Class Ranking Question

[Making Chimichangas]

I am going to put this ask out there for all the recruiting experts who know (theoretically) far more than I do:

 

When judging a school's recruiting class right now, before signing day and before actual results come in 2-3 years later, what is the best way to judge the quality of a school's class?

 

According to scout.com, Nebraska has the 30th ranked recruiting class.

 

However, if we filter that ranking by star average, we have the 17th rated class.

 

http://www.scout.com/college/football/recruiting/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2017

 

Can someone shed any light on this?

[Warrior10]

I think it has to be a mixture. The average star ranking is #1 for me, but you also have to have quantity, aka depth. So come NSD, assuming we take a full class (and should oversign by 3), I'll look at the average star ranking for the entire class.

[Making Chimichangas]

I think it has to be a mixture. The average star ranking is #1 for me, but you also have to have quantity, aka depth. So come NSD, assuming we take a full class (and should oversign by 3), I'll look at the average star ranking for the entire class.

 

But what, in your opinion, is the most correct way to judge the quality of this class?

 

I ask, because I have seen and read countless threads bemoaning our recruiting.

 

IAStateHusker posted a cute little graph that showed Nebraska "at the base of the mountain."

 

Which, got me to thinking, if we went strictly by team ranking, then ya Nebraska's recruiting was on the bottom of the top FBS schools.

 

But, in examining the average star ranking, we're typically midway or two-thirds of the way "up the mountain".

 

So, I guess what I am asking is, is our recruiting really that bad, or as "far down the mountain" from Alabama or Ohio State as some believe?

[Warrior10]

Well I guess I'd say I'll judge average star ranking come NSD for the most part.

 

Obviously there are other factors that need to be accounted for.

 

But I think for the most part, most teams take full enough classes that it should be it is as good of way as any to compare teams.

 

However, it is hard to compare till NSD due to varience in number of commits right now.

 

I also like to compare our average ranking to past years.

[Warrior10]

Btw, not trying to be/act like an expert. Just a fan that enjoys following recruiting.

 

What's your opinion on how to judge/rank a class?

[Making Chimichangas]

Btw, not trying to be/act like an expert. Just a fan that enjoys following recruiting.

 

What's your opinion on how to judge/rank a class?

 

Honestly, I have no freaking idea...that's why I put this ask out there.

 

I mean, I can see the "woah is Nebraska" if we look strictly at recruiting team rankings.

 

But even if we look at team rankings, and assume they are 100% correct and static, being 30th out of 128 FBS teams...really doesn't seem that bad.

 

But if we look at star average, then maybe our recruiting isn't as bad as the doomsdaydaves say.

 

Note: According to scout.com we're 30th nationally...with 13 commits.

 

I am certainly no recruiting expert and never claimed to be. But to be ranked 30th, with 13 commits, seems like we're doing pretty f'ing good.

[Warrior10]

I think it ultimately comes down to what each individual considers "good". For example you seem to think 30th is good/decent, and that's 100% fine as it is your opinion, however I would consider 30th average/below average given the quality/history of the program we are and have to offer.

[Warrior10]

Granted, as you said we are at 13 commits and have more potential to shoot up the rankings compared to others with more commits.

 

I'm not sure I have a set # in mind that I'd consider "good"... probably top 15 as "good", 16-21ish as "average", then below 21 I'd probably be disappointed.

[Making Chimichangas]

I think it ultimately comes down to what each individual considers "good". For example you seem to think 30th is good/decent, and that's 100% fine as it is your opinion, however I would consider 30th average/below average given the quality/history of the program we are and have to offer.

 

But we're "ranked" 30th with a mere 13 commits.

 

I have not done any research, but I would think there aren't many teams ranked ahead of us with as few commits as we have. Conversely, there are a LOT of teams ranked ahead of us who have more commits than we do.

[Hedley Lamarr]

First i would use 247 composite ranking and never visit scout again

[Making Chimichangas]

First i would use 247 composite ranking and never visit scout again

 

Okay...so your opinion about scout.com aside, can you address the crux of my OP?

[Warrior10]

 

 

I think it ultimately comes down to what each individual considers "good". For example you seem to think 30th is good/decent, and that's 100% fine as it is your opinion, however I would consider 30th average/below average given the quality/history of the program we are and have to offer.

But we're "ranked" 30th with a mere 13 commits.

 

I have not done any research, but I would think there aren't many teams ranked ahead of us with as few commits as we have. Conversely, there are a LOT of teams ranked ahead of us who have more commits than we do.

Exactly why I said I'll wait for NSD.

[Moiraine]

I mean... if we were actually gonna try to come up with a set of rules to decide this, we'd have to be more detailed.

 

First we'd have to assume the coaches know which positions they need. I'm sure some screw that up. But let's assume that.

 

You'd then have to find out: Did they get the # of players they needed to get for each position? What ratings were those players?

Just picking out some desired number for a class, say 20, isn't enough. A team could get 25 players but maybe they needed safeties desperately this year and didn't get any. You could also get your quota of 20 but have 8 2 star players. Maybe another team got 19/20, but they were mostly 4 stars. The latter would probably be considered a better class barring any huge misses (like the safety example). Or (getting a little unrealistic) getting 8/20 players with 5 5-stars and 5 4-stars would probably not be as good as getting a bunch of 3-stars and some 4-stars if you get all 20.

[NoLongerN]

For me, I put a premium on the QB, DL and OL positions and then depth before you even get to skill positions. We do just fine in the skill area and probably excell in place kicker and punter. We lack greatly in QB, DL, OL and then TE and LB.

 

Just an opinion.

[I am GLORIOUS]

The problem I have is that I feel we'll be reaching just to fill this class, making offers to guys that otherwise would've never received offers. That should never hsppen.