Recruit Class Rankings. Do they matter?
by CaptJackSparrow on Jan 11, 2012 10:38 AM EST
Email
PrintCopied article with my thoughts at the end.
Now That The Rematch Is In The Books, Our Attention Turns Toward National Signing Day
Photo from Icon SMI - Texas A&M RB Commit Trey Williams
With the National Championship over, it’s time to turn the attention towards another national title – the recruiting national title. We are only a mere three weeks away from February 1st – National Signing Day.
Several SEC schools are ranked very high overall by the different recruiting services. This is going to be a pressure-packed race to NSD.
Let’s have a look at each team and where they sit currently:
Alabama Crimson Tide: 26 commitments
Headliners: DB Landon Collins, WR/DB Eddie Williams and RB TJ Yeldon.
Rankings: 247Sports (1), Rivals (1), Scout (1) and ESPN (1)
Top Targets: WR Dorial Green-Beckham, QB Jameis Winston
Arkansas Razorbacks: 21 commitments
Headliners: WR Courtney Gardner, RB Jonathan Williams
Rankings: 247Sports (20), Rivals (28), Scout (16) and ESPN (NR in Top 25)
Top Targets: WR Dorial Green-Beckham
Auburn Tigers: 15 commitments
Headliners: QB Zeke Pike, RB Jovon Robinson, WR Ricardo Lewis
Rankings: 247Sports (15), Rivals (17), Scout (18) and ESPN (14)
Top Targets: DL Leonard Williams, WR Stefon Diggs
Florida Gators: 18 commitments
Headliners: DE Jonathan Bullard, OT DJ Humphries
Rankings: 247Sports (5), Rivals (3), Scout (5) and ESPN (4)
Top Targets: WR Stefon Diggs, WR Nelson Agholor
Georgia Bulldogs: 16 commitments
Headliners: DE Jordan Jenkins, OL John Theus
Rankings: 247Sports (16), Rivals (19), Scout (21) and ESPN (7)
Top Targets: LB/WR Josh Harvey-Clemons, RB Mike Davis
Kentucky Wildcats: 23 commitments
Headliners: DT Thomas Chapman, QB Patrick Towles
Rankings: 247Sports (43), Rivals (NR in Top 50), Scout (34) and ESPN (NR Top 25)
LSU Tigers: 21 commitments
Headliners: QB Gunner Kiel, LB Torshiro Davis
Rankings: 247Sports (9), Rivals (5), Scout (6) and ESPN (11)
Top Targets: DB Ronald Darby, DB Landon Collins (Alabama commit)
Mississippi State Bulldogs: 25 commitments
Headliners: DT Quay Evans, DE Denico Autry
Rankings: 247Sports (25), Rivals (32), Scout (17) and ESPN (NR in Top 25)
Top Target: LB Beniquez Brown
Missouri Tigers: 17 commitments
Headliners: OL Evan Boehm, TE Sean Culkin
Rankings: 247Sports (34), Rivals (), Scout (31) and ESPN (NR in Top 25)
Top Target: WR Dorial Green-Beckham
Ole Miss Rebels: 15 commitments
Headliners: DE Channing Ward, DT Isaac Gross
Rankings: 247Sports (50), Rivals (36), Scout (55) and ESPN (NR in Top 25)
Top Targets: JUCO WR Cordarrelle Patterson
South Carolina Gamecocks: 23 commitments
Headliners: DB Jordan Diggs, WR Shaq Roland
Rankings: 247Sports (15), Rivals (14), Scout (11) and ESPN (15)
Top Target: RB Mike Davis
Tennessee Volunteers: 18 commitments
Headliners: WR Alton Howard, DT Danny O’Brien
Rankings: 247Sports (18), Rivals (21), Scout (26) and ESPN (16)
Top Targets: RB Mike Davis
Texas A&M Aggies: 25 commitments
Headliners: QB Matt Davis, RB Trey Williams
Rankings: 247Sports (10), Rivals (11), Scout (4) and ESPN (8)
Top Target: WR Thomas Johnson
Vanderbilt Commodores: 21 commitments
Headliners: RB Brian Kimbrow, DE Caleb Azubike
Rankings: 247Sports (41), Rivals (25), Scout (30) and ESPN (22)
Top Target: WR Andre McDonald
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So ESPN ranks us at #7 in the recruiting wars. What scale do they use that makes us so much higher in their rankings than everyone elses. Does it mean anything anyway? I guess the answer to that question really depends on the answer to the question of can we get a new offensive coordinator. Or a QB coach and let CMR run the offense. Anyway What do you think of the rankings?
