What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official National Signing Day thread*** (1 Viewer)

How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?

The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.

Yet he keeps winning...

 
Good recruiting years for both OU and Michigan. I have followed the piecing together of OU's class and i liked where it was going form the very start. Clay will play a lot this next year and he's going to get every chance to be the offensive freshman of the year in the Big 12. Bell is a can't miss guy who probably should be redshirted unless they think he can win the job this coming year. Haynes and Hayes as the safety combo in 2012/13 has a nice ring to it. Wish I had more time to dig into the Michigan class but I'll take a look this spring when I get a chance.

 
Steve Tasker said:
ConstruxBoy said:
Steve Tasker said:
ConstruxBoy said:
Sounds like Allen and Maynard to Cal.
Click to expand...
oof
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
:D Allen must be something really, really, really special for Cal to spend a scholarship on a mediocre QB who struggled mightily for 3/4 of the season in the MAC.
Click to expand...
Well he looked fantastic in the Army All-American game and Newburg thought he could be the best player in the class. I would have been fine with Penn State wasting that scholie on Maynard.
 
According to CFT, Henderson isn't going to sign his LOI until the NCAA infractions committee meets on the 19th. If the NCAA drops the hammer, Henderson can go elsewhere.

 
gump said:
How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.Yet he keeps winning...
Click to expand...
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
 
The Commish said:
gump said:
How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.Yet he keeps winning...
Click to expand...
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't pay attn, but I heard Rivals turned some of the USC recruits into 5*s when they signed with USC. Weird.Another thing I don't hear people talking much about is whether a school got the people they wanted and/or whether or not they filled their needs. This is not by any means the only example of getting who you want, but it's an extreme one and the one I know the best: Texas offered 30 kids. They had 25 of them come to Austin on official visits and signed all 25 of them. All 25.When schools are good at identifying good kids who fit into their system, go after them, and bring them in and sign them, then how does it get any better? It also helps when you can get kids who really, really, REALLY want to be part of what you're building.OTOH, sometimes schools get big name talent and don't know what to do with them, or they were a bad fit for what they were doing from the start.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When schools are good at identifying good kids who fit into their system, go after them, and bring them in and sign them, then how does it get any better? It also helps when you can get kids who really, really, REALLY want to be part of what you're building.
Click to expand...
This. Realistically, the top-10 programs would be able to get all the 5* guys based on success, NFL-factory-ness, etc. But they don't for the reason you mentioned: they identify guys who want to be at their school and who fit the system. Some of the best players UT (well, both UT's actually) have had in recent years weren't the top recruits at all.
 
Abraham said:
When schools are good at identifying good kids who fit into their system, go after them, and bring them in and sign them, then how does it get any better? It also helps when you can get kids who really, really, REALLY want to be part of what you're building.
Click to expand...
This. Realistically, the top-10 programs would be able to get all the 5* guys based on success, NFL-factory-ness, etc. But they don't for the reason you mentioned: they identify guys who want to be at their school and who fit the system. Some of the best players UT (well, both UT's actually) have had in recent years weren't the top recruits at all.
Click to expand...
I remember even Texas fans laughing when we signed Colt McCoy. He was an afterthought to the one that got away on signing day........wait for it....

....wait for it....

Ryan Perriloux

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the hairy scotsman said:
The Commish said:
gump said:
How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.Yet he keeps winning...
Click to expand...
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't pay attn, but I heard Rivals turned some of the USC recruits into 5*s when they signed with USC. Weird.Another thing I don't hear people talking much about is whether a school got the people they wanted and/or whether or not they filled their needs. This is not by any means the only example of getting who you want, but it's an extreme one and the one I know the best: Texas offered 30 kids. They had 25 of them come to Austin on official visits and signed all 25 of them. All 25.When schools are good at identifying good kids who fit into their system, go after them, and bring them in and sign them, then how does it get any better? It also helps when you can get kids who really, really, REALLY want to be part of what you're building.OTOH, sometimes schools get big name talent and don't know what to do with them, or they were a bad fit for what they were doing from the start.
Click to expand...
agreed
 
The Commish said:
the hairy scotsman said:
The Commish said:
gump said:
How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.Yet he keeps winning...
Click to expand...
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't pay attn, but I heard Rivals turned some of the USC recruits into 5*s when they signed with USC. Weird.Another thing I don't hear people talking much about is whether a school got the people they wanted and/or whether or not they filled their needs. This is not by any means the only example of getting who you want, but it's an extreme one and the one I know the best: Texas offered 30 kids. They had 25 of them come to Austin on official visits and signed all 25 of them. All 25.When schools are good at identifying good kids who fit into their system, go after them, and bring them in and sign them, then how does it get any better? It also helps when you can get kids who really, really, REALLY want to be part of what you're building.OTOH, sometimes schools get big name talent and don't know what to do with them, or they were a bad fit for what they were doing from the start.
Click to expand...
agreed
Click to expand...
There's a lot more to this thing than how many star points you can rack up. Mack Brown and some others have gotten this thing broken down pretty well, but I won't dare say "to a science". Just watch in the next few weeks as Texas starts racking up verbals for 2011. The majority of the kids Texas signed yesterday committed very early in 2009.
 
Beamer is a great coach and gets a lot of out his players. Another thing that benefits VT is they have very little turnover on their staff. Bud Foster has been there for years. Many Hokies wish they would replace Stinespring on offense but I would be fine if he's a lifer like Foster too.

 
Not sure if it's been mentioned but I wonder how many of the unsigned kids are waiting to see what happens in USC before the sign there as well as how many kids will try to get out of there if USC will be heavily penalized for their alleged "issues" from the Carroll era??

 
the hairy scotsman said:
Another thing I don't hear people talking much about is whether a school got the people they wanted and/or whether or not they filled their needs. This is not by any means the only example of getting who you want, but it's an extreme one and the one I know the best: Texas offered 30 kids. They had 25 of them come to Austin on official visits and signed all 25 of them. All 25.
Click to expand...
Texas is a unique case, and this is one of the main reasons why I think it's the best HC job in the country. They're in a great location (Austin) in one of the big 3 recruiting states, and the other instate schools don't offer the same level of competition in recruiting compared to the powerhouse teams in Cali and Florida.Mack Brown and his staff do a masterful job of identifying who they want and locking them up early. They can put on a pressure sales job without pressuring the recruits, as they're upfront with the players they offer and let them know that they probably won't have a spot if they don't commit early.

