Comparing Recruiting Across The Years

Withers940 · August 9, 2017

20 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

Take out:

2011 - Jamone Greer

2013 - Justin Manu

2014 - Fonzale Davis

2015 - Xavier Grindle, Brian Ochs

2016 - William Johnson, Cody Hayes, Raveon Hoston

That's it. Doesn't change the percentages much, and the classes remain in the same order

Added a name since he didnt qualify.

I wonder what ever happened to Fonzale Davis?

BillySee58 · August 9, 2017

38 minutes ago, Withers940 said:

Added a name since he didnt qualify.

I wonder what ever happened to Fonzale Davis?

Hoston doesn't need to be added to that post because I never included him in my class evaluations, since he never actually signed with us.

Davis played a season at Kilgore, didn't have a great year, and I don't think he ever played after that. It's a shame since he was so good in high school.

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · August 9, 2017

2 hours ago, Withers940 said:

Added a name since he didnt qualify.

I wonder what ever happened to Fonzale Davis?

Raveon...still working out, still tweeting: https://twitter.com/superstarrayy?lang=en

If he had just put the same effort into the classroom as he did the weight room and twitter....

GMG24 · August 9, 2017

4 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Raveon...still working out, still tweeting: https://twitter.com/superstarrayy?lang=en

If he had just put the same effort into the classroom as he did the weight room and twitter....

He's going to play at A&M Commerce. That's a pretty crappy thing to say when you have no idea if he works or not in the classroom. Could have a severe learning disability, could just be lazy in classroom but to assume either way is not a good look IMO.

BillySee58 · August 10, 2017

1 hour ago, GMG24 said:

He's going to play at A&M Commerce.

Is that the new report? I didn't see him on their roster

TreeFiddy · August 10, 2017

I know Hoston never made it to campus, but didn't he sign as published in a few videos and as reported in Denton RC?

http://www.dentonrc.com/sports/mean-green/2016/06/01/football-unt-adds-lineman-end-who-got-top-offers

Also Joshua Wheeler had Rice and Nevada offers in addition to UNT as reported by Rivals.

https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/2014/joshua-wheeler-17026

BillySee58 · August 10, 2017

16 minutes ago, TreeFiddy said:

I know Hoston never made it to campus, but didn't he sign as published in a few videos and as reported in Denton RC?

http://www.dentonrc.com/sports/mean-green/2016/06/01/football-unt-adds-lineman-end-who-got-top-offers

Also Joshua Wheeler had Rice and Nevada offers in addition to UNT as reported by Rivals.

https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/2014/joshua-wheeler-17026

I don't think he legitimately signed an LOI. Was never announced, plus the plan was for him to blueshirt and since he never made it in he basically amounted to a decommit.

And thanks for the heads up on Wheeler. I didn't think we were his only offer, but I didn't see any verification of other offers when I looked

Edited August 10, 2017 by BillySee58

@UNTSportsFan · August 10, 2017

19 hours ago, Withers940 said:

I wonder what ever happened to Fonzale Davis?

Played in 1 game for the Dallas Vikings last year in the minor professional football league. Not sure what happened there

Edited August 10, 2017 by @UNTSportsFan

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · August 10, 2017

20 hours ago, GMG24 said:

He's going to play at A&M Commerce. That's a pretty crappy thing to say when you have no idea if he works or not in the classroom. Could have a severe learning disability, could just be lazy in classroom but to assume either way is not a good look IMO.

No, we have an idea of whether or not he was working hard enough in the classroom. We have a great idea about it because he was never eligible at any level except JUCO and, possibly, DII. Except that, like Dajon Williams...he isn't on Texas A&M-Commerce's rather extensive roster: http://lionathletics.com/roster.aspx?path=football

So...try again, maybe?

The simple facts of reality answer any question there might be about it. Every school has plenty of tutoring and academic help.

Plus, he has figured out how to spell correctly and constantly promote himself - even while not playing football for two years - on twitter. So, I doubt we're looking at a severe learning disability. What we appear to have is a severe inability to motivate himself beyond weight lifting and posting pictures of the same on twitter.

