3 years into CUSA - recruiting take

[BillySee58]

Following recruiting as much I do, I've noticed that while the ratings system is statistically proven to be more right than wrong over large sample sizes, our recruits are not evaluated as thoroughly as commits to bigger programs. The reason is those recruiting sites will evaluate the commits for schools that have subsites and subscribers through their website, while we don't. It's also misleading when looking at things year to year, because sometimes our commits get evaluated more fairly, and some years we have more three stars yet a lower team rating (i.e. More 3-stars on rivals in 2014 than 2015, yet higher rated class in 2015).

Because of that, I came up with my own system, based on offer lists of our signees from coaches who are consistently offering about the same amount of guys from year to year.

It's changed a bit, but basically guys with no other FBS offers or former walkons are rated as a "C" recruit, 1 other FBS offer is a "C+" recruit, a "B" recruit has 3-5 total FBS offers, a "B+" recruit has 3-5 total FBS offers with one or two being from impressive programs (i.e. Houston, P5s, etc), an "A" recruit has more than 5 FBS offers, and an "A+" recruit has at more than 5 FBS offers and at least 10 total D1 offers.

I also noticed that our first and second team all-CUSA selections fit into 3 criteria, before/heading into their all-CUSA season:

1. They were at least "B" recruits, with the one exception being Brelan Chancellor. Typically they were "B+" or better either out of high school or juco.

2. They had plenty of experience heading into the year. At least been a starter for a year prior to the all-CUSA season.

3. Were not busts. Self explanatory and obvious.

Well, the all-CUSA teams were released today and we had 0 players make first or second team, with one player making honorable mention (Kaydon Kirby). I had said before the year that we didn't have a single player who fit all three of these criteria, and I didn't see who was going to be all-CUSA or how we could be good this year without enough players, muc less any, fitting these criteria. I got heat for it at the time, but this little system I developed proved true (okay, patting myself on the back).

Point is, let this be a lesson that you need to win recruiting battles every year. Our best players who have won us games were guys who other schools wanted. We need a huge influx of that with Littrell.

Edited December 8, 2015 by BillySee58

[ColoradoEagle]

Did you do a spreadsheet or something with these values comparing us with other CUSA schools? Do you have a link?

[Ben Gooding]

So if a player has more offers than a player that has 0 offers the player that has more offers will be a better product when it is all said and done. Not to rain on your parade because I think you do a fine job in following recruiting for us, but...duh. 

[BillySee58]

Did you do a spreadsheet or something with these values comparing us with other CUSA schools? Do you have a link?

No, and I didn't want to take the time to look at every scholarship player in our conference and look at their offer lists listed on all four recruiting sites. Plus, it's not like all of our recruiting is comparable. For example, Southern Miss is more likely to get a good player who doesn't have an impressive offer list because he might play high school ball in an area where there isn't much exposure for to be recruited. Then you compare that to our recruits who are coming primarily from areas where they get all the exposure you could ask for.

But like I said, it has been a good predictor for us, in particular.

So if a player has more offers than a player that has 0 offers the player that has more offers will be a better product when it is all said and done. Not to rain on your parade because I think you do a fine job in following recruiting for us, but...duh. 

What I'm exhibiting is how accurate offer lists are for us, and how they're better indicators for our signees in particular than star rating.

Rod Lancaster was a 3-star signee for us while Cyril Lemon was a 2-star. If that's how you're evaluating our signees, you'd look at Lancaster as a bust, and view Lemon as a pleasant surprise. But if you look at the offer lists you'd see that Lemon was an "A" recruit with 7 FBS offers, while Lancaster had no other offers, it makes complete sense that Lemon was a 4-year starter while Lancaster never played a meaningful snap.

[aztecskin]

It's a solid eye-test. 

[Wag Tag]

No, and I didn't want to take the time to look at every scholarship player in our conference and look at their offer lists listed on all four recruiting sites. Plus, it's not like all of our recruiting is comparable. For example, Southern Miss is more likely to get a good player who doesn't have an impressive offer list because he might play high school ball in an area where there isn't much exposure for to be recruited. Then you compare that to our recruits who are coming primarily from areas where they get all the exposure you could ask for.

But like I said, it has been a good predictor for us, in particular.

What I'm exhibiting is how accurate offer lists are for us, and how they're better indicators for our signees in particular than star rating.

Rod Lancaster was a 3-star signee for us while Cyril Lemon was a 2-star. If that's how you're evaluating our signees, you'd look at Lancaster as a bust, and view Lemon as a pleasant surprise. But if you look at the offer lists you'd see that Lemon was an "A" recruit with 7 FBS offers, while Lancaster had no other offers, it makes complete sense that Lemon was a 4-year starter while Lancaster never played a meaningful snap.

What about Jucos and transfers? Thanks

[Ben Gooding]

No, and I didn't want to take the time to look at every scholarship player in our conference and look at their offer lists listed on all four recruiting sites. Plus, it's not like all of our recruiting is comparable. For example, Southern Miss is more likely to get a good player who doesn't have an impressive offer list because he might play high school ball in an area where there isn't much exposure for to be recruited. Then you compare that to our recruits who are coming primarily from areas where they get all the exposure you could ask for.

But like I said, it has been a good predictor for us, in particular.

What I'm exhibiting is how accurate offer lists are for us, and how they're better indicators for our signees in particular than star rating.

