19' OG Offer: John Brunner (Brock, TX) - 3 star .8556

UNTLifer · February 27, 2018

6'5" 285 lbs.

We are his first offer.

https://247sports.com/Player/John-Brunner-46050630

Edited June 19, 2018 by UNTLifer

Marty · February 28, 2018

Offer from Incarnate Word today.

Harry · February 28, 2018

TreeFiddy · February 28, 2018

trolololololololol

AustinFromUNT · June 17, 2018

He added an offer from Texas State & also has 4 FCS offers.

Brett Vito · June 26, 2018

GMG24 · June 26, 2018

21 minutes ago, Brett Vito said:

Pretty sure @TheReal_jayD broke this first. Please give credit where credit is due. Turn it into a partnership not a feud..... smh

MeanGreenTexan · June 26, 2018

tenor.gif?itemid=7294596

dmaxel · June 26, 2018

What happened to his rating? He's currently at an .81, not .85

MeanGreenTexan · June 26, 2018

8 minutes ago, dmaxel said:

What happened to his rating? He's currently at an .81, not .85

That's a "composite" rating. Meaning, there are multiple inputs.

I remember being able to see all of the different ratings that factored in before, but when I look now, I don't see a way to parse it out anymore.

247 themselves only have Brunner as a 2*, .78 rating, so there must be other contributors bringing his composite rating up. Rivals/ESPN do not have ratings for him. If they wind up rating him, hopefully it will bring him up more, but could possibly bring him down some.

outoftown · June 27, 2018

8 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

That's a "composite" rating. Meaning, there are multiple inputs.

I remember being able to see all of the different ratings that factored in before, but when I look now, I don't see a way to parse it out anymore.

247 themselves only have Brunner as a 2*, .78 rating, so there must be other contributors bringing his composite rating up. Rivals/ESPN do not have ratings for him. If they wind up rating him, hopefully it will bring him up more, but could possibly bring him down some.

Hmmm. In my mind, his frame alone should almost make him a 3*, and film sure looks like he can play. Wonder if the fact that he is only from a 3A school depressed the rating a bit? In my mind the current rating is approximately adequate and getting him is clearly a win for UNT.

Also: UNT will get the same player, whether he be rated .85 or .78

Edited June 27, 2018 by outoftown

GrandGreen · June 28, 2018

On 6/26/2018 at 7:11 PM, outoftown said:

Also: UNT will get the same player, whether he be rated .85 or .78

Now that would be true for any player.

The higher the rating the better the odds he will contribute. A very flawed system but still statistically valid.

I also think we are seeing star inflation. 3 star players are by far the most signed and have always been, however there seems to be fewer two stars signees. It is also likely that NT commits are rated higher because the team is rated higher.

Aldo · June 28, 2018

10 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Now that would be true for any player.

The higher the rating the better the odds he will contribute. A very flawed system but still statistically valid.

I also think we are seeing star inflation. 3 star players are by far the most signed and have always been, however there seems to be fewer two stars signees. It is also likely that NT commits are rated higher because the team is rated higher.

Is this a Donald Rumsfeld burner account?

We talkin known unknowns or unknown unknowns or...

TreeFiddy · June 28, 2018

The rating services seem to be pretty consistent with their rankings from what I can tell.

Top 1%-2% = 5*
Next 8%-10% = 4*
Next 40%-50% = 3*
Remaining rated players (roughly 40%-50% of rated players) = 2*

From what I have seen, it looks like they try to rank about 25 players (NCAA signing max per school per year) per FBS school. As the number of FBS schools has increased so has the number of rated players, thus maybe the perception of star inflation. With 130 (131?) FBS schools this equates to about 3,250 players rated. This means roughly 50 5* players, around 250 4* players (notice 4* + 5* equals about 300 players and thus lists like ESPN 300, which represents the theoretical top ~10% of a particular signing class).

The numbers are never exact, but they provide a reasonable approximation. In order to maintain the breakouts and help maintain some consistency, this is why you will see players ratings change. As players move up the board, someone may have to move down. Physical measurables certainly help a player's initial ranking, but the number of supposed quality of offers (i.e. P5 offers, blue blood offers) will certainly impact the ranking of a player as a nod to the recruit evaluation capabilities of top coaches at the most competitive schools.

GrandGreen · June 28, 2018

3 minutes ago, TreeFiddy said:

The rating services seem to be pretty consistent with their rankings from what I can tell.

Top 1%-2% = 5*
Next 8%-10% = 4*
Next 40%-50% = 3*
Remaining rated players (roughly 40%-50% of rated players) = 2*

From what I have seen, it looks like they try to rank about 25 players (NCAA signing max per school per year) per FBS school. As the number of FBS schools has increased so has the number of rated players, thus maybe the perception of star inflation. With 130 (131?) FBS schools this equates to about 3,250 players rated. This means roughly 50 5* players, around 250 4* players (notice 4* + 5* equals about 300 players and thus lists like ESPN 300, which represents the theoretical top ~10% of a particular signing class).