Football is played on a football field, not in the weight room. You also stay academically eligible by leaving the weight room now and again, going to your classes, putting your butt in a library seat or athletic academic center and studying the sh*t they talk about in the classes you've attended.

Hey...they don't require these guys to major in physics, okay?

BTG_Fan1 · August 10, 2017

2 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

No, we have an idea of whether or not he was working hard enough in the classroom. We have a great idea about it because he was never eligible at any level except JUCO and, possibly, DII. Except that, like Dajon Williams...he isn't on Texas A&M-Commerce's rather extensive roster: http://lionathletics.com/roster.aspx?path=football

So...try again, maybe?

The simple facts of reality answer any question there might be about it. Every school has plenty of tutoring and academic help.

Plus, he has figured out how to spell correctly and constantly promote himself - even while not playing football for two years - on twitter. So, I doubt we're looking at a severe learning disability. What we appear to have is a severe inability to motivate himself beyond weight lifting and posting pictures of the same on twitter.

Football is played on a football field, not in the weight room. You also stay academically eligible by leaving the weight room now and again, going to your classes, putting your butt in a library seat or athletic academic center and studying the sh*t they talk about in the classes you've attended.

Hey...they don't require these guys to major in physics, okay?

BillySee58 · December 22, 2017

On 8/6/2017 at 12:11 PM, BillySee58 said:

As many of you know, I put a lot of emphasis in recruiting on offer lists of our players in our class as a whole to determine how well we do in recruiting each cycle. It both shows, to varying degrees, how well our coaches did recruiting against other FBS schools for the same players, and which players who we bring in were deemed FBS caliber by other coaches. I started tracking it around 2014, and have gone back and done previous classes as well.

I also came up with a letter grade system, inspired by Greg Goedecker, to differentiate between our recruits based on their offer lists. Here is the grading scale again:

"C" recruit has no other FBS offers

"C+" recruit has one other FBS offer

"B" recruit has 2-4 other FBS offers

"B+" recruit has 2-4 other FBS offers but they are quality offers (i.e. P5, Boise State, Houston, etc.)

"A" recruit has 5-9 other FBS offers

"A+" recruit has 10+ FBS offers

Note that these offers are ALL of the offers these recruits accumulate throughout the recruiting process. Not just who is actively recruiting them at the time they commit to us. I look at that to determine who our coaches are truly winning head-to-head recruiting battles against.

Here are the lists year by year to back up the percentages illustrated in the graph below:

Mccarney's first class - 2011

C - 8 (Jimmerson, Ellard, Mcnulty, Laramie Lee, Mason, Stojkovic, Osborn, Shaw)
C+ - 6 (Jamone Greer, Cooper Jones, Whitfield, Polk, Marcus Smith, Micah Thompson)
B - 3 (Akunne, Austin Orr, Alex Lincoln)
B+ - 5 (Brooks, Sampson, Kerry Swarn, Freddie Warner, Andrew Power)
A - 1 (Lemon)
A+ - 0
9 out of 23 B or better (39.1%)

2012 class

C - 14 (Watson, Marshall, Mcdorman, Haboul, Lancaster, Clark, Roberts, Jarvis, Rollins, Lewis, Wallace, Harris, Lajaylin Smith, Devante Davis)
C+ - 5 (Rentfro, Schrapps, DQ Johnson, Dilonga, Tucker)
B - 4 (Horton, Feldt, Busby, Trussell)
B+ -
A - 1 (Xavier Kelly)
A+ -
5 out of 24 B or better (20.8%)

2013 class

C - 6 (Ellis, Minor, Sorge, Walker, Fortenberry, McKinney)
C+ - 6 (Shilleci, Reinhardt, Smiley, Dajon Williams, Loving, Nelson
B - 2 (Quenton Brown, Fred Scott)
B+ - 3 (Manu, James Jones, Moore)
A - 1 (Chad Davis)
A+ -
6 out of 18 B or better (33.3%)

2014

C - 2 (Jalen Montgomery, Trevor Moore)
C+ - 2 (Mcclain, Rutherford)
B - 7 (Tillman Johnson, Josh Greer, Akii Smith, Means, Andrew Jones, Tauaalo, Wilson)
B+ - 1 (Garner)
A - 3 (Adams, Ivery, Davis)
A+ - 3 (Goree, Miles, Chumley)