When schools are good at identifying good kids who fit into their system, go after them, and bring them in and sign them, then how does it get any better? It also helps when you can get kids who really, really, REALLY want to be part of what you're building.

OTOH, sometimes schools get big name talent and don't know what to do with them, or they were a bad fit for what they were doing from the start.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: A great illustration of this is the contrast between the Callahan and Pelini eras at Nebraska. Callahan sold players on coming to NU mostly by saying it was their best ticket to the NFL. Players wanted to play for a Super Bowl coach who could get them to the next level. BC and the former AD's philosophy was to turn NU into a mini-NFL factory. The end result was a lot of kids came to Nebraska with their main goal being to get to the NFL, not helping Nebraska win championships.

Pelini's philosophy is the exact opposite. If a player doesn't want to come to Nebraska to work their ### off and compete every day with their primary goal of helping the team win a MNC, then he doesn't want them, no matter how many stars they have by their name. He primarily targets kids with high character from championship caliber HS teams.

Also, Callahan was virtually clueless when it came to building recruiting classes. BC could get plenty of big time recruits, but he didn't understand how to properly fill areas of need and balance classes so the team woudln't be paper thin at one or more positions due to natural player attrition. The majority of his high level recruits were skill guys and jucos. He never got enough linemen on either side of the ball. For example, BC would raid jucos for DT's who could contribute immediately (because outside of Suh I can't recall another stud frosh DT he brought in), but those players only lasted 2 years, he didn't have enough young guys developed at DT, so he had to raid the juco's again, rinse, repeat.

Pelini and staff actually understand how you build a class and that you have to take the long view, not just the immediate future. The biggest needs for this class were DL (6 commits with 2 DT's already on campus), OL (3 commits with 1 juco alrdeady on campus), S (3 commits), a LB to replace Dillard (1 juco commit who should contribute immediately), WR (3 commits). They didn't have to have a rb, qb, or te, so they were extremely selective with the few they did offer, and ended with 1 stud at each position.

Like I said earlier, IMO this Nebraska class will be significantly better than the 2005 class which was a consensus top 5 class by the services. In less than 3 years NU has gone from having virtually no depth on the lines to now having plenty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just found this transcript of Mack Brown's Signing Day press conference from yesterday afternoon. It's funny, in it he talks about a whole lot of what we've been talking about in these last few posts. (No, I didn't read/hear it until just a few minutes ago) It's long, but I highlighted some of the better stuff and deleted some other stuff, and it's fairly insightful, imho:

• Brown comments on the 2010 signees

General statement: We are obviously very excited about this class, I've been asked over the last couple of days, "Is this the best class that we've ever had?" We feel like it definitely has the potential to be because from top to bottom it covers every position and that's a very difficult thing to do. We also have learned through our many years in coaching, and our 13 recruiting classes here, that a lot of recruiting is determined on how they finish, so in four or five years, we hope that all of these guys will have graduated because we're working really hard to improve our graduation rates and they've steadily gone up over our years here, but we also feel like that a lot of these young guys have the potential to play next year. We've been in the top five four of the last six years, we've been in the mix for a couple of national championships so we have some great players on campus, but we feel like this group will continue in that tradition and, as I said, many of them we feel like will be able to play next year.

We offered 30 scholarships, we had 25 official visits and signed all 25 guys, so we congratulated our (players) downstairs today at 2:00 because they did a great job recruiting. When we get the guys on campus, our players are the ones that really make a difference. It's a very strong class academically so we hope that it's a class that can finish as a group and do a great job over its time here.

....

....

....

Some people have asked about how we recruit and what we do. So you will know, each coach on our staff has an area he recruits, and he goes out and finds the player. For example, Mike Tolleson has the Fort Worth area. So, he found Reggie Wilson and Darius White. Bruce Chambers has parts of Dallas. Bobby Kennedy has the other parts of Dallas. Bruce found Mike Davis, and Bobby Kennedy found Jackson Jeffcoat. Then, they bring the video back to the position coach. If the position coach likes the young man enough we get a transcript on every young man. It goes to Brian Davis. It goes to our admissions office. They give us a yes or a no, or here's what he has to do before he gets accepted to The University of Texas. Then, the position coach takes it to the coordinator on either side of the ball, either Greg or Will. Then, that side of the ball, if it's Connor Wood, Case McCoy, the offense as a staff would watch it. Then they bring it to me. They bring a transcript to me. They bring the video to me. They write comments, each one of them. They have to watch them in different areas first, in different rooms. So they can write down what they think, so everybody doesn't sit in and just agree. We want to make sure we have opinions, because recruiting is difficult. It's hard to evaluate what a young man is going to do four years from now. We don't have the advantages in recruiting that the NFL has in the draft and they still make mistakes. What we're doing now with Junior Days is we're taking young men off watching them two years without getting to know them as well as we used to, so it's much more difficult. Then I have to make a decision on whether we take a young man or not.

Obviously we look at the young men in the state of Texas first. If a young man in the state of Texas is equal ability with a young man outside the state of Texas, we take the in-state player first. We have always done that. We think that's very important. When we start looking at out-of-state players, we have to figure out why he'll come. If you look at the three this year, Jordan Hicks had a direct tie with Jeff Madden from many years ago. You start looking at Demarco Cobbs, his family grew up in the state of Texas and he grew up a Texas fan. You look at Will Russ, the young kicker; Phillip Geigger is on the staff. Phillip Deas who played quarterback for us at North Carolina is on the staff. We felt like we had ties with all three of those young guys. That's how we recruit each year. What we've already done for next year is we've put down the number of scholarships we think are going to be available. Obviously if a young man leaves, if he flunks out of school, if he gets in trouble and we ask him to leave, whatever happens, that changes your numbers. When you're talking about juniors now, how many you have, it's very hard to anticipate what numbers you're going to have this time next year. It's a very difficult thing. It' something I have to work with very carefully. Then what we do is we have to meet each young man that comes in and his family. On Junior Day I'll try to sit down with everybody personally, and I'll talk to each one and their family, and then we'll offer some scholarships.