So speak your piece and as always GO DAWGS!!!!!!!
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My take: Recruiting rankings mean something
Only inasmuch as they influence the media’s (and therefore the general population’s) perception of your program.
They aren’t predictive (ala Michael Bennett—3 star WR) but a plethora of highly ranked athletes certainly doesn’t hurt your chances of hitting big on 1 or 2. The difference between the #1 and #10 ranked class, however, I would say is generally negligible (unless of course you’re oversigning like crazy).
Editor, DawgSports.com
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
IC was supposed to be a ***** guy right?
I see how that is working out. :(
"Everybody has a plan until they get hit" Iron Mike Tyson.
"Screw 2nd." Lugs Harvey.
"In Grimes we trust, all others get gashed"- Me.
by CaptJackSparrow on Jan 11, 2012 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah... it definitely goes both ways.
RSIV was 5 star and I think the #2 athlete in the country on some services.
Editor, DawgSports.com
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
WOW. Really.
I said somewhere before that i like these talks with all of you people that know more about this than I do. This little tidbit makes me wonder why they do it at all? I guess they need something to talk about while its raining outside and football is over until Marchish.
"Everybody has a plan until they get hit" Iron Mike Tyson.
"Screw 2nd." Lugs Harvey.
"In Grimes we trust, all others get gashed"- Me.
by CaptJackSparrow on Jan 11, 2012 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
I thought we all agreed before
he’s just a freshman and you never want to expect big things out of freshmen
You use Bennett as the example?
No Thomas Davis? No Tim Jennings? No David Pollack vs. Mudcat Elmore?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I was going for someone on the team currently
And from our supposed recent “terrible run” of recruiting… where our classes were only in the Top 15-20
Editor, DawgSports.com
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
It's also about filling holes. We arent recruting a 5 star QB this year, which lowers our overall ranking. But we dont need to.
The most important thing is getting the guys you need for 2-3 years from now. The rankings may give a view of the quality of athlete, but don’t tell the tale of whether or not you got the guys you were looking to get for the future.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 11, 2012 11:46 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
This is how I see it.
If I have a whole bunch of stud qbs and wideouts why shouldn’t I take a bunch of three star linemen . They would( it seems to me) tend to rank lower than RBs with 2000 yards rushing in high school last year.But they are what I need ,why shouldn’t I get them instead of yet another ALL WORLD quarterback that costs half of my recruiting budget to keep up with?
"Everybody has a plan until they get hit" Iron Mike Tyson.
"Screw 2nd." Lugs Harvey.
"In Grimes we trust, all others get gashed"- Me.
by CaptJackSparrow on Jan 11, 2012 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, and at least two more things...
…which are schematic fit and capacity for player development. Chris Rainey is not nearly as valuable to UGA as he is to UF under Meyer. Moreover, some programs can give a player a higher upside because of coaches’ particular strengths in development.
Stars are great, but they’re just guesses about the raw materials in an 18-year old kid. If just getting the best resouces were all it took, nobody would play Settlers of Catan.
by first and thom on Jan 11, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Not to mention
we’re in it for about 5-6 more highly touted prospects too while places like bama have already filled up(if you can really say that)
We need more CBs...
imo, the biggest need yet to be filled (I know, you like OL, but we got Beard, Theus, Pyke, and Brown, so that is partially filled).
http://sportsandgrits.com/
"It's the Jimmies and Joes, not the Xs and the Os..."
There’s a very strong correlation between consistent recruiting ranking success and performance on the field. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, of course, but it makes all the intuitive sense in the world that, all else being equal, the team with more talented athletes will usually win.
In addition, though I can’t find the link, I’m pretty sure Doc Saturday found that 4-and-5-star recruits were far more likely to become All-Americans and go on to the pros than lower ranked players. There will always be a few 3-star-or-lower players who become superstars, but most superstars start out with 4 or 5.
One of the authors at DawgSports.com
I am the 99% of Americans who love college football
by Spears on Jan 11, 2012 1:49 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, there was an arcticle that showed the increased liklihood of AAs when the stars go up
though to be fair, the approach was flawed. It measured the percentage of each category (2,3,4,5 stars) that became AAs, and shocker….the category that has a lot more players in it, AND are considered out of high school to be not as good, had a lower percentage. I actually spent a little time comparing recruting rankings to top 25 finishes over a four year period, and found there to be little to no correlation between the two. Of course that could have been because I was looking strictly at top 25, and to be fair I think the approach was a little flawed….as to the question, sure recruiting rankings mean a little bit. They mean your program is well thought of among the nations elite high school kids, and they mean that your program brought in some talent that might develop, but that’s all they mean. It’s impossible to predict how a cladd will pan out, or how they will develop, or who will transfer, or who will be injury prone, or who will be lazy…there are many more factors that go into the success of a program, but recruiting is a nice distraction during the offseason.
contributing author - Alligator Army
Preface: I'm not a true math guy.