14 out of 18 "B" or better (77.8%)

2015

C - 3 (Ozougwu, Robinson, Thompson)
C+ - 6 (Dam. Smith, Bendy, Brooks, Munden, Woodworth, Dak. Smith)
B - 9 (Bradley, Preston, Murray, Gray, Howard, Harrison, Wegmann, Grindle, Ochs)
B+ - 1 (Young)
A - 2 (Barr, Combs)
A+ - 2 (McNair, Dillman)

14 out of 23 "B" or better (60.9%)

Littrell's first class - 2016

C - 7 (Tyler Wilson, Khairi Muhammad, Mason Fine, Baulkman, Wheeler, Ejiya, Wyche)
C+ - 1 (Jameel Moore)
B - 6 (Hamilton, Anthony, Hair-Griffin, Darius Turner, Hayes, Jalen Thomas)
B+ - 1 (Nic Smith)
A - 3 (William Johnson, Henson, Jenkins)
A+ - 1 (Rico Bussey)
11 out of 19 B or better (57.8%)

2017 class:

"C" - 7 (Newman, E Johnson, Roberts, Thornton, Novil, Hall, S Mose)

"C+" - 4 (Pahinui, Pearson, Weatherspoon, Fulp)

"B" - 7 (M Mose, Sanders, Davis, Krasniqi, Brammer, Parish, White)

"B+" - 3 (Guyton, C Johnson, Siggers)

"A" - 1 (Darden)

11 out of 22 "B" or higher (50%)

2018 class
"C" - 7 (Leblanc, A Johnson, Carroll, Kason Martin, Brown, Nixon, Redfearn)

"C+" - 2 (Hunt, Vada King)

"B+" - 2 (Bean, Kameron King)

2 out of 11 "B" or higher (18.2%)

Take this how you will. Personally I would like to see us in the 70 percentiles every year of "B" or better. Save some room for guys like Chancellor, Carlos Harris, McClain, Brooks, etc but still fill your class with "B" or better guys who have higher chances to pan out like Zach Orr, Cyril Lemon, Lance Dunbar, Bellazin, Y'Barbo, Jeff Wilson, etc.

An update to this:

A+ - (1) Reggie Williams
A - (1) Keyvon Davis
B+ - (1) Jaxon Gibbs
B - (4) Austin Ogunmakin, Jason Bean, Deandre Torrey, Darrian McMillan
C+ - (1) Jordan Hunt
C - (7) Larry Nixon, Kason Martin, Dayton Leblanc, Keelan Crosby, Cole Brown, Josh Sa'afi, Jordan Redfearn

7/15 (46.7%) are "B" or higher

I didn't count Carroll right now, since signs are pointing to him not being part of the class anymore. He would have us at 7/16 (43.8%). Still continuing the downward trend, but not as dramatically as before.

I expect this number to continue to go up as we likely get more guys at the end who saw their offers dry up. I would imagine it will probably be around 50-55% with about 5 spots left.

I really think anything below 65% is not very good recruiting. 65% having at least two other FBS offers doesn't seem that hard, but it has been. Any FBS offers at all. 13/20 should be very doable, and it still leaves room for underrecruited "system" guys and guys who the coaches see something in that other coaches don't.

Certainly some great gets at the top, and plenty of "system" guys, but this class could use more foundation guys than just Williams, Davis, and Gibbs.

BTG_Fan1 · December 23, 2017

6 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

An update to this:

A+ - (1) Reggie Williams
A - (1) Keyvon Davis
B+ - (1) Jaxon Gibbs
B - (4) Austin Ogunmakin, Jason Bean, Deandre Torrey, Darrian McMillan
C+ - (1) Jordan Hunt
C - (7) Larry Nixon, Kason Martin, Dayton Leblanc, Keelan Crosby, Cole Brown, Josh Sa'afi, Jordan Redfearn

7/15 (46.7%) are "B" or higher

I didn't count Carroll right now, since signs are pointing to him not being part of the class anymore. He would have us at 7/16 (43.8%). Still continuing the downward trend, but not as dramatically as before.

