Archy1221
Well-known member
LOL. Your race example shows twice the difference between 11 and 21. And a tenth of a difference between 21 and 50.
The recruiting points rankings that you actually replied to don’t follow that same pattern.
*** 2024 Recruiting ***
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
The recruiting points rankings that you actually replied to don’t follow that same pattern.
MyBloodIsRed16
Well-known member
How many wins did the 50th ranked team have??
Dr. Strangelove
Well-known member
That's just because the recruiting points system is one of many ways to measure a team. The Blue Chip ratio, what I was referring to in my example, is a much better way to measure the gap between teams. It's why you can predict who's better between two teams with lots of points - like Georgia and Oregon - but the on field results are quite different.
A class with 25 recruits and 4 Blue chip players is going to result in more "points" than a class with 17 recruits and 4 Blue chip players. But really, the on field results aren't that much different. The program with only 17 recruits is presumably a roster already full of 3* players... it's not the lack of ability to court them, their roster usually already has them.
The Blue Chip ratio attempts to separate impact players and predict the best teams, and it's pretty accurate I'm doing so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221
Well-known member
Theoretically it actually will result in better on field results for that particular class assuming all other factors are the same . More numbers gives room for more recruiting error.
Keep in mind we are talking #10-#21 and you are bringing up Oregon and Georgia. Not relevant to the discussion. Also keep in mind my point centered on consistent recruiting rankings being in in the 15-23 range over time allowing a team to achieve top 10 seasons. It’s possible I didn’t get that point across too well.
One side point, TCU just played for the national title with 2 25 ranked classes, 2 in the 30’s, and 1 in the 50’s since 2018. Definitely not the norm but shoots holes in the half to have a top five class recruiting class to compete for championships. Especially in the age of the Portal.
On3 only uses the x number of highest-rated recruits. Currently they are using 14. It keeps edging up - I believe it is some sort of calculation based on the average number of commits schools have. It's kind of handy because it somewhat adjusts for different rates that schools get commits.
247 uses a weighted average with your highest-rated recruit getting more weight and the lowest-rated recruits not getting very much weight. So it's more of a quality of quantity thing. Although On3 could somewhat be described as that as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Strangelove
Well-known member
You are correct, larger class sizes means the chances on a recruit translating into a starter is higher - which is why the totality of recruiting over a 4 year time span matters. Teams with big classes will eventually recruit small ones, and the reverse is true for teams with small recruiting classes who eventually recruit big ones. The respective programs' ability to recruit 4* talent doesn't chance much, their class ranking just depends on if their senior class happens to be big or small that year.
I also used Georgia and Oregon as a comparison between teams that both recruit well on paper, but a previous on field result hopefully illustrates the difference of a 5* players and a team of mostly 4* players. It's an extreme example, but the talent gap between teams is large and unfortunately the talent is consolidating more each season.
You are correct about the portal: it has been the only place Nebraska found good players under Frost, and will likely stay part of Rhule's plans going forward.
Archy1221
Well-known member
I’m probably nit picking here but this isn’t technically true. Just doing a quick search of the top programs since 2016 and you will find Alabama never had a class with less than 20 recruits and usually ended with 25-27 per year. GA the same, Ohio State had one year at 19 or 20 recruits, otherwise, they would take 24-27 a year. LSU, Florida State likewise.
They get big classes year after year because of the attrition rate. Lots of kids come in and lots of kids (drafted or not wanted) leave.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Correct.
Alabama perfected the practice of, bring in really good classes....if a player doesn't show that he's going to be a contributor within the first couple seasons, he's is processed out. That allows them to keep bringing in big classes.
Other programs have started doing that too. I used to be against that. But, now with the transfer portal, I'm fine with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221
Well-known member
This also wouldn’t be correct. Frost had good talent come through the door. He and His coaching staff couldn’t do anything with it or develop it.
Jason Sitoke
Well-known member
Dr. Strangelove
Well-known member
They do push out players, and I'm with you on the modern day practice on how it's used. Particularly when those pushed out players can still finish school on scholarship. I will also add that Alabama/Georgia/Ohio State also have a handful of players leaving for the NFL early, which inflates class size as well.
My main point in this discussion regarding class size is really that programs are usually going to attract the same amount of talent year-to-year. Sometimes those classes are big and they finish ranked higher then normal, sometimes they finish small and finish lower. But once 85 players are on scholarship, the number of Blue Chip players is going to be about the same.
Nebraska, for example, consistently ranks around ~22nd in the College Team talent metric and had ~20 Blue Chip players on its roster at any given time. Iowa, Wisconsin, NC State, etc. are all the same, any given year they tend to have about the same amount of talent on the roster.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
You are correct. That is, until something major happens within the program like a coaching change that warrants a change in recruiting. We have seen new classes from new coaches coming in be much higher ranked than previous classes. Problem has been, the coaches didn't have successful programs, so the recruiting settled back to where it naturally had been.
Now, if Rhule comes in and is successful, I see our rankings being better going forward than they have been, on average, the last 10-15 years.
The same thing could be said when TO retired. We were recruiting at a certain level, a coaching change happened and we didn't recruit at that level anymore.
It can go back the other way, with the right staff. Hopefully, Rhule is it.
Archy1221
Well-known member
His 2018 recruiting class has 4 people drafted or UFR signed in NFL. along with AM who was above average at QB and Maurice Washington who was a nutcase but with talent.
2019 had Wandale, Henrich, Mills (NFL cup of coffee), Benhart (has been a disaster but is that lack of coaching development or lack of talent) Ty Robinson (been mismanaged with weight) McCaffrey (should have been a solid Slot or Receiver—talented player however), Nelson
2020 had the Florida kids that most were was excited for and covid happened. Manning is no doubt talented but has head issues, Corcoran and Betts could be listed under coaching development problems?
2021 we will see but Fidone, Teddy, Ervin, along with Toure (transfer and done) is a decent start.
Are you of the assumption there was little talent in the recruiting, the coaches did all they could and the recruiting rankings were way off?
Jason Sitoke
Well-known member
I think for me whether it was talent evaluation or development...I wouldn't know the difference from where I'm sitting. Nebraska hasn't had a 1st round pick in a dozen years, so I would guess that's a result of mismanagement across the board. Benhart is a perfect example. Watching him, I can't tell if he's been poorly trained, poorly coached, or was overvalued as a talent.