But I’m not sure I see the flaw in using percentages. That should eliminate any problems with the relative sizes of the different star classes, right? Assuming that the class sizes are large enough to eliminate sample size problems, doesn’t the fact that (for example) 10% of 4 stars wind up as All-Americans whereas only (say) 2.5% of 3 stars wind up as All-Americans necessarily mean that a 4-star player is 4 times as likely to become an All-American as a 3-star player, on average?
If you still have it, I’d be curious about the results and methodology of your correlation study, since it seems directly to contradict Dr. Saturday’s findings. For example, did you compare recruiting rankings for a class and the final ranking in the same year, or did you see what happened 2-3 years down the road? How did you account for, e.g., having one stellar class buried in the midst of a bunch of mediocre classes? I’m very curious about this because you see a lot of familiar names (Alabama, LSU, Texas…) when you look at the last 10 years’ top 10 recruiting classes. (As a piece of purely anecdotal evidence, Alabama and LSU had the top 2 recruiting classes in 2009…)
One of the authors at DawgSports.com
I am the 99% of Americans who love college football
Well my thought on the percentages
is that unless the rankings services are completely inept, that there should quite obviously be a higher percentage as the stars go up, but because of the lower number of 4 and 5s, it requires fewer of them to be AAs for the same percentage. In other words, if there are hypothetically 10 5 stars, and 3 of them are AAs in this scenario, they’ve got 30%. At the same time, there are 200 3 stars, so again, unless they were completely inept, getting 60 3 stars as AA is virtually impossible (and that’s ignoring the small # of actual AAs there are). I guess my point is, is it more notable that the rankings correctly identified the 30% of 5 stars, or that missed badly on the 2.5% (although probably a similar actual total) of the 3 stars?
As for the results, I don’t think I have still have them anywhere. I did it on a work computer, at a location that I no longer work (those two things could be connected). The methodology though was probably lacking, and I intended on expanding on it, but just never got around to it. Essentially though, we looked at 4 years of team rankings, and then starting 2 years out from the 1st year, we began to look at actual finish. We found that there wasn’t a tremendous amount of correlation, though like I said, it wasn’t the most thorough attempt, and I also think we were being a little too literal with the rankings.
If team X finished 3rd in the recruiting rankings, and then correspondingly finished 14th in the rankings, it may appear to be off, but I would argue that that’s completely within reason. The other issue I had with it were the teams that weren’t regulars in the top 25, yet finished a season or two ranked. People don’t realize it, but these teams are separated by very little in these recruiting rankings. The difference between finishing 1st and 10th could be one player, and that says nothing about how that player actually turned out. Anyway, Boise was quite predictably a team with a huge disparity, but there were others. If a team finishes 53rd in recruiting, and then cracks the top 25, that’s a huge variance, but is it really? I do remember that two teams stuck out as being well below where there recruiting rankings said they should, and you’re not going to like this….it was Miami, and Georgia. I knew that Richt was a good recruiter, but after this little exorcise, my opinion of him as a recruiter went way up. UGA pulls talent for sure.
contributing author - Alligator Army
I sent an email asking the guy I worked on it with if he still has the results...
I’ll let you know if I get anything back.
contributing author - Alligator Army
I don't understand...
but I’m slow. Not every 5 star is going to be AA, and not every 3 star is going to be a bum. So long as someone rated 5 stars is, on average, more likely to become an AA than someone who’s rated 3 stars, it seems like the ratings agencies are doing their jobs…
If the foregoing is true, then it also seems obvious that a team that signs more 4-or-5 stars ought to be better than a team signs fewer of them, all else being equal. Sorry if I’m being dense, but I guess my hypothesis would be as follows: signing better athletes will lead to more wins; the recruiting services do a decent job of identifying superior athletes; therefore, signing better recruiting classes (per the services) ought to lead to more wins.
One of the authors at DawgSports.com
I am the 99% of Americans who love college football
I guess I just have a higher expectation
not that it’s fair to have that, but I think identifying a player as a 3 star, and him going AA, is pretty big mistake.
I’m also not disagreeing with your premise about signing better athletes. I do have a rather substantial issue with how the services actually rate their teams, and that could be one of the reasons that leads to the variance in rankings vs. finish. Miami this season is a prime example of that. There is nothing about this recruiting class for them, that would lead one to expect their recruiting ranking to equal a corresponding finish is a few years, but their size is driving the ranking.
