'15 DL Demikal Harrison (Oklahoma)

Thanks for the explanation, Billy. I think your rating needs somehow to include the "eyeball test," though. I know highlight videos don't tell the whole story, but they at least give an honest means of personal assessment between different recruits.

Thanks for the explanation, Billy. I think your rating needs somehow to include the "eyeball test," though. I know highlight videos don't tell the whole story, but they at least give an honest means of personal assessment between different recruits.

We'll always look at the ratings that kids get from each of the sites, and the class as a whole in the team rankings these sites have. Couple those opinion-based ratings of our class with my system of looking at them based on their offer lists, and you'll get a good gauge of what kind of class we're bringing in, and how we're doing recruiting head to head with our peers.

Maybe we could get a GoMeanGreen film rating system too, eventually. Although we'd be a little biased in rating our own commits, but who knows? Always fun to watch a kids film and see exactly what the coaches were thinking in offering that kid, when they don't have great offer lists or ratings.

Thanks for the explanation, Billy. I think your rating needs somehow to include the "eyeball test," though. I know highlight videos don't tell the whole story, but they at least give an honest means of personal assessment between different recruits.

I go by offers, but also if a recruiter is assigned to a player. Not as good as an offer, but if a P5 school has a recruiter assigned, they are a legit target and on the radar. They are getting more than just generic mail. That recruiter has been in contact, has been to the school, visited some games personally, etc. several reasons could be why the offer isnt there yet, especially grades or that they are waiting for other dominos to fall.

Official visits are another thing that counts to me too. Schools are not going to spend money on recruits that they do not consider D1 material. They are not going to fly and send recruiters to the schools either.

I wasn't discounting Wallace, just pointing out our younger depth and limiting it to this class and last year's. I hope Sir Calvin continues to develop. He could be special if he puts in the work.

I think NT has a long way to go in recruiting to get the program where we want it. However,as BillySee points out: NT has moved their recruiting up a notch. Past McCarney classes were primarily made up with players with no other offers. The majority of this year's high school class have other FB division offers, which is progress.

I think NT has a long way to go in recruiting to get the program where we want it. However,as BillySee points out: NT has moved their recruiting up a notch. Past McCarney classes were primarily made up with players with no other offers. The majority of this year's high school class have other FB division offers, which is progress.

Seems like the classes have been relational to the previous season's record. Last year's class was pretty good, but that's because we had a fantastic 2013.

I'm surprised to see how well this class has come together given 2014's record. McCarney & crew must have done a good job convincing these guys that last year was an aberration to 2013's progress.

Seems like the classes have been relational to the previous season's record. Last year's class was pretty good, but that's because we had a fantastic 2013.

I'm surprised to see how well this class has come together given 2014's record. McCarney & crew must have done a good job convincing these guys that last year was an aberration to 2013's progress.

Actually Mac stated that the effects from the bowl win would not be realized until this class.

Actually Mac stated that the effects from the bowl win would not be realized until this class.

Which was why going .500 or better in 2014 was so important.

As for how this class is faring, we have:

2 "C" recruits

- Lipscomb and Dillman (as a tight end we were the only school to offer him)

7 "C+" recruits

- Bendy, Brooks, Munden, K. Smith, Robinson, Woodworth, and Chumley (us and ULM were the only schools to offer him as a QB)

6 "B" recruits

- Preston, Wegmann, Howard, Bradley, Harrison, Murray

1 "B+" recruits

- Young

1 "A" recruit

- Barr

Here's an update on yesterday's commitments.

Here's last year's class.

3 "C" recruits

- Fortenberry, Montgomery, Moore

2 "C+" recruits

- Rutherford, McClain

6 "B" recruits

- Means, Garner, Jones, Tauaalo, T. Johnson, Wilson*

0 "B+" recruits

3 "A" recruits

- Fonzale Davis, Ivery, Adams

2 "A+" recruits

- Goree, Miles

* I'm very tempted to give Wilson a "B+" because playing 2A ball makes his offer list more impressive. He would've had much more with 5A/6A level exposure

So comparing the last two classes, last year's class featured noticeably better offer lists. 5 players had "A" or "A+" offer lists, compared to just 1 this year. That's where I think this year's class is lacking, in headliner type guys. We are doing a good job of filling our class with guys who do have other offers, but we haven't landed many big fish. The big fish are the guys who have all-conference potential.

Since we've joined CUSA, our all-CUSA players have been James Jones (good JUCO offer list), Brelan Chancellor ("C"), Derek Akunne ("B"), Mason Y'Barbo ("B+"), Zach Orr ("B+"), Aaron Bellazin ("A"), Cyril Lemon ("A"), and Marcus Trice ("A+" out of high school). The more guys you get like that, the better chance you'll have more all-CUSA guys. And the good teams in this conference are well represented on the all-CUSA teams.

Billy, I have heard so many positive things regarding dodge as a recruiter on this site. As far your as offers, how did he stack up?

I would like to do this system to see how are rivals (such SMU, UTSA, and rice) fared! To see how we did in comparison to them

I would like to do this system to see how are rivals (such SMU, UTSA, and rice) fared! To see how we did in comparison to them

Yeah! Me too.

Billy, get on that.

Partly due to discounting Chumley and Dilman. Both are athletes and both had nice offer lists. Chumley is much more likely to play TE for us and he had multiple offers there. He is one of the top athletes in this class IMO. Dilman is a little more of an unknown, but we don't get many 6-4 230 lb athletes with experience handling the ball and the potential to play multiple positions. Think you are subjectively lowering there value. I understand your rationale, but still think you are undervaluing them in this class.

Billy, I have heard so many positive things regarding dodge as a recruiter on this site. As far your as offers, how did he stack up?