Obviously, we had 25 official visits and we got 25 kids. We're not into offering guys that we don't want. We're really not into recruiting guys that don't have interest. If a guy tells us we're one of five, we usually move on, because if he's in the state of Texas and he doesn't care about Texas enough to be one of five, we feel like he probably isn't that interested in us. If he's got a couple of schools he's interested in, then we'll be patient for a while. We also need to feel like it's who you sign, not about who you lose. If you lose a guy that you were really, really close to, the coaches who lost guys today, it kills you. It's a whole lot worse to be number two in recruiting than number five. Because if you lose today, you not only lost the guy you lost, but you lost the guy you would've taken if he hadn't come. Actually you lose two or three players when you lose a guy late. That's why we've tried to do our recruiting earlier for guys who want to come. We are very fortunate we didn't have drama at the end. All of our guys were honest with us. All of our guys told us exactly what they thought from the beginning. We really felt like none of our guys wavered. That's something that's very, very important to us.

When you hear something that our staff supposedly said outside our staff about recruiting. If I felt like our staff was talking to anyone outside of our building about recruiting, I would fire them. Our recruiting is very private. The conversations we have with the young men are very private. That's why when rumors pop up, we know that if we've talked with the parents that day that the rumors aren't true, and they'll call us. You usually have to have a high school coach that agrees with the commitment. So we'll always call the high school coach before a young man commits. We want to talk to mom and dad and make sure they're all comfortable with it. We will not take a young man's commitment on our campus or on the phone without the approval of the parents and the high school coach. When they all commit to you, you feel like it's solid. A young man may get excited on your campus and commit, but it doesn't last. As I've said, the worst thing you can do in recruiting is have one back out on you, because it absolutely kills you and hurts you for the future.

....

On the offensive line signees competing for playing time: It'll be fun to watch them this spring. We'll have a lot of work with the young offensive linemen. We have an older group that will be in position to play. We've got some young guys that have to be ready to step up and compete with those guys now and be ready to play two years from now. One of our priorities for next year will be offensive line. In retrospect, I wish we had signed one more this year. We're thinner in that position than we are in some other ones. If there's one thing looking back at what I've decided in this class, I wish we as a group had recruited one more offensive lineman. We'll have to recruit a number of offensive linemen next year.

On securing late commitments: I really think in the end, there's a reason they wait. You have to be lucky. It worked for us (this year). There's no question that Demarco wanted to come last spring. I felt like here's a guy from Tulsa, Okla., and I want to make sure he wants to come. He started to look around and we let him and didn't say anything about it. We thought he was gone. Then he called us back. He really wanted to come. We made him make sure, from our standpoint, that this is what he wanted to do. Not that we chased him. Jackson Jeffcoat had a very unique situation. He had a godfather in Ken Norton, Jr., at Southern Cal. He had a dad who is a tremendous coach at the University of Houston. He had to evaluate if he wanted to play for his dad. Would his dad stay there? Because his dad is a great pro coach as well as college coach. Then the SC (coaching situation) changed. He looked at Oklahoma. He looked at Florida. He's a young man that had a lot of choices and looked around. His dad said this is going to be a long process.

We ask each young man to tell us if it's going to be a long process. If we're out of it, tell us. We do not want to be second. Get us out. If you are hanging in there with us, we'll hang in there with you in certain instances. Certainly you look at Jackson and Jordan this year it worked for us that we waited. Certain years what you can do is have your numbers in good shape and hold for a great player and see if there's a chance, because a lot of young people want to come early. That's great. Vince Young didn't take another visit. Cedric Benson didn't take another visit. Roy Williams didn't want to take another visit. A lot of guys just want to come. If that's the case, then we're all excited about that.

Jordan Hicks, we felt like since we had history with Jeff and Kelly Justice, his mom, that was a chance that we could hang in there and fight for it. Last year we lost some of those battles. This year we won them. That doesn't change. Lamarr Houston (now a senior) was a young guy that for some reason had no ties. He grew up in Colorado Springs. He calls us and said I'm either going to Texas or Texas A&M, because my whole life I've watched you guys on TV. He said I'm going to one or the other. I really got tired of him. We ended up saying forget it, he had USC and had six or eight. He called us back and said, "Will you take me?" Bobby Kennedy said, "Let's don't be stubborn here. He's really good and he wants to come." He wanted to be a running back. He wanted to be a linebacker. So I got him on the phone and said, "If you're coming you're going to be a defensive end." That's what we needed and that's what he wanted. He ended up being a great story for us. You absolutely don't know.

People wonder, you really need to recruit guys who fit. And you need to recruit guys who want to come. If you start making a guy come, he's going to have trouble here. School is tough. It's hard to play. Competition is tough. If he's not excited about being here, he may tuck his tail and leave. We want to make sure they want to come. Our job is to find the guys that fit here, offer them that opportunity. If you're one of five, that means they don't like us any better than the five on their list. I personally look very closely at their list. I want to know why they've chosen other schools. I want to see what they're looking for. If we're not like the other schools, we usually lose. That's another thing we can look at very closely.
Click to expand...
http://mackbrown-texasfootball.com/sports/.../020310aag.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UNC had an okay day. They filled some needs in certain areas. They got a great RB, but they needed a few more in that position as well. Not too pleased with the QB situation at this point.

 
the hairy scotsman said:
The Commish said:
gump said:
How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.Yet he keeps winning...
Click to expand...
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't pay attn, but I heard Rivals turned some of the USC recruits into 5*s when they signed with USC. Weird.
Click to expand...
You heard that from a ####### then. Rankings have been final for weeks.
 