I think your hypothesis is a sound one, and should be pretty obvious, but at the end of it all, there is a lot more that goes into this thing than just signing athletes. That’s really what my little attempt to compare rankings and finishes showed me (the guy I worked on it with is looking for the spreadsheet). As a fan of a team that consistently finishes very high in recruiting rankings, I wanted to beleive that there would be corresponding success, but that simply wasn’t the case. There are so many variables that go into the success of a team, but you’re right…signing elite athletes does your team an advantage over those that don’t. That being said, in the SEC we all sign elite athletes, which relates to my point before about how miniscule the difference actually is between these teams. Just because Florida signs the #2 class, and USC signs the #13 class, doesn’t translate to Florida being signficantly better when those players mature.
contributing author - Alligator Army
I think of stars as serving two roles:
(1) Measure of talent/performance in high school. Higher stars means better play against better competition.
(2) An inverse measure of risk. Higher stars means lower chance that the player doesn’t develop or become at least a solid player.
Using these two metrics, a 5-star guy should have a strong track record and already have shown enough on the field to suggest that he’s going to do very well in college. The presence of the risk measurement explains why 3-star guys emerge as All-Americans: they may have shown moments of strong play, or strong play against poor competition, or a great frame with bad fundamentals, or great fundamentals with a small frame, or any other number of things that are enough to attract attention but not enough for a recruiting service to stake its reptutation on the kid’s performance later.
by first and thom on Jan 13, 2012 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
Except a 3 star is still a pretty well regarded player when you get down to it
and this is such a subjective thing. A 3 star at one site could be a 4 if not 5 star at another. And again, depending on the site, 3 star is still a pretty well regarded player. But beyond that, you are projecting the future of 17 and 18 year old kids. Their bodies WILL change. Their mental approach WILL change. Tons of things about them will change, for better or for worse. And it is impossible to predict how they adapt; to maturing bodies, maturing females, other temptations, academic requirements, injuries, improved competition (this is something I think is most applicable to linemen who rarely if ever see anyone approaching their combination of physical gifts at the high school level) and the countless other factors involved as young men go from 17-19 to 21-23.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 13, 2012 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This is 3 years running we have had this same point. You are absolutely right.
And there is also no way on earth to know or predict the real reasons a kid choses how he does.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
We just better have an...
ice cream machine in the cafeteria.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 13, 2012 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
The cafeteria apparently played a roll in Gurley's decision.
Snelling ftw!
One of the authors at DawgSports.com
I am the 99% of Americans who love college football
by Spears on Jan 13, 2012 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Snelling rocks.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 13, 2012 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So Vince heeded his brother Bill's advice
on missing a kid because of the ice cream in the cafeteria. Good man.
Although my favorite odd excuse for a kid picking a school will always be Courtney Abbott (OL out of Westlake in Atlanta) heading to Florida St, because they had warm weather and he could wear tank tops year round.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Well, with FSU being right next to Key West and all...
yeah, it gone into the 30s today in Tally…perfect tank top weather.
contributing author - Alligator Army
(Everybody looks at DavetheDawg.)
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 13, 2012 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What is the temp in Atlanta today?
"Everybody has a plan until they get hit" Iron Mike Tyson.
"Screw 2nd." Lugs Harvey.
"In Grimes we trust, all others get gashed"- Me.
by CaptJackSparrow on Jan 13, 2012 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
I think we're on the same page, Cardsfan25.
And I wholeheartedly agree that the difference between #2 and #13 isn’t huge or predictive or relative future success in most cases.
For what it’s worth, I found found that Doc Saturday article about the chances of becoming an All American. My numbers were pretty close. A 5 star is nearly four times more likely to become an AA than a 4 star is. A 4 star is nearly three times more likely to become an AA than a 3 star is. A 3 star is more than twice as likely to become an AA than a 2 (or fewer) star is. So a 5 star is twelve (!!) times more likely to be an AA than a 3 star and twenty-four times more likely to become an AA than a 2 (or fewer). I’ll take those odds.
One of the authors at DawgSports.com
I am the 99% of Americans who love college football
by Spears on Jan 13, 2012 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I actually read it today too...
It was linked in the EDSBS recruiting article, which if you haven’t read, you should do so now.
contributing author - Alligator Army
Recruiting rankings
Are like the preseason poll. It is nice to be ranked near the top, but it doesn’t mean much until you start playing games. That’s when you learn how good you are.