Pretty well, actually. I haven't broken down all of his classes yet, like I did these last two, but he did get a really solid amount of high-profile kids. In 2008 he had the #1 rated class in the Sunbelt, per rivals. Ratings and offer lists do usually tend to match up, and they did. 2009 was not a very good high school class, considering many we're JUCOs both that year and in 2010. But his high school recruits were good in 2010.

Here are some of the guys from 2008 who would be "B+" or better by my metric. These are just these guys' rivals offer lists, so I don't know if they had more or not. More recruiting services now, and twitter.

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Lance-Dunbar-59427

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-DaWaylon-Cook-58210;_ylt=Av6K2XiZ87O7OyFiWU2T7jpDPZB4

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Riley-Dodge-48938;_ylt=AotzUNfrjk98A31K.VLtVyRDPZB4

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-James-Hamilton-59193;_ylt=ApQgQlhE_2Etn2z4tofKy4pDPZB4

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Desmond-Brigham-58446;_ylt=ApYo2ZGtnwq_hfqqiyv7ORRDPZB4

And 2010

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Aaron-Bellazin-103525;_ylt=AgBaFmq.v2nqjYKSWOeOg6BDPZB4

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Mason-Y'Barbo-84779;_ylt=Ag_fkDEcCJ5G41U7IMADaRRDPZB4

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Zach-Orr-93786;_ylt=AquR6Fo0eoxyjisJat5CvTRDPZB4

Also, Y'Barbo had a ULM offer and some more FCS offers per his commitment interview with Vito. We were also getting these guys while we were having 1-11 and 2-10 seasons, which is pretty impressive.

Partly due to discounting Chumley and Dilman. Both are athletes and both had nice offer lists. Chumley is much more likely to play TE for us and he had multiple offers there. He is one of the top athletes in this class IMO. Dilman is a little more of an unknown, but we don't get many 6-4 230 lb athletes with experience handling the ball and the potential to play multiple positions. Think you are subjectively lowering there value. I understand your rationale, but still think you are undervaluing them in this class.

I'm not subjectively discounting Dillman or Chumley. I'm just classifying them based on the offer lists at the position that we currently have stated they will play, at least initially.

If Chumley does play tight end, then he's an "A+" tight end prospect based on his offer list, and I can retroactively reclassify him when looking back at this class. But, as of now, we've stated we're bringing him in as a QB, where us and ULM were the only schools that offered him there. Same, but flipped for Dillman. If he does end up playing QB then we can look back and say he had an "A+" offer list as a QB. But as a tight end we were his only offer. That's just factual, nothing subjective on my part.

There's no agenda there. QB and Tight End are too drastically different to not note that a player was receiving offers specifically at one position, and not the other. There will always be exceptions no matter what metric you use.

I'm not subjectively discounting Dillman or Chumley. I'm just classifying them based on the offer lists at the position that we currently have stated they will play, at least initially.

If Chumley does play tight end, then he's an "A+" tight end prospect based on his offer list, and I can retroactively reclassify him when looking back at this class. But, as of now, we've stated we're bringing him in as a QB, where us and ULM were the only schools that offered him there. Same, but flipped for Dillman. If he does end up playing QB then we can look back and say he had an "A+" offer list as a QB. But as a tight end we were his only offer. That's just factual, nothing subjective on my part.

There's no agenda there. QB and Tight End are too drastically different to not note that a player was receiving offers specifically at one position, and not the other. There will always be exceptions no matter what metric you use.

Counter argument. There is no position for athlete so how you rank a player based on offers as an "athlete"? There is no guarantee that any player stays at a position, ie. TCUs philosophy. If you say you would re-rank a player if they change positions, then so they end up as a C if they were a B defensive back but play at LB where they received no offers (Jamaal Marshall)?

So, does Harrison red shirt?

So, does Harrison red shirt?

You just can't say till they get here...

Counter argument. There is no position for athlete so how you rank a player based on offers as an "athlete"? There is no guarantee that any player stays at a position, ie. TCUs philosophy. If you say you would re-rank a player if they change positions, then so they end up as a C if they were a B defensive back but play at LB where they received no offers (Jamaal Marshall)?

I talked a little about it, but it depends what kind of athlete we're talking about, and what kind of position changes. If an athlete might play defensive back or receiver, all his offers count the same in my book. Whether you're trying to get open or trying to cover people from getting open, the skill sets are similar enough where the offers would all count.

But yeah, there are unique circumstances. If a player like in the scenario you mentioned we're to go on and have a good career we could say, "well he was highly recruited at 'X' position but he turned out well at 'Y' position even though that wasn't where he was highly recruited out of high school." Or vice versa if the position change doesn't work out well.

Like I said, the main reason it's worth noting with Dillman and Chumley is because Tight End and Quarterback have completely different skill requirements. Having multiple FBS offers at one position does not at all imply that said player is FBS quality at the other position. If a player has the skill to receive FBS offers at receiver or DB, if he also has the size to play the other position then it's a reasonable transition, and the offers are still good indicators of what kind of a prospect he is. Same with LB and DB. If a well recruited safety prospect has the skills to get multiple FBS offers at safety, and the size to become a linebacker then the offers are still a pretty good indicator.

Edited February 4, 2015 by BillySee58

You just can't say till they get here...

I know. Just trying to get the conversation back on topic.

Fax is in. Has signed his LOI

no tweet on this one?? i am liking the tweet with the signature embedded on the picture.

no tweet on this one?? i am liking the tweet with the signature embedded on the picture.

https://twitter.com/ntcoachmac/status/562981503161081856

You're awesome Billysee58

Mean Green Nation! Proud to be apart of this family! This is home #GMG ?

— Demikal harrison (@ball_polo)

February 4, 2015