How I View Recruiting

[AustinFromUNT]

To me, Recruiting is a 2 part process. The first part is actually getting athletes. These athletes have a natural ability range. This to me, is what is shown on recruiting sites such as 247. This basically says that a 3* has a greater natural window of ability than a 2*, though obviously the system isn’t perfect. The 2nd part is how well the coaches can actually “coach” the kids. This is basically the efficiency and ability of coaches to help that kid land towards the top of his natural ability range.

For Example:

Say a school picks up a 2* DB with a 247 composite rating of .7900. The way I evaluate how this kid will turn out is divide that number in half. Then I look at the coaching staff for the DC & the position coach and assign them a training/coaching rating. Let’s say the DB coach has produced a couple of all conference (whether 1st or 2nd team) DBs in a couple years here, but the DC has been lackluster. I would give that staff a rating of .8300. I then divide that number in half. I take the 2 halfed numbers and add them together. That means, the athlete would likely end up around the .8100 range (a 3* rating).

Another Example:

.8100 Recruit, .7800 staff = .7950 rating, borderline 3* player.

This isn’t to say that Recruiting can’t be better, because obviously I want it to. I would love for us to have a class of all 3 & 4 star players. I do realize though, that when we hired a coach we hired an Xs & Os not a Jimmies & Joes guy.

This all goes to say that while our class rating may be lower than other schools, when you consider what the coaches can do with the talent we have, we would probably be in the top 4 for our conference for making gains as a team.

[Wag Tag]

2016 we were ranked 11th in conf and 115 natl . Now we are 9th a 19% increase and 100th which is a 15% increase. 2016 we had 6, 3* and now 11 that is a 55% increase. This seems like a strong step in the right direction. This is the largest 3* class that I can remember by a long shot. I am still looking forward to some late signees?

[BillySee58]

Gotta say, this is a very unique way of hashing out one of the oldest arguments in recruiting. I'm impressed

[MeanGreenTexan]

Everyone extolling the fact that we have more 3* than ever before...   
Has anyone actually looked into maybe more players are at 3* now instead of 2* as opposed to 2-3 years ago?

[Harry]

Solid post @AustinFromUNT

Lookit - the recruiting services cannot measure heart, desire.  They mainly consider measurables first and to a lesser extent production.

Yes development after they get here is a key and I think this staff does a decent job on that.

I would only add that the rating for the 2-3 star players is less accurate due to the sheer numbers.  Also you have to account for late bloomers that mature as players in their senior seasons.  The big schools are mainly evaluating guys in the sophomore and junior seasons.  The big camps do that as well. 

The issue most have is not how we look in regards to stars and ratings but how we measure up to our peers in C-USA.  I look at offers.  That gives you a better idea of if we are getting guys that we were going to get or if we are pushing the envelope upward.

[Ben Gooding]

I said it a few months ago, recruiting has improved for us. But, dudes, c'mon....Look at the top 4-6 in CUSA. They did very, very well and most of them, if not all, do not have a whole lot to hold over us. But yet there they are pulling in 70-90% three star class with huge offer sheets as a class. But here we are...

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Ben Gooding

[BTG_Fan1]

51 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

I said it a few months ago, recruiting has improved for us. But, dudes, c'mon....Look at the top 4-6 in CUSA. They did very, very well and most of them, if not all, do not have a whole lot to hold over us. But yet there they are pulling in 70-90% three star class with huge offer sheets as a class. But here we are...

 

I have to agree.

The kids at the top of our class are solid additions (all the 3* I absolutely love)... but the classes ahead of us were very impressive.

[GrandGreen]

4 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Everyone extolling the fact that we have more 3* than ever before...   
Has anyone actually looked into maybe more players are at 3* now instead of 2* as opposed to 2-3 years ago?

More recruited players are rated 3 stars, more than anything else by far.   Ranking services state they rate more football players 2 stars, but a lot of those are never recruited to a fbs team.  

Look at current 247 rankings of CUSA signees.  2 four stars, 160 three stars, and 118 two stars.  Being that CUSA is certainly on the lower end of the recruiting by conference scale; it is easy to assume that there are many more 3 stars recruits actually signed to fbs scholarships than 2 stars.  

I have no stats to back it up, but I have no doubt that we are seeing star creep with more and more 3 stars and conversely less two stars.  

[Ben Gooding]

2 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

More recruited players are rated 3 stars, more than anything else by far.   Ranking services state they rate more football players 2 stars, but a lot of those are never recruited to a fbs team.  

Look at current 247 rankings of CUSA signees.  2 four stars, 160 three stars, and 118 two stars.  Being that CUSA is certainly on the lower end of the recruiting by conference scale; it is easy to assume that there are many more 3 stars recruits actually signed to fbs scholarships than 2 stars.  

I have no stats to back it up, but I have no doubt that we are seeing star creep with more and more 3 stars and conversely less two stars.  

CUSA had the 2nd best recruiting class of the "G5". And IMO, closed the gap a bit on the American. They had 6 teams with a class composite of 150+, CUSA had 7. They are just a deeper conference.