Capella said:
Looks like another great class for FSU to go 7-5 with.Call me jaded, but I have to see it on the field. Been a while since these recruiting "wins" they've had have translated to the field.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised we can still recruit this well after the last few seasons. We now have two solid DB's with Lemarcus Joyner & Bert Reid. They are both pretty tiny though. Really excited about Christian Green. I've been reading about him for a while since he went to Tampa Catholic. We finally got a good sized RB in Smiley but I doubt he will be the next Greg Jones.At 6-4 220 I wouldn't be surprised if we moves LB Christian Jones to DE.
 
QUEZILLA said:
Capella said:
Looks like another great class for FSU to go 7-5 with.Call me jaded, but I have to see it on the field. Been a while since these recruiting "wins" they've had have translated to the field.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised we can still recruit this well after the last few seasons. We now have two solid DB's with Lemarcus Joyner & Bert Reid. They are both pretty tiny though. Really excited about Christian Green. I've been reading about him for a while since he went to Tampa Catholic. We finally got a good sized RB in Smiley but I doubt he will be the next Greg Jones.At 6-4 220 I wouldn't be surprised if we moves LB Christian Jones to DE.
Click to expand...
i was very happy with FSU's class. they addressed their biggest need, DEF
 
Luginbill agrees with me, saying on radio that he would rank USC's class around 15...since they didn't fill their biggest need with lineman. Class was 'a lot of fluff'.

 
fasteddie_21 said:
Oregon landed 4* DT Ricky Heimuli formerly verbally committed to Utah. This is really, REALLY big for the Ducks as the D-Line is the thinnest position on the team. Huge signing there!
Click to expand...
This one was a shocker. Every report I read had him locked up and possibly a "silent" commit to UCLA long ago.It all turned out well in the end, but UCLA fans were predicting doom and gloom for the rest of the day after Heimuli ended up at Oregon. Great get for the Ducks!
 
The Commish said:
gump said:
How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.Yet he keeps winning...
Click to expand...
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
Click to expand...
It's not completely accurate, but there have been some rankings put together looking at yearly recruiting rankings and corresponding on the field records/rankings. For the most part, the top 10-15 teams in the recruiting rankings end up to be the best teams in the country.So, yeah, it's an inexact science, but the more 5 and 4 star players you line up, the better your chances appear to be on Saturdays.
 
GDogg said:
The Commish said:
gump said:
How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.Yet he keeps winning...
Click to expand...
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
Click to expand...
It's not completely accurate, but there have been some rankings put together looking at yearly recruiting rankings and corresponding on the field records/rankings. For the most part, the top 10-15 teams in the recruiting rankings end up to be the best teams in the country.So, yeah, it's an inexact science, but the more 5 and 4 star players you line up, the better your chances appear to be on Saturdays.
Click to expand...
I know lots of folks ignore the correlation <> causation elephant in the room, but I can't. The reality is, their star rating is what they were in highschool. Doesn't matter much in college...similarly, you might be 5 star in college, doesn't mean you will be in the NFL. USC is the perfect example....they have had top 10 classes for the last 2 decades (so it seems) yet look what happened this last year. Look at ND, tons of examples everywhere.
 
The Commish said:
GDogg said:
The Commish said:
gump said:
How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?

The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.

Yet he keeps winning...
Click to expand...
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
Click to expand...
It's not completely accurate, but there have been some rankings put together looking at yearly recruiting rankings and corresponding on the field records/rankings. For the most part, the top 10-15 teams in the recruiting rankings end up to be the best teams in the country.So, yeah, it's an inexact science, but the more 5 and 4 star players you line up, the better your chances appear to be on Saturdays.
Click to expand...
I know lots of folks ignore the correlation <> causation elephant in the room, but I can't. The reality is, their star rating is what they were in highschool. Doesn't matter much in college...similarly, you might be 5 star in college, doesn't mean you will be in the NFL. USC is the perfect example....they have had top 10 classes for the last 2 decades (so it seems) yet look what happened this last year. Look at ND, tons of examples everywhere.
Click to expand...
http://www.star-telegram.com/991/story/1935126.html
Colt McCoy, Nebraska's Suh among less-heralded recruits who became Big 12 stars

During the 2009 football season, Texas quarterback Colt McCoy and Nebraska defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh combined to win nine national individual awards. Both earned consensus All-America recognition.

Yet neither player cracked the Star-Telegram National Top 100 recruiting list in 2005, following their senior seasons in high school. Instead, they arrived in college with less hype than 18 more-heralded signees who joined Big 12 teams during the same recruiting year as National Top 100 recruits.

Let that serve as a friendly reminder to college football fans tempted to celebrate — or curse — the knee-jerk assessments of recruiting analysts Wednesday when grades are assigned to 2010 classes on National Signing Day. Few projections in sports are less precise when graded in hindsight.

Three-star signees such as McCoy or former Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford can become stars. Five-star players, such as former Colorado tailback Darrell Scott (2008 signee with plans to transfer), may never reach their potential.

Such is the dice-roll nature of the recruiting process, which shows that 68 percent of the Big 12’s most decorated players of the past decade were not ranked among the nation’s bluest of blue-chip recruits coming out of high school.

(more...)
Click to expand...
 