I expect this number to continue to go up as we likely get more guys at the end who saw their offers dry up. I would imagine it will probably be around 50-55% with about 5 spots left.

I really think anything below 65% is not very good recruiting. 65% having at least two other FBS offers doesn't seem that hard, but it has been. Any FBS offers at all. 13/20 should be very doable, and it still leaves room for underrecruited "system" guys and guys who the coaches see something in that other coaches don't.

Certainly some great gets at the top, and plenty of "system" guys, but this class could use more foundation guys than just Williams, Davis, and Gibbs.

It was reported in Waco that Carroll is signing in February

GMG_Dallas · December 23, 2017

6 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

Still continuing the downward trend, but not as dramatically as before.

I expect this number to continue to go up as we likely get more guys at the end who saw their offers dry up. I would imagine it will probably be around 50-55% with about 5 spots left.

I really think anything below 65% is not very good recruiting. 65% having at least two other FBS offers doesn't seem that hard, but it has been. Any FBS offers at all. 13/20 should be very doable, and it still leaves room for underrecruited "system" guys and guys who the coaches see something in that other coaches don't.

Sorry in advance for the long post...

Honestly, I feel much more comfortable with this class than previously higher rated classes (2014, 2015, 2016). Many of our B or better guys (even C+) from '14 through '16 either never made it to campus, left after a year, haven't contributed (still holding out hope for Dillman and Means while Chumley is showing progress but he was an A+ guy), or were kicked off the team due to discipline. The list of the afformentiomed includes (quick glance): 2014 - Greer, Andrew Jones (minimal contribution), Means, Jalen Adams, Fonzale Davis, Goree. 2015 - Grindle, McNair, Bradley, Bendy (C+, 3* 247), Dillman, Cinco Howard. 2016 - Johnson, not sure about Anthony and Thomas.

In other words, we signed more talent but we didn't win more recruiting battles. The more talented kids who came here had baggage and were a risk to take on. Under Seth we aren't blindly taking chances as much since 2017's class (first class was a bit different due to the short time frame to fill up the class).

I can't think of any Seth recruits who have been kicked off the team or transfered out other than Tyler Wilson but I don't believe he was a scholarship guy. His recruits are here, redshirting or contributing with the exception of the few high calibar JUCO transfers from year one (Raveon, William Johnson, and a few others).

Obviously, things can change this off season since it's still so soon in his tenure but things look better in that aspect. We can't make progress signing only Bs and up if those guys just don't do anything for us. We need guys who will buy in and contribute. Guys who are here because they want to be here. In that sense of recruiting, SL is turning things around. It's just not as noticeable in the numbers. Yes we still need to improve for success to be sustainable but we also need depth which we can't create with Bs and up who don't show up.

UNTLifer · December 23, 2017

On 8/6/2017 at 12:11 PM, BillySee58 said:

2014

C - 2 (Jalen Montgomery, Trevor Moore)
C+ - 2 (Mcclain, Rutherford)
B - 7 (Tillman Johnson, Josh Greer, Akii Smith, Means, Andrew Jones, Tauaalo, Wilson)
B+ - 1 (Garner)
A - 3 (Adams, Ivery, Davis)
A+ - 3 (Goree, Miles, Chumley)

14 out of 18 "B" or better (77.8%)

So, 2014 was our high water mark, but if I look at how the class performed vs. how it looked on signing day the results are a little different.

A+: Goree gone, Miles has gone backwards and Chumley may end up being a great TE but was a QB recruit.

A: all gone. Ivery is the only on that produced but couldn't make grades.

B+: Garner. Nice kkd but gets lost at times. Hasn't lived up to a B+ in my mind.

B: Johnson, Tauaalo and Wilson are the only 3 to produce. Johnson fought injuries, Tauaalo is servicable in the middle but needs to make an impact and Wilson was one of our best RB's.

C+: McClain turned out to be underrated as a recruit. Still waiting on Rutherford to produce.

C: Montgomery did nothing and Moore was one of our best ever. His rating was probably skewed because kickers are not always offered.

