we are going to have a class of 28 players. So....when comparing the quality of the job our staff has done, to me, it doesn't make sense to compare them to classes that have 28 players and include number of players as a factor.

 

To me, we have a group of pretty dang good players in our 15 commits. We are in on some more very good players that we just need to close on. Combine those together, and I think we have a pretty good class as it relates to most of the classes over the last 10 - 11 years......when you don't take into account number of players that we aren't going to be able to get to anyway.

 

 

But it's easier to have a higher average at 15 than 28. That's why simply looking at the average doesn't tell the whole story.

 

But, it's definitely a major part of the puzzle.

 

And, it's easier to have a highly ranked class when you pull in 28-30...or even 31 recruits. So, I don't take too much faith from the rankings.

 

Right now we are sitting at 3 4* recruits. Honestly, I really don't even like using that data. If I. Simmons commits, we get another 4* recruit rated at .8913. If Newman commits, we get another 3* recruit rated at .8896. So, if Newman's rating would just go up .0004, he would have his 4th star. Is Simmons THAT much better of a recruit than Newman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if a coach is taking pretty much the maximum he can take each year, that's all he can do as far as numbers. The Big Ten has greatly limited the coach's ability to play with numbers and sign huge classes. I agree with the rule, but....again, it's not really fair to compare us to programs that are going to sign 28-30 players by simply ranking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×