The Commish said:
GDogg said:
The Commish said:
gump said:
How good of a coach is Frank Beamer?The last nine years...the highest recruiting ranking I found was 14th...only twice higher than #24...and 4 times wasn't in the top 25.Yet he keeps winning...
Click to expand...
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
Click to expand...
It's not completely accurate, but there have been some rankings put together looking at yearly recruiting rankings and corresponding on the field records/rankings. For the most part, the top 10-15 teams in the recruiting rankings end up to be the best teams in the country.So, yeah, it's an inexact science, but the more 5 and 4 star players you line up, the better your chances appear to be on Saturdays.
Click to expand...
I know lots of folks ignore the correlation <> causation elephant in the room, but I can't. The reality is, their star rating is what they were in highschool. Doesn't matter much in college...similarly, you might be 5 star in college, doesn't mean you will be in the NFL. USC is the perfect example....they have had top 10 classes for the last 2 decades (so it seems) yet look what happened this last year. Look at ND, tons of examples everywhere.
Click to expand...
Yes, and like I said, it's an inexact science. USC is, as much as I hate to admit it, the perfect example:Recruiting class ranking:2003 (Scout, Rivals): 1, 32004: 1, 12005: 6, 12006: 1, 12007: 2, 22008: 9, 82009: 9, 4The final rankings (and team record) from 2004 on:2004 (AP, Coaches): 13-0, 1, 12005: 12-1, 2, 22006: 11-2, 4, 42007: 11-2, 3, 22008: 12-1, 3, 22009: 9-4, 22, 20Outside of this past season, SC's recruits have done about as well as their class rankings have indicated they wouldIf you want, you can check out Texas, Ohio St., and Florida's recruiting rankings. They aren't going to match up exactly and I'm not making that argument. But, for the most part, if you are consistently loading up on Top 10 classes, you have been a perennial Top 10 program.It's not the be all end all, by any means. Coaching, injuries, transfers, early departures and flat out misses play a big part as well.
 
the hairy scotsman said:
The Commish said:
GDogg said:
The Commish said:
How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.
Click to expand...
It's not completely accurate, but there have been some rankings put together looking at yearly recruiting rankings and corresponding on the field records/rankings. For the most part, the top 10-15 teams in the recruiting rankings end up to be the best teams in the country.So, yeah, it's an inexact science, but the more 5 and 4 star players you line up, the better your chances appear to be on Saturdays.
Click to expand...
I know lots of folks ignore the correlation <> causation elephant in the room, but I can't. The reality is, their star rating is what they were in highschool. Doesn't matter much in college...similarly, you might be 5 star in college, doesn't mean you will be in the NFL. USC is the perfect example....they have had top 10 classes for the last 2 decades (so it seems) yet look what happened this last year. Look at ND, tons of examples everywhere.
Click to expand...
http://www.star-telegram.com/991/story/1935126.html
Colt McCoy, Nebraska's Suh among less-heralded recruits who became Big 12 stars

During the 2009 football season, Texas quarterback Colt McCoy and Nebraska defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh combined to win nine national individual awards. Both earned consensus All-America recognition.

Yet neither player cracked the Star-Telegram National Top 100 recruiting list in 2005, following their senior seasons in high school. Instead, they arrived in college with less hype than 18 more-heralded signees who joined Big 12 teams during the same recruiting year as National Top 100 recruits.

Let that serve as a friendly reminder to college football fans tempted to celebrate — or curse — the knee-jerk assessments of recruiting analysts Wednesday when grades are assigned to 2010 classes on National Signing Day. Few projections in sports are less precise when graded in hindsight.

Three-star signees such as McCoy or former Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford can become stars. Five-star players, such as former Colorado tailback Darrell Scott (2008 signee with plans to transfer), may never reach their potential.

Such is the dice-roll nature of the recruiting process, which shows that 68 percent of the Big 12’s most decorated players of the past decade were not ranked among the nation’s bluest of blue-chip recruits coming out of high school.

(more...)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Suh was a very highly rated recruit out of HS. Just because the Star-Telegram National (lol) poorly evaluated a DT in Oregon doesn't mean he was a sleeper. And lol @ The Commish using the USC example. They've had stellar recruiting classes for 10 years and have been a force year in, and year out, except for one year in which they lost their QB, their whole LB corp and a bunch of talent to the NFL. One bad year. And that's your example? If anything, it proves the opposite. Star system is not perfect, but it's a very good indicator.
 
ChampBailey24 said:
And lol @ The Commish using the USC example.
Click to expand...
It was the first one that came to mind :popcorn: There are plenty of other examples you could use.ETA: If you want a better example, look at UGA. I beleive they have had a "rivals" recruiting class in the top 10 every year since like 2001 or 02. What has that gotten them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GDogg said:
fasteddie_21 said:
Oregon landed 4* DT Ricky Heimuli formerly verbally committed to Utah. This is really, REALLY big for the Ducks as the D-Line is the thinnest position on the team. Huge signing there!
Click to expand...
This one was a shocker. Every report I read had him locked up and possibly a "silent" commit to UCLA long ago.It all turned out well in the end, but UCLA fans were predicting doom and gloom for the rest of the day after Heimuli ended up at Oregon. Great get for the Ducks!
Click to expand...
Let me first say that UCLA had a great recruiting class. However, I think the reason that Heimuli didn't go to UCLA is because of the 8 defensive lineman that committed to UCLA this year. He knew that he would have an opportunity to play next year at Oregon, I'm not sure the same could be said at UCLA. PAC 10 did very well in recruiting this year. UCLA usually has very good classes but for some reason they are unable to make it happen on the field. I think Neuheisal is a great recruiter but not a good coach. Same can be said about Kiffin IMO.
 
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
And lol @ The Commish using the USC example.
Click to expand...
It was the first one that came to mind :popcorn: There are plenty of other examples you could use.ETA: If you want a better example, look at UGA. I beleive they have had a "rivals" recruiting class in the top 10 every year since like 2001 or 02. What has that gotten them?
Click to expand...
The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s.
 