The numbers are never exact, but they provide a reasonable approximation. In order to maintain the breakouts and help maintain some consistency, this is why you will see players ratings change. As players move up the board, someone may have to move down. Physical measurables certainly help a player's initial ranking, but the number of supposed quality of offers (i.e. P5 offers, blue blood offers) will certainly impact the ranking of a player as a nod to the recruit evaluation capabilities of top coaches at the most competitive schools.

A lot of players are rated 2 star, but most don't get signed. So there is a lot of difference between all players ratings and those that actually get signed. Your estimates are probably close based on all players rated.

However, there are a lot less 2 star players that actually sign with D1 teams than your estimated range of from 38 to 51 %.

UNTLifer · June 28, 2018

15 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

however there seems to be fewer two stars signees.

Are there or are we just not paying attention to them since none are signing with us?

MeanGreen13 · June 28, 2018

I don't think there are ever up to 50 5* players in any given class... that seems like a lot!

TreeFiddy · June 28, 2018

13 minutes ago, MeanGreen13 said:

I don't think there are ever up to 50 5* players in any given class... that seems like a lot!

It depends on how you look at it. Like I mentioned, a 5* used to represent the top 1%, but it has started to spill over into a little more than 1%. The 247 ranking for 2019 high school and JUCO players is provided below. There are currently 34 players ranked 5*, but the number changes as players are ranked/re-ranked and it also depends on the year. 35 is probably a better consistent number for the quantity of 5* players. Then the next ~300 are 4* going off of the 247 website. Also, don't forget that they rank JUCO players as well, but they don't rank many guys typically as 5* at the JUCO level, but they do typically have 4* guys and definitely some 3*.

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=highschool

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=juniorcollege

GrandGreen · June 29, 2018

A quick check shows the Belt with 26 three stars and 9 two stars. CUSA has 35 three stars and 15 two stars.

Last year, NT recruiting was equally divided between three and two stars. The last 4 rated recruiting teams in 2018 accounted for most of the two stars with 75 two star players versus only 19 three stars.

This leads to the logical conclusion that stars are heavily tied to team rankings. So the question is NT's recruiting really substantially better or are more stars simply a function of NT being perceived as a better team.

p_phelps · June 29, 2018

18 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

A quick check shows the Belt with 26 three stars and 9 two stars. CUSA has 35 three stars and 15 two stars.

Last year, NT recruiting was equally divided between three and two stars. The last 4 rated recruiting teams in 2018 accounted for most of the two stars with 75 two star players versus only 19 three stars.

This leads to the logical conclusion that stars are heavily tied to team rankings. So the question is NT's recruiting really substantially better or are more stars simply a function of NT being perceived as a better team.

with the offer list on most of the kids we've gotten ... absolutely we're recruiting better.

GrandGreen · June 29, 2018

37 minutes ago, p_phelps said:

with the offer list on most of the kids we've gotten ... absolutely we're recruiting better.

Yes, NT is definitely better than in the past with classes having few recruits having any D1 offers.

The problem is that most current commits are not that highly recruited. Yes, NT is beating out a few G5's but few of the top programs. If you exclude Johnson, the offer list for the rest of the commits is far from stellar. Three players including Johnson have reported offers from P5's.

Beating out UTEP, NMSU, ULM, and clobbering Texas ST. may be progress; but it is far from were NT should be.

GMG24 · June 29, 2018

1 hour ago, GrandGreen said:

Yes, NT is definitely better than in the past with classes having few recruits having any D1 offers.

The problem is that most current commits are not that highly recruited. Yes, NT is beating out a few G5's but few of the top programs. If you exclude Johnson, the offer list for the rest of the commits is far from stellar. Three players including Johnson have reported offers from P5's.

Beating out UTEP, NMSU, ULM, and clobbering Texas ST. may be progress; but it is far from were NT should be.

#ThreadDerailed #Thanks..

UNT Mean Green · June 29, 2018

8 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Yes, NT is definitely better than in the past with classes having few recruits having any D1 offers.

The problem is that most current commits are not that highly recruited. Yes, NT is beating out a few G5's but few of the top programs. If you exclude Johnson, the offer list for the rest of the commits is far from stellar. Three players including Johnson have reported offers from P5's.

Beating out UTEP, NMSU, ULM, and clobbering Texas ST. may be progress; but it is far from were NT should be.

This 2019 recruiting class is right about where we “should be”, given the recent success on the field and overall momentum of the program. Head to head on some kids with UH, Texas Tech, and SMU, and beating the bottom dweller out of state Big10 and Big 12 schools on local kids. Tops in the conference and 5th-ish in the state is, in reality, ideal. Great class assembled thus far, and with this coaching staff’s proven ability to develop talent, the sky is the limit in the coming years!

Green Lantern · June 29, 2018

12 hours ago, GMG24 said:

#ThreadDerailed #Thanks..

Man, I’m thrilled by the progress in recruiting this cycle. Our overall average rating per recruit measures quite well against the top end of the non P5 programs, which is what I feel like we can reasonably ask for at this point. We can win CUSA Championships with the recruits currently committed if we continue this trajectory. Think there’s more well regarded recruits that’ll end up signed with NT as well.