I just prefer to rate classes down the road. I think it is more accurate at our current level. Plus, look at Martin from this year. In the state title game, wins an award at a Houston camp, gets rave reviews yet is rated low in your system.

I like your research, but all of these systems have their flaws. I just think rating a class is the equivalent of preseason ratings. Makes the fans happy, but nothing has been proven yet.

BillySee58 · December 23, 2017

3 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

In other words, we signed more talent but we didn't win more recruiting battles.

That's fair. I think Mccarney's staff was awful in recruiting, particularly when Noah Joseph left after the 2013 season. Joseph was a big reason we got the guys we did in 2014. I think you'd be splitting hairs to see if Mccarney's staff was winning more recruiting battles at the end or if Littrell's staff has since. Pretty equally unimpressive in that regard. Both benefitted off of getting guys left at the end with dried up offers, which skewed the offer lists for classes for both.

Quote

The more talented kids who came here had baggage and were a risk to take on. Under Seth we aren't blindly taking chances as much since 2017's class (first class was a bit different due to the short time frame to fill up the class).

I can't think of any Seth recruits who have been kicked off the team or transfered out other than Tyler Wilson but I don't believe he was a scholarship guy.

Typically, yes. Tyler Wilson was a scholarship guy.

Quote

His recruits are here, redshirting or contributing with the exception of the few high calibar JUCO transfers from year one (Raveon, William Johnson, and a few others).

They have done well in this regard. Again, I think that speaks towards them doing a good job in evaluating and developing. They have hit on their top recruits with good offer lists (Guyton, Bussey, Darden, etc), hit on evaluations, developed both well, and most importantly hit on evaluating and developing a QB.

Let's be honest, Fine is the reason this was a 9-win team and not a 6 win team. It's not like we have proven to have built a better roster up and down the field than the teams we beat. He put us over the top in the close games and the FAUs and Troys on our schedule exposed where our roster really was at compared to actual top G5 rosters.

Quote

Obviously, things can change this off season since it's still so soon in his tenure but things look better in that aspect. We can't make progress signing only Bs and up if those guys just don't do anything for us.

True. But the point of using the offer lists to delineate recruits originally was to try and identify all conference players before they happened.

I found that our all CUSA players were "B" or better recruits who had a season's worth of starting experience and were proven to not be busts. The exceptions are at scat back/slot receiver, QB, sometimes DB, and specialists. These guys are often overlooked because of their size but can typically overcome it.

You look at 3-down RBs, outside receivers, offensive and defensive linemen, linebacker, and DBs, the top guys and all conference guys we have had in recent years did have "B" or better offer lists, and typically had "B+" or better offer lists. That's the point, to me. You don't want to rely on "C" and "C+" linemen to control the LOS, or receivers to stretch the field on the outside, or to be your top playmakers on defense. It's a bad recipe.

Quote

We need guys who will buy in and contribute. Guys who are here because they want to be here. In that sense of recruiting, SL is turning things around.

I think that comes down to how you define recruiting. When I see how well a coach is doing at recruiting, I am looking at how well they are doing at convincing recruits to choose their program over other legitimate options. I don't think Littrell and his staff have done a consistently good job of it, though guys like Reggie Williams, Gibbs, and Davis are good signs.

I think roster building is made up of a lot of things. Recruiting, evaluating, bringing in the right people like you said, being opportunistic, and player development. I think they have done a good job in the other aspects of roster building that I mentioned. I think people often use the term "recruiting" to define roster building as a whole, but in reality how well we are doing at recruiting is only a factor in our roster building efforts.

BillySee58 · December 23, 2017

3 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

I just prefer to rate classes down the road. I think it is more accurate at our current level. Plus, look at Martin from this year. In the state title game, wins an award at a Houston camp, gets rave reviews yet is rated low in your system.

It's not that he's rated low in my system. It's that he is rated low in the eyes of FBS coaches who have seen him plenty and aren't put off by his height like Fine.

And that's the thing. This doesn't leave guys like you or I to evaluate the recruits. Or even guys who work for recruiting sites. It leaves the evaluating of our recruits to paid, professional college coaches who keep their jobs based on who they offer and sign.