Don said:
GDogg said:
fasteddie_21 said:
Oregon landed 4* DT Ricky Heimuli formerly verbally committed to Utah. This is really, REALLY big for the Ducks as the D-Line is the thinnest position on the team. Huge signing there!
Click to expand...
This one was a shocker. Every report I read had him locked up and possibly a "silent" commit to UCLA long ago.It all turned out well in the end, but UCLA fans were predicting doom and gloom for the rest of the day after Heimuli ended up at Oregon. Great get for the Ducks!
Click to expand...
Let me first say that UCLA had a great recruiting class. However, I think the reason that Heimuli didn't go to UCLA is because of the 8 defensive lineman that committed to UCLA this year. He knew that he would have an opportunity to play next year at Oregon, I'm not sure the same could be said at UCLA. PAC 10 did very well in recruiting this year. UCLA usually has very good classes but for some reason they are unable to make it happen on the field. I think Neuheisal is a great recruiter but not a good coach. Same can be said about Kiffin IMO.
Click to expand...
I'm still not ready to judge Neuheisel as a coach. At the very least, I think he's an average coach. But, a good or great coach? We'll see. He's got the talent on offense this year, so they better show vast improvement at least on that side of the ball. The Bruins now have some serious talent on the defensive side of the ball, but for the most part, it's extremely young and inexperienced. So, I'm hoping for a better season this year, but I'm not expecting a BCS bowl or anything. But, in 2011, the Bruins should be very good considering the talent they've brought in that will finally be experienced and the depth they should have. If he can't do big things in 2011, then I'll be ready to say that Neuheisel isn't a good coach and UCLA may want to move on. Then again, I've never been overly impressed with Mack Brown as an X's and O's guy, but he recruits so damn well that they win 10+ games a year. I could also be wrong about Mack. If Neuheisel turns out like that, I suppose it would be acceptable (sarcasm).UCLA brought in lots of defensive linemen, but they needed to. They only have one returning scholarship player at DT and he's more of a DE. They lost Pac10 DPOY, Brian Price at DT, and starter Jerzy Siewerski along with backup DT, Jess Ward. UCLA really needed Heimuli. Of the DT's they are bringing in, Moore still hasn't gotten past admissions, Marsh might need to start, Epenesa they were hoping to redshirt, but he'll need to play now, and Flowers is a guy they were hoping would redshirt. Heimuli was a guy they thought was the most ready to play right away and then go on his mission (a la Xavier Su'a-Filo on the OL this year). Now, Marsh is definitely going to play barring injury, Epenesa will probably have to play and we'll see with Flowers. If Moore doesn't get past admissions, it will be a pretty big blow. Heimuli would have gotten lots of playing time this year out of sheer need.
 
ChampBailey24 said:
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
And lol @ The Commish using the USC example.
Click to expand...
It was the first one that came to mind :popcorn: There are plenty of other examples you could use.ETA: If you want a better example, look at UGA. I beleive they have had a "rivals" recruiting class in the top 10 every year since like 2001 or 02. What has that gotten them?
Click to expand...
The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s.
Click to expand...
Yup, here's a decent article. It's a bit limited and it only uses Rivals' rankings, but it does show that the recruiting rankings have been pretty damn accurate when projecting on the field results.From 2002 to 2007, the top 10 programs in order, according to average recruiting rank is:

1. USC

2. Georgia

3. Oklahoma

4. Florida

5. LSU

6. Florida St.

7. Texas

8. Miami

9. Tennessee

10. Auburn

From 2002 to 2007, the top 10 programs in order, according to winning percentage vs. BCS schools:

1. USC

2. Ohio St.

3. Oklahoma

4. Texas

5. Georgia

6. LSU

7. Auburn

8. Louisville

9. Michigan

10. West Virginia

Here's a pretty good way of looking at this from the article:

So: Rivals was very, very good at picking the top teams – of the top 25 winningest teams of the last six years, all were either pegged in or very near their respective positions by the recruiting rankings or achieved them by winning against overwhelmingly lower-ranked opposition; of the top 25 teams according to the recruiting rankings, 18 are in the top 30 in winning percentage. This is to be expected when you spend most of your time distinguishing between a small number of high-profile, four and five-star guys but can’t possibly make the same level of distinction among a much larger number of two and three-star prospects with more variability among them than the star-based rankings are designed to show. If Rivals indicates a team’s talent is good, it’s probably right; if it indicates it’s just average, or below average, that team probably still has a shot – but only to an extent. You’d be wrong if you cast your lot with the gurus completely, and wronger if you ignored them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ChampBailey24 said:
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
And lol @ The Commish using the USC example.
Click to expand...
It was the first one that came to mind :shrug: There are plenty of other examples you could use.ETA: If you want a better example, look at UGA. I beleive they have had a "rivals" recruiting class in the top 10 every year since like 2001 or 02. What has that gotten them?
Click to expand...
The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s.
Click to expand...
We should probably level set at this point. What does this mean to you?? I think that meant two conference titles and 2-3 bcs bowl wins (I remember one agaist WVU and the most recent one against Hawaii)
 
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
And lol @ The Commish using the USC example.
Click to expand...
It was the first one that came to mind :shrug: There are plenty of other examples you could use.ETA: If you want a better example, look at UGA. I beleive they have had a "rivals" recruiting class in the top 10 every year since like 2001 or 02. What has that gotten them?
Click to expand...
The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s.
Click to expand...
We should probably level set at this point. What does this mean to you?? I think that meant two conference titles and 2-3 bcs bowl wins (I remember one agaist WVU and the most recent one against Hawaii)
Click to expand...
I'm talking about this. 9th best winning % in the 2000s. And yes, that = 2 conference titles and 2 BCS Bowl Wins. Considering that LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and Auburn have all recruited at a similar level and that Georgia has won 2 conference titles in 10 years under Mark Richt, it looks like the recruiting rankings were fairly accurate. Btw, UGA was blown out against WVU. They beat Hawaii and FSU.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ChampBailey24 said:
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
And lol @ The Commish using the USC example.
Click to expand...
It was the first one that came to mind :shrug: There are plenty of other examples you could use.ETA: If you want a better example, look at UGA. I beleive they have had a "rivals" recruiting class in the top 10 every year since like 2001 or 02. What has that gotten them?
Click to expand...
The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s.
Click to expand...
We should probably level set at this point. What does this mean to you?? I think that meant two conference titles and 2-3 bcs bowl wins (I remember one agaist WVU and the most recent one against Hawaii)
Click to expand...
I'm talking about this. 9th best winning % in the 2000s. And yes, that = 2 conference titles and 2 BCS Bowl Wins. Considering that LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and Auburn have all recruited at a similar level and that Georgia has won 2 conference titles in 10 years under Mark Richt, it looks like the recruiting rankings were fairly accurate. Btw, UGA was blown out against WVU. They beat Hawaii and FSU.
Click to expand...
I am asking what this stat means to you because when you have teams like Boise State, VT (good team, doesn't usually enter the top 10 for classes), TCU and OSU (who's consistantly top 15, but not always top 10) it seems like it doesn't mean much. Some of them are RARELY if ever in the top 10 recruiting. Trying to understand what it means to you.
 