Rod Lancaster was a 3-star signee for us while Cyril Lemon was a 2-star. If that's how you're evaluating our signees, you'd look at Lancaster as a bust, and view Lemon as a pleasant surprise. But if you look at the offer lists you'd see that Lemon was an "A" recruit with 7 FBS offers, while Lancaster had no other offers, it makes complete sense that Lemon was a 4-year starter while Lancaster never played a meaningful snap.

Jingle my memory, wasn't Lancaster a transfer? 

[Zeke]

This is good stuff.  Would love to see our classes historically using this system as well as moving forward.  

[NorthTexan95]

This is good stuff.  Would love to see our classes historically using this system as well as moving forward.  

I was just thinking we could add this as a column to the Roster spreadsheet in the recruiting forum.  In fact, I could also add a column or two for All Conference selections. 

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Using this system, I'd be curious to see how next year's senior class (which you mentioned was one of the biggest we've had in a while), is rated. 

ETA: a quick scan through shows, it's not great. With only a handful of guys from that class getting multiple offers. Could mean, while they will be more experienced, Littrell is going to have some work to do talent-wise his first year. 2014 & 15 were improved and we didn't burn a lot of redshirt this season so that might help. 

I think it's also important to add with JuCos, you shouldn't go off their high school offers. Everyone was very excited about DaMarcus Smith based on his extensive high school offer list, but coming out of JuCo, I show us as his only offer.

Edited December 8, 2015 by ChristopherRyanWilkes

[BillySee58]

I was just thinking we could add this as a column to the Roster spreadsheet in the recruiting forum.  In fact, I could also add a column or two for All Conference selections. 

Possibly, but we'll hold off on it for now. Need to see if I can get something else to work out first.

Jingle my memory, wasn't Lancaster a transfer? 

No. He was rated 3-stars by Rivals despite us being his only offer.

What about Jucos and transfers? Thanks

For jucos I use their offer list out of junior college, but I keep note of their high school offer list if they had one. If they had a really good offer list out of high school then that means they have the athletic talent, generally.

For FBS transfers I don't include them, but I keep track of their high school offer list. Again, it shows an idea of what their talent level is. For example, when heading into the 2013 season and looking at which players fit into my 3 all-CUSA criteria, Marcus Trice fit in there partly because of his high school offer list. He had a great offer list (so he had the talent), he had experience, and he didn't play amazing his junior year but he certainly wasn't a bust. He fit all 3 criteria so his all-CUSA season made reasonable sense.

[H-towngreen]

For 3 years into CUSA our recruiting sucks.

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Possibly, but we'll hold off on it for now. Need to see if I can get something else to work out first.

No. He was rated 3-stars by Rivals despite us being his only offer.

For jucos I use their offer list out of junior college, but I keep note of their high school offer list if they had one. If they had a really good offer list out of high school then that means they have the athletic talent, generally.

For FBS transfers I don't include them, but I keep track of their high school offer list. Again, it shows an idea of what their talent level is. For example, when heading into the 2013 season and looking at which players fit into my 3 all-CUSA criteria, Marcus Trice fit in there partly because of his high school offer list. He had a great offer list (so he had the talent), he had experience, and he didn't play amazing his junior year but he certainly wasn't a bust. He fit all 3 criteria so his all-CUSA season made reasonable sense.

Would like to see it on the spread sheet as well. 

After your post I checked out WKU's class from a few years ago to now. Seeing some of the teams they beat out in recruiting those players makes it obvious why they are a top-25 team now. 

[Wag Tag]

Possibly, but we'll hold off on it for now. Need to see if I can get something else to work out first.

No. He was rated 3-stars by Rivals despite us being his only offer.

For jucos I use their offer list out of junior college, but I keep note of their high school offer list if they had one. If they had a really good offer list out of high school then that means they have the athletic talent, generally.

For FBS transfers I don't include them, but I keep track of their high school offer list. Again, it shows an idea of what their talent level is. For example, when heading into the 2013 season and looking at which players fit into my 3 all-CUSA criteria, Marcus Trice fit in there partly because of his high school offer list. He had a great offer list (so he had the talent), he had experience, and he didn't play amazing his junior year but he certainly wasn't a bust. He fit all 3 criteria so his all-CUSA season made reasonable sense.

Is 2015 Mac's best class? 

I have always had trouble with comparing 4A or 5A ball in Texas to that in other States. With Texas,  being far superior! 

Thanks for the work and keep it up!

[BillySee58]

Is 2015 Mac's best class? 

I have always had trouble with comparing 4A or 5A ball in Texas to that in other States. With Texas,  being far superior! 

Thanks for the work and keep it up!

To me that was just the administration trying to hype up a class following that bad 4-8 season he had (not as bad now by comparison). From an offer list standpoint the 2014 class was much better than 2015, and noticeably better than any of Mccarney's classes.

Thank you!

Edited December 9, 2015 by BillySee58

[JesseMartin]

Dude, this is really good work.  Very scientific in terms of a very simple way to compare different methodologies used for analyzing recruitment statistics.  I think you should go a bit deeper and do a nice long write up and submit it to one of the bigs (ESPN, SI, CBS Sports, Fox Sports, etc.).  If you need help with the format for a more extensive research-style article, there are a few of us on here with more experience than we would like to admit in doing so.  I really think you may have something here in terms of an alternative analysis method.