I’d like to see more time spent evaluating recruiting classes four years later. That would be the best way to grade a class.
by jon_snow on Jan 11, 2012 2:11 PM EST via iPhone app reply actions 1 recs
Dropping the ball
While we have gotten some good recruits, the theme for this year is we are behind on just about everyone. I don’t know how true this is since the AJC loves to write in a way that makes UGA look bad, but not too happy about this:
LINK
I told him ‘Coach, you’re going to have to recruit him,’" Browning said. "Because we sent film to Georgia awhile back. In fact, they were one of the first schools we sent film to. Jordan specifically asked for us to mail it to UGA. We heard back about Whitehead and Tibbs, but they really weren’t biting on him at the time. Jordan’s excited about Georgia’s interest and looking forward to talking with them, but he also wonders what took them so long.
Seriously, didn’t they send someone to a MLK game to check out the other 2 recruits that were there and notice this guy? Didn’t someone even look at the tape?
It’s time to ramp up the recruiting team in Athens. The coaches need assistants that sort through all this stuff and stay on top of things so the coaches can actually connect with the targets in a timely manner and close the deal.
He doesn't have offers from anyone else in the SEC (except the dumpster fire in Opelika)
And he isn’t rated by Rivals. So it doesn’t look like anybody was biting on him at the time.
Editor, DawgSports.com
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
He was originally planning to run track at LSU
I believe. Teams are just now starting to get a good look at him. He projects as a nice downhill ILB with his frame at the next level, or maybe a shawn williams type. We could certainly use some more depth there
Offers from these 3 schools aren't bad
Ohio State, North Carolina, Michigan State
I’m just more concerned that it seems he is on our radar late. I understand we were going after some guys with more stars, but it seems late to even initiate contact.
Right
Except that most of his offers (including those 3) have come in the last month. He is on everyone’s radar late. The article’s implication that UGA is the only one late to the party is simply false.
Editor, DawgSports.com
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
by RedCrake on Jan 13, 2012 8:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
UGA is stepping up their game
I think losing out on some of the bigger names in the last couple years bc we were “too late” has gotten our coach’s attention. If the NCAA isn’t going to enforce the early offer rules then we might as well play the game as well…
by cgros on Jan 13, 2012 10:32 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Thats all good until they do.
PWG . Most old sayings have a basis in fact somewhere.
"Everybody has a plan until they get hit" Iron Mike Tyson.
"Screw 2nd." Lugs Harvey.
"In Grimes we trust, all others get gashed"- Me.
by CaptJackSparrow on Jan 14, 2012 5:41 AM EST up reply actions
I think the individual
star rankings are a better than decent measuring stick (only one we have) – my problem lies in the overall ranking method. Quantity needs to be less of a factor. It is for that reason that when I look on the various sites I sort by the average rating not the total.
Recruiting is everything
Coach Richt seems to know what he wants to do in terms of improving the team. Last year, he made it a goal to sign the best recruits out of Georgia and succeeded. This past year our running game has been banged up so going out and signing the best RB in the land was huge. Plus, with the exception of 2010, Richt has always fielded a competitive team.
Integrity first. Service before self. Excellence in all you do. -- USAF Core Values
by Disciple of Carolina on Jan 13, 2012 10:24 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Throwing another log on the fire
Rivals just released a review of their 5 star recruits for the past 5 years. If someone wants to base arguments on facts, maybe this will help.
For Georgia during that period
Drew: some contributions this year —> Wait
Crowell: SEC Honors as Freshman —> Mostly living up to billing in yr 1
B. Smith: Contributing and pegged to start next season —> Not a star, but getting there
Samuel: hampered by injuries and moves —> probably considered a bust
AJ Green: Stud & #4 draft pick —> Earned his 5-star billing
I would guess the ranking might have risen yesterday.
"Everybody has a plan until they get hit" Iron Mike Tyson.
"Screw 2nd." Lugs Harvey.
"In Grimes we trust, all others get gashed"- Me.
by CaptJackSparrow on Jan 14, 2012 10:14 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
What gets me....
Is how the star ranking seem to fluctuate based on where the recruit is considering going to school. What really chaps my @ss is when a guy commits to us and loses a star and the same guy would have gained a star if he committed to Florida or Bama. The star thing (especially at Rivals) is blatantly biased in favor of a few schools.
by RocketDawg on Jan 16, 2012 1:04 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
More stats on recruiting
The gist is:
1. There is a correlation between recruiting and success.
2. The correlation is greater for defense than offense.
3. Getting a great QB recruit usually is better than getting a great RB recruit.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