3 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

I like your research, but all of these systems have their flaws. I just think rating a class is the equivalent of preseason ratings. Makes the fans happy, but nothing has been proven yet.

For sure. But like I said in the post above, you have QBs who often get underrecruited because they are short, yet if they fit your system and are accurate, they can still become all conference. Then you have scat backs/slot receivers/returners who often get overlooked because they are small but their job of making plays and making guys miss doesn't require them to be big. And sometimes DBs who can get overlooked for similar reasons yet if they can cover and make plays, size is not as important.

But for the other positions, of outside receiver, tight end, every-down RB, offensive line, defensive line, linebacker, and DB, the best ones we have had and all CUSA guys we have had in recent years have been "B" or better, often "B+" or better.

You can sit back and make the obvious claim that rankings/offers don't matter and only on-field play does, but relying on "C" and "C+" guys to carry you and be your all conference guys is a bad situation to be in.

GrandGreen · December 23, 2017

Same old recruiting debates that will go on forever:

Can't evaluate a class till their career is over. Really, who has the better class Georgia or NT?

Myriad of examples of low rated players being great and high rated being busts. Ranking is about probability not certainty.

Recruit to offensive and defensive schemes more important than winning recruiting battles. Complete balony, a more talented player can't fit into an offense or defense over one with limited offers?

Character and values count highly in the recruiting process. Sure as it should, but I doubt there is any correlation between raw talent and character.

NT just has better talent evaluators than other teams. Some coaching staff are better than others, however to assume that a middle of the road G5 staff is better than much higher paid coaches with much more expensive scouting systems is just wishful thinking.

The truth is, that the player rankings are based on the number and quality of offers a recruit has. There is no logical way to argue on an overall basis that this is not a very valid way to rank recruits and predict the future impact of the class.

Edited December 23, 2017 by GrandGreen

BillySee58 · December 23, 2017

14 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Same old recruiting debates that will go on forever:

Can't evaluate a class till their career is over. Really, who has the better class Georgia or NT?

Myriad of examples of low rated players being great and high rated being busts. Ranking is about probability not certainty.

Recruit to offensive and defensive schemes more important than winning recruiting battles. Complete balony, a more talented player can't fit into an offense or defense over one with limited offers?

Character and values count highly in the recruiting process. Sure as it should, but I doubt there is any correlation between raw talent and character.

NT just has better talent evaluators than other teams. Some coaching staff are better than others, however to assume that a middle of the road G5 staff is better than much higher paid coaches with much more expensive scouting systems is just wishful thinking.

The true is, that the player rankings are based on the number and quality of offers a recruit has. There is no logical way to argue on an overall basis that this is not a very valid way to rank recruits and predict the future impact of the class.

Great post

Mean Green 93-98 · December 23, 2017

1 hour ago, GrandGreen said:

The true is, that the player rankings are based on the number and quality of offers a recruit has.

I'm not sure if you're referring specifically to Billy's system; but if you are referring to recruiting services such as 24/7 and Rivals, that's simply not true. Offers certainly influence player rankings, but they are not the basis for it. Otherwise, all services would rank players identically, and they don't.

GrandGreen · December 23, 2017

2 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I'm not sure if you're referring specifically to Billy's system; but if you are referring to recruiting services such as 24/7 and Rivals, that's simply not true. Offers certainly influence player rankings, but they are not the basis for it. Otherwise, all services would rank players identically, and they don't.

Referring to recruiting services. I don't agree with your conclusion. There are for example, hundreds of sources that rank football teams, they are all looking at the same teams; yet come to very different ratings.

What do you think is the basis of services recruiting rankings? Do you believe that each service; Rivals, Scout and 247 have hundreds of trained analysts that pour over game film, watch games, practices, etc. and have big boards were they decide the rankings of recruits?

Even if this was true, they still would not be as valid as the opinions of the coaching staffs that jobs depend on their recruiting. Those opinions are obvious, whether a recruit is offered or not. That is the primary basis of a recruits rating and nothing else comes close.

Mean Green 93-98 · December 23, 2017

45 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Referring to recruiting services. I don't agree with your conclusion. There are for example, hundreds of sources that rank football teams, they are all looking at the same teams; yet come to very different ratings.