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
The Commish said:
It was the first one that came to mind :lmao: There are plenty of other examples you could use.

ETA: If you want a better example, look at UGA. I beleive they have had a "rivals" recruiting class in the top 10 every year since like 2001 or 02. What has that gotten them?
Click to expand...
The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s.
Click to expand...
We should probably level set at this point. What does this mean to you?? I think that meant two conference titles and 2-3 bcs bowl wins (I remember one agaist WVU and the most recent one against Hawaii)
Click to expand...
I'm talking about this. 9th best winning % in the 2000s. And yes, that = 2 conference titles and 2 BCS Bowl Wins. Considering that LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and Auburn have all recruited at a similar level and that Georgia has won 2 conference titles in 10 years under Mark Richt, it looks like the recruiting rankings were fairly accurate. Btw, UGA was blown out against WVU. They beat Hawaii and FSU.
Click to expand...
I am asking what this stat means to you because when you have teams like Boise State, VT (good team, doesn't usually enter the top 10 for classes), TCU and OSU (who's consistantly top 15, but not always top 10) it seems like it doesn't mean much. Some of them are RARELY if ever in the top 10 recruiting. Trying to understand what it means to you.
Click to expand...
Boise State and TCU are in there because they don't play in a BCS conference. They wouldn't be in the Top 25 if they were, unless it was in the Big East. As for VT, I think Rivals' evulations of the Midwest (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) and Virgnia sucks. VT has been getting a lot of 5.7 kids (right below 4* status) and that's allowed them to be solid. They've also benefitted from weak Miami and FSU teams and though their winning % is good, they don't really contend for NCs. They're a perennial 10 wins team, which is very good but not elite. And OSU finished with a bad class this year but they're normally Top 10. There's not much difference between the 8th and the 15h class anyways. Again, you're picking specific exceptions to show why recruiting rankings. That right there shows that they're pretty accurate since you have to nitpick to prove that they're bull####. And no one's saying they're perfect. They all have their strenghts and flaws. ESPN puts way too much emphasis on the states of Texas and Florida and not enough in the Midwest and California. Scout puts too much emphasis on the Midwest and Rivals puts too much emphasis on the Big 3 and the South (which is at least better than the others, they cover a bigger area pretty well) but completely ignore the Midwest.

Recruting rankings are not an exact science but they're a pretty good indicator of success.

 
ChampBailey24 said:
Boise State and TCU are in there because they don't play in a BCS conference. They wouldn't be in the Top 25 if they were, unless it was in the Big East. As for VT, I think Rivals' evulations of the Midwest (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) and Virgnia sucks. VT has been getting a lot of 5.7 kids (right below 4* status) and that's allowed them to be solid. They've also benefitted from weak Miami and FSU teams and though their winning % is good, they don't really contend for NCs. They're a perennial 10 wins team, which is very good but not elite. And OSU finished with a bad class this year but they're normally Top 10. There's not much difference between the 8th and the 15h class anyways.

Again, you're picking specific exceptions to show why recruiting rankings. That right there shows that they're pretty accurate since you have to nitpick to prove that they're bull####. And no one's saying they're perfect. They all have their strenghts and flaws. ESPN puts way too much emphasis on the states of Texas and Florida and not enough in the Midwest and California. Scout puts too much emphasis on the Midwest and Rivals puts too much emphasis on the Big 3 and the South (which is at least better than the others, they cover a bigger area pretty well) but completely ignore the Midwest.

Recruting rankings are not an exact science but they're a pretty good indicator of success.
Click to expand...
I've never said they were bull####. I've said they aren't what a lot of people want them to be. That you feel you need to justify them with the rationalization above should tell you there is much more to success. I've never said they are worthless, but I do believe having all these ranking sites and people sitting on pins and needles on "national signing day" to see how good the class is over does it. Recruiting is one of probably 20 factors that goes into a team's success and I'd probably put the rankings in the 11-15 range when it comes to importance.. I've not nitpicked anyything, or you have a different definition than I do. When you give me a stat where 30-40% of the top 10 are the exception to your point, maybe you should find another source or clarify your position better. Again, there are a TON of factors that go into the success of a program. I just don't think this one is as important as a lot of folks want it to be and pointing out a team's success isn't going to convince me of that until you can keep everything besides recruiting constant, which you can't.

 
Mr Clean said:
Any comments out there for Oklahoma? I guess with 29 commits, there's very little new news out there.I don't know how big a deal it is, but I'm concerned with the fact that they have zero five-star recruits (Rivals). I know that they are ranked fifth on Rivals, but I would think that would drop like a rock once other teams sign their recruits. There are a bunch of teams with 10-15 fewer recruits lined up behind Oklahoma.I would think the emphasis in the class should be OL. Looks like they have five, and I guess I should be happy that four of them are four stars, but they need bulls that can ground out yards on the ground as well as pass block. I thought that OU was lucky to beat Stanford because they were about to convert third-and-eights on that last drive. A team like OU should be able to grind out four YPC consistently. It looks like the chances of OU landing Henderson are about nil. Despite Rivals still listing him as on his list, other articles don't mention OU as on his list at all.In other words, I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that OU has a top-10 class. I'm not saying it's an EPIC FAIL, but it sure looks like they are falling short across the board. Try to bring me off the ledge*!*I know, it's not a science, they're just kids, blah blah :thumbup:
Click to expand...
You're putting waaaaaaaay to much into this process. All you need to remember is that Sam Bradford was a three star recruit and Rhett Bomar was a five star recruit.
 
