MGB: Recruiting status update -- Yes rankings matter

Brett Vito · January 16, 2017

MGB: History, the 247 Sports team talent rankings point to what we already know -- higher rated classes = better teams

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/2017/01/monday-recruiting-status-report-yes-recruiting-matters.html/

trud1966 · January 16, 2017

Somebody remind me...Approximately how long has the "Star-Ranking" system been in place? And, in that time, was there a time that we used to only get 1 Star & 2 Stars?

AustinFromUNT · January 16, 2017

I do think the rankings are important, but it also depends on what the staff thinks would fit best into our system. If you just pick up as many 3 stars as you can, but they don't fit into the system, you would have been better off getting the 2 star that fits. Plus we only have 20 spots this year compared to 25, so that is obviously going to be prohibitive in our hunt.

UNT90 · January 16, 2017

30 minutes ago, AustinFromUNT said:

I do think the rankings are important, but it also depends on what the staff thinks would fit best into our system. If you just pick up as many 3 stars as you can, but they don't fit into the system, you would have been better off getting the 2 star that fits. Plus we only have 20 spots this year compared to 25, so that is obviously going to be prohibitive in our hunt.

Talent is talent. The "system" argument is one you will here when coaches have a bad class.

Eagleisland · January 16, 2017

4 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Talent is talent. The "system" argument is one you will here when coaches have a bad class.

I agree up to a point. However, there are plenty of examples of "high" rated classes turning into total busts...just look at some recent UT Austin seasons....and/or some of the low rated Boise classes several years back who ended up outperforming much higher classes. It is like probability in poker, good hole cards give you a better chance at winning, but there will be more than enough "bad beats" to ensure that you recognize that there is a difference between a high probability and a certainty.

Monkeypox · January 16, 2017

8 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Talent is talent. The "system" argument is one you will here when coaches have a bad class.

Don't you know that our coaches run such a unique, unheard-of system, on both offense and defense, that they look for completely different things in their athletes than the number of FBS schools that run similar (but clearly not as original) systems?

Hunter Green · January 16, 2017

Results on the field will determine how good a class is. Dickey;s classes were good enough to win the Sun Belt, but we still couldn't beat OOC teams except SMU once and a Cincinnati team that under estimated us. Well, and there was Baylor on a down year, but we lost to them the next year.

TheReal_jayD · January 16, 2017

1 hour ago, Brett Vito said:

MGB: History, the 247 Sports team talent rankings point to what we already know -- higher rated classes = better teams

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/2017/01/monday-recruiting-status-report-yes-recruiting-matters.html/

Judging a Recruiting class prior to signing day/or even NSD for that matter is like judging a draft class on draft night.

TheWestie · January 17, 2017

Looks like 247 Sports finally changed our logo to the correct diving eagle.

PlummMeanGreen · January 17, 2017

Recruit a 4A or 5A 1'st team All District lineman with size (or room to grow in the weight room) along with quick feet & a good college line coach can many times turn him into a 3 or 4 star college talent. Haven't most of our best linemen at UNT for years fit that profile?

Edited January 17, 2017 by PlummMeanGreen

Army of Dad · January 17, 2017

13 hours ago, TheReal_jayD said:

Judging a Recruiting class prior to signing day/or even NSD for that matter is like judging a draft class on draft night.

So that would leave us with basketball, traditions, and comparing athletic directors to talk about.

?

UNTLifer · January 17, 2017

18 hours ago, Brett Vito said:

MGB: History, the 247 Sports team talent rankings point to what we already know -- higher rated classes = better teams

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/2017/01/monday-recruiting-status-report-yes-recruiting-matters.html/

Ummm, hey Brett, the link leads to the 2016 rankings.

Brett Vito · January 17, 2017

Chart at the top is the 2016 talent rankings -- last season played. Link is to the 2017 recruiting rankings.

GrandGreen · January 17, 2017

10 hours ago, PlummMeanGreen said:

Recruit a 4A or 5A 1'st team All District lineman with size (or room to grow in the weight room) along with quick feet & a good college line coach can many times turn him into a 3 or 4 star college talent. Haven't most of our best linemen at UNT for years fit that profile?

In most districts almost ever senior starter ends up first team all district, so only the omission of this honor means anything.

19 hours ago, AustinFromUNT said:

I do think the rankings are important, but it also depends on what the staff thinks would fit best into our system. If you just pick up as many 3 stars as you can, but they don't fit into the system, you would have been better off getting the 2 star that fits. Plus we only have 20 spots this year compared to 25, so that is obviously going to be prohibitive in our hunt.

Coaches in general don't recruit by the star rating, that would be foolish. As you noted, they look for the best players that fit their needs.

The number of stars normally is based on how many schools and which schools are recruiting a player. So getting a lot of 3 star and up players means that you have beat out other schools for their service. This is about as accurate gauge of your recruiting that there can be. Only the look back at the classes after their eligibility is up would be more accurate and that is rarely done.

Fans are interested in the current class and how their school is doing relative to other schools.

GrayEagle · January 17, 2017

While I don't disagree with the ranking system in general, and I like the fact that 24/7 has incorporated other systems into a composite, listing the total team numbers only tells a part of the story.

The team totals (as ranked) include all on scholarship and are okay as far as the current situation. But, the number included in the total varied greatly, from a high of 85 to a low of 34.

I recaluculated the total value based on the number on scholarship with the following results:

Marshall 496.22 67 7.406

North Texas 354.84 52 6.824

Southern Miss 447.72 66 6.784

Louisiana Tech 458.63 69 6.647

UTEP 222.26 34 6.537

FAU 417.45 64 6.523

Middle Tenn 429.04 70 6.129

Old Dominion 374.57 65 5.763

Western Ky 407.02 71 5.733

Charlotte 342.20 60 5.703

FIU 373.67 71 5.263

Rice 389.65 76 5.127

UTSA 397.95 85 4.682

So, while we do not seem to be getting the "star power" of some of our conference mates, we are getting some pretty solid players.

Edited January 17, 2017 by GrayEagle

GrayEagle · January 17, 2017