What do you think is the basis of services recruiting rankings? Do you believe that each service; Rivals, Scout and 247 have hundreds of trained analysts that pour over game film, watch games, practices, etc. and have big boards were they decide the rankings of recruits?

Even if this was true, they still would not be as valid as the opinions of the coaching staffs that jobs depend on their recruiting. Those opinions are obvious, whether a recruit is offered or not. That is the primary basis of a recruits rating and nothing else comes close.

It's not what I think, it's simple fact. Yes, the recruiting services offer their own analyses on recruits. The depth and quality of their analyses, especially when talking about G5 level recruits, is another matter. But you can find 3-star recruits with a bucketful of offers from Bama, Ohio State, Notre Dame, and others; and you can find 4-star recruits whose offer lists are less impressive.

Again, your last paragraph is a completely separate issue while your last sentence is simply uninformed or misleading.

GrandGreen · December 23, 2017

3 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

It's not what I think, it's simple fact. Yes, the recruiting services offer their own analyses on recruits. The depth and quality of their analyses, especially when talking about G5 level recruits, is another matter. But you can find 3-star recruits with a bucketful of offers from Bama, Ohio State, Notre Dame, and others; and you can find 4-star recruits whose offer lists are less impressive.

Again, your last paragraph is a completely separate issue while your last sentence is simply uninformed or misleading.

Uninformed or misleading, well let me try again.

The primary source of a recruit's ranking is the quantity and quality of offers he received. I don't comprehend how that is a misleading statement. I assume you have worked for a rating agency because that is the only way that you are anymore informed than I am.

Mean Green 93-98 · December 24, 2017

5 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Uninformed or misleading, well let me try again.

The primary source of a recruit's ranking is the quantity and quality of offers he received. I don't comprehend how that is a misleading statement. I assume you have worked for a rating agency because that is the only way that you are anymore informed than I am.

Let me give you a "for example."

Tate Wildemann is a 4-star DE, recently signed with Nebraska. He has 5 P5 offers, none of them would be considered a "top P5" school (except possibly Nebraska, but that's highly debatable).

Judge Culpepper is a 3-star DE, recently signed with Penn State. He has 30 P5 offers, with many of them being "top P5" schools--Alabama, Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, you name it.

According to your statement, this would be an impossibility; since the recruit with the lower quantity and quality of offers is the recruit more highly ranked.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Mean Green 93-98

GrandGreen · December 24, 2017

3 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Let me give you a "for example."

Tate Wildemann is a 4-star DE, recently signed with Nebraska. He has 5 P5 offers, none of them would be considered a "top P5" school (except possibly Nebraska, but that's highly debatable).

Judge Culpepper is a 3-star DE, recently signed with Penn State. He has 30 P5 offers, with many of them being "top P5" schools--Alabama, Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, you name it.

According to your statement, this would be an impossibility; since the recruit with the lower quantity and quality of offers is the recruit more highly ranked.

I never stated as apparently you have assumed that a player's ranking is based on a linear correlation based on some combination of offers and teams offering. That would be impossible as the ratings are done at different times and by different people.

There are I assume hundreds of people who are responsible for the ranking of recruits for the services. Each of those people are going to interpret the player data a different way. I am sure they try to get some kind of consistency, but there is always going to be a substantial judgment element. This will occur no matter what data is driving the ranking.

Timing again is a big element, more offers may occur or actual performance may significantly change. Also as an recruiting analyst evaluates more and more recruits, their standards have to change.

It appears to me that once a player's star level has been established that changes occur much more often based on who he signs with than for example his play in his senior season.

I

Ben Gooding · December 24, 2017

8 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Let me give you a "for example."

Tate Wildemann is a 4-star DE, recently signed with Nebraska. He has 5 P5 offers, none of them would be considered a "top P5" school (except possibly Nebraska, but that's highly debatable).

Judge Culpepper is a 3-star DE, recently signed with Penn State. He has 30 P5 offers, with many of them being "top P5" schools--Alabama, Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, you name it.

According to your statement, this would be an impossibility; since the recruit with the lower quantity and quality of offers is the recruit more highly ranked.