Barry Jive and The Uptown Five said:
gump said:
ChrisCooleyFan said:
Washington has 30 Commitments so far. Parker would be 31 How the Hell? Maybe the 30 is a good sign for U of M
Click to expand...
Is the SEC the only conference with a cap (27)?
Click to expand...
Just as an FYI on Scholarship limits:1. EVERY Conference/school in D-I has a 25 scholie per year limit and a team limit of 852. Teams sign extra when they know that some of the recruits are not going to make grades and will get placed in JUCO or prep schools.*** The 25-limit only takes effect when the recruits enroll @ school in the fall *** That's when they become "official" recipients of a scholarship.So yeah, teams sign 26, 27, 30 kids to Letters of Intent. But they already know that only 25 will be on campus in the fall.
Click to expand...
There's one more situation. Teams like OU this year can sign over the limit if they have scholarships left over from previous classes and the additional recruits can enroll in the spring.
 
Christo said:
Barry Jive and The Uptown Five said:
gump said:
ChrisCooleyFan said:
Washington has 30 Commitments so far. Parker would be 31 How the Hell? Maybe the 30 is a good sign for U of M
Click to expand...
Is the SEC the only conference with a cap (27)?
Click to expand...
Just as an FYI on Scholarship limits:1. EVERY Conference/school in D-I has a 25 scholie per year limit and a team limit of 852. Teams sign extra when they know that some of the recruits are not going to make grades and will get placed in JUCO or prep schools.*** The 25-limit only takes effect when the recruits enroll @ school in the fall *** That's when they become "official" recipients of a scholarship.So yeah, teams sign 26, 27, 30 kids to Letters of Intent. But they already know that only 25 will be on campus in the fall.
Click to expand...
There's one more situation. Teams like OU this year can sign over the limit if they have scholarships left over from previous classes and the additional recruits can enroll in the spring.
Click to expand...
Sort of. You can only give out 25 scholarships per class. Greyshirts (Winter/Spring enrollees) count against the following class.
 
GDogg said:
Christo said:
Barry Jive and The Uptown Five said:
gump said:
ChrisCooleyFan said:
Washington has 30 Commitments so far. Parker would be 31 How the Hell? Maybe the 30 is a good sign for U of M
Click to expand...
Is the SEC the only conference with a cap (27)?
Click to expand...
Just as an FYI on Scholarship limits:1. EVERY Conference/school in D-I has a 25 scholie per year limit and a team limit of 852. Teams sign extra when they know that some of the recruits are not going to make grades and will get placed in JUCO or prep schools.*** The 25-limit only takes effect when the recruits enroll @ school in the fall *** That's when they become "official" recipients of a scholarship.So yeah, teams sign 26, 27, 30 kids to Letters of Intent. But they already know that only 25 will be on campus in the fall.
Click to expand...
There's one more situation. Teams like OU this year can sign over the limit if they have scholarships left over from previous classes and the additional recruits can enroll in the spring.
Click to expand...
Sort of. You can only give out 25 scholarships per class. Greyshirts (Winter/Spring enrollees) count against the following class.
Click to expand...
Two different things. If a player can enroll early and scholarships are left over from earlier classes he counts against those classes. Scholarships are good for 5 years. It's not a use them or lose them proposition. OU only gave out 65 of its 75 available scholarships the last three years. 5 of OU's 2010 signings are already on campus, will be able to go through spring practice and will count against the prior three years.
 
The Commish said:
ChampBailey24 said:
Boise State and TCU are in there because they don't play in a BCS conference. They wouldn't be in the Top 25 if they were, unless it was in the Big East. As for VT, I think Rivals' evulations of the Midwest (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) and Virgnia sucks. VT has been getting a lot of 5.7 kids (right below 4* status) and that's allowed them to be solid. They've also benefitted from weak Miami and FSU teams and though their winning % is good, they don't really contend for NCs. They're a perennial 10 wins team, which is very good but not elite. And OSU finished with a bad class this year but they're normally Top 10. There's not much difference between the 8th and the 15h class anyways.

Again, you're picking specific exceptions to show why recruiting rankings. That right there shows that they're pretty accurate since you have to nitpick to prove that they're bull####. And no one's saying they're perfect. They all have their strenghts and flaws. ESPN puts way too much emphasis on the states of Texas and Florida and not enough in the Midwest and California. Scout puts too much emphasis on the Midwest and Rivals puts too much emphasis on the Big 3 and the South (which is at least better than the others, they cover a bigger area pretty well) but completely ignore the Midwest.

Recruting rankings are not an exact science but they're a pretty good indicator of success.
Click to expand...
I've never said they were bull####. I've said they aren't what a lot of people want them to be. That you feel you need to justify them with the rationalization above should tell you there is much more to success. I've never said they are worthless, but I do believe having all these ranking sites and people sitting on pins and needles on "national signing day" to see how good the class is over does it. Recruiting is one of probably 20 factors that goes into a team's success and I'd probably put the rankings in the 11-15 range when it comes to importance.. I've not nitpicked anyything, or you have a different definition than I do. When you give me a stat where 30-40% of the top 10 are the exception to your point, maybe you should find another source or clarify your position better. Again, there are a TON of factors that go into the success of a program. I just don't think this one is as important as a lot of folks want it to be and pointing out a team's success isn't going to convince me of that until you can keep everything besides recruiting constant, which you can't.
Click to expand...
The top 10 in winning percentage, not success. Are you saying that because a Pee-Wee team won more games than say the Tigers last year that they're better? Because that's exactly what you're doing when including TCU and Boise State in your top 10. And I don't know why you said OSU wasn't recruiting as well as the elites anyways. The only valid example in that top 10 was VT and VT is never elite. They're a 9-11 wins team, not a 12-13 wins team. They're constantly very good, but never great. Just because I had to debunk invalid arguments doesn't mean that I'm forced to justify the recruiting rankings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Not much parity in college football, huh?
Replies
1
Views
334
General Malaise
General Malaise
fantasycurse42
In this thread we recap Shuke's ratings, all manner of his ratings
Replies
4
Views
341
shuke
shuke
D
The Hunt for Joseph Kony
Replies
4
Views
439
mquinnjr
mquinnjr

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top