Trivial thoughts on recruiting rankings

[SouthernCuse]

3 days out, just perusing the recruiting rankings from various sites.

The Big10 surprised me, i guess tOSU is a perennial top 5 now, but also Mich MSU and PSU are doing well. Not that they have not always been strong but after so much SEC domination the last 2 years, a shift?

Both Miami and UGA seems to be having a tougher time than SU with the coaching change, particularly with numbers.

We seem solid, especially given the transistion. More to the middle of the ACC pack with VT etc. than towards the bottom.

 

[nzm136]

I don't think that rankings are the be all end all for a number of reasons:

1. It's really hard to know which college kids will be good pros, and it's even harder to know which high school kids will be good in college.
2. A lot of a player's value is how he fits into a system - Does he fill a talent hole? Does he have skill sets that we can use (i.e. the world's best scrambler will be wasted in a pocket-heavy offense)? And, does he have the right mentality (i.e. some coaches really like players with chips on their shoulders)?
3. Another significant portion of a player's value is how well he develops/matures - part of that is on the player and part is on the coach.

Those attributes either aren't factored into rankings well (or in many cases, at all), or generally frustrate their accuracy.

That said, I would rather have the #1 class than the #128 class. There are exceptions, but rankings do generally get the direction right. And, with that in mind, I am happy that SU is trending up in recruiting in general (even under SS), and that general trend looks to accelerate under Dino. I think that there's a real opportunity to make a big splash next year once our coaching staff is finalized and have had a year to use SU's name/conference affiliation/resources to scout/evaluate players and convince them to put on the blue/grey/white/orange jersey.

 

[All4SU]

It's also extremely difficult to grade out the big uglies as they on average take the longest time to develop.

 

[SoBristol]

The rankings are only a rough measure and the same can be said for high school stats, or metrics of size & speed, or relative interest from P5 schools. The ratings can be wildly inaccurate in individual cases -- two star guys (Pugh, Chandler Jones, Mike Williams) can exceed expectations, and four star prospects can be busts.
Our running back, Fredericks, had a position ranking of 130 or so based on his junior year. He added size, put up terrific senior year numbers, was player of the year in NYS, and his ranking (on Scout) did not change. Erv Phillips is a similar case.

Having said that, the rankings might be roughly correct in judging that Pitt has the #35 class, and SU is somewhere in the 50s. With the ACC, and a new IPF, SU is trending up. It looks like two solid, deep classes back to back (Shafer's 2015 class was also rated in the 50s). Now, show a fast, dynamic offense and move up the ranks.

 

[billsin01]

The rankings are only a rough measure and the same can be said for high school stats, or metrics of size & speed, or relative interest from P5 schools. The ratings can be wildly inaccurate in individual cases -- two star guys (Pugh, Chandler Jones, Mike Williams) can exceed expectations, and four star prospects can be busts.
Our running back, Fredericks, had a position ranking of 130 or so based on his junior year. He added size, put up terrific senior year numbers, was player of the year in NYS, and his ranking (on Scout) did not change. Erv Phillips is a similar case.

Having said that, the rankings might be roughly correct in judging that Pitt has the #35 class, and SU is somewhere in the 50s. With the ACC, and a new IPF, SU is trending up. It looks like two solid, deep classes back to back (Shafer's 2015 class was also rated in the 50s). Now, show a fast, dynamic offense and move up the ranks.

I actually have less faith in them than you do. I feel that a couple of things are true beyond even the point that you mention:

1) The rankings are probably somewhat accurate in terms of determining lets say the top 250 prospects in the nation. There will be younger kids who far exceed their rankings as well as busts, but it's almost impossible to avoid that so I give the services something of a pass on a lot of those. However, I would say that those rankings are really done by the schools and coaches themselves. When is the last time there was a top 250 guy who didn't have an offer from a P5 school? And let's face it, there have to be some out there. The point is that the programs tend to identify the top talent and the services generally report it. So Alabama, Ohio State, USC and others are going to have top classes. We don't need services to tell us that. So generally they are reporting what everyone in the industry already knows.

2) The biggest issue for most teams in terms of at least being competitive and going bowling every year is how many of these kids arrive and stay on campus for the majority of their eligibility? What's more, can they put together four classes in a row that get solid results on this front? To me that's a huge component of this -- I'll take four top 50 classes in a row with pretty good retention rates vs. four top 25 classes with a ton of attrition (grades, conduct, injuries, etc.). That may sound extreme and perhaps the difference isn't that big, but what happens after signing day is easily the most overlooked part of 'recruiting.'

3) Finally, and you speak to this with the Pughs and Joneses of the world, but it's one thing to look at a Florida lineman who signs with Ohio State and checks in at 6-8, 315 and moves like a tight end and say, 'he's going to be a total stud.' But it's another thing to look at a guy who signs with a school like SU as an afterthought from a football area without a great reputation (Delaware for Derrell Smith or LI for Jay Bromley, for example) or a guy who needs to transform his body in order to fulfill his potential (Keith Bullock coming in as a safety, for example) and predict which of those guys will be the real deal. Obviously it's just simply more difficult b/c there's more projection and more variables involved, but it's worth pointing out in the sense that even if Babers and co. greatly improve the recruiting, we're still realistically looking at classes with a handful of 2 stars and a ton of 3 stars.

 

[SoBristol]

I actually have less faith in them than you do. I feel that a couple of things are true beyond even the point that you mention:

1) The rankings are probably somewhat accurate in terms of determining lets say the top 250 prospects in the nation. ...

2) The biggest issue for most teams in terms of at least being competitive and going bowling every year is how many of these kids arrive and stay on campus for the majority of their eligibility? What's more, can they put together four classes in a row that get solid results on this front?... what happens after signing day is easily the most overlooked part of 'recruiting.'

3) Finally, and you speak to this with the Pughs and Joneses of the world, but it's one thing to look at a Florida lineman who signs with Ohio State and checks in at 6-8, 315 and moves like a tight end and say, 'he's going to be a total stud.' But it's another thing to look at a guy who signs with a school like SU as an afterthought from a football area without a great reputation (Delaware for Derrell Smith or LI for Jay Bromley, for example) or a guy who needs to transform his body in order to fulfill his potential (Keith Bullock coming in as a safety, for example) and predict which of those guys will be the real deal. Obviously it's just simply more difficult b/c there's more projection and more variables involved, but it's worth pointing out in the sense that even if Babers and co. greatly improve the recruiting, we're still realistically looking at classes with a handful of 2 stars and a ton of 3 stars.

Yes, I do have confidence that rankings reflect rough justice -- with room for error in a number of cases. Fan can go overboard in trying to discount them because they like to believe that our hidden gems are better, or our coaches are better at development etc, or who can really compare etc., or players blossom or not, or what if the players don't stick or ...

For starters, this class is almost entirely 3 stars (one two star DB who played WR and has good size and speed to convert to defense); as was the 2015 class. It turns out that 2015 class did not have academic issues (one exception) and looks deep at this point. We have already seen some of the results -- Dungey, Frederick, Strickland, Clark. It was a highly rated class for good reason, as it turns out. It does not show up in stars, but Babers and his staff seem to have allowed guys with qualification issues to de-commit, and his commits seem OK on the qualification score, and also good in terms of size & speed (check out the 4 OL recruits, for example, and also look at their videos).

Not saying the measures are perfect. Some will always say it takes 4 or 5 years to judge a class -- or some white chips turn into blue chips etc. Usually, the selector schools don't have to be defensive about their classes.

 

[billsin01]

Yes, I do have confidence that rankings reflect rough justice -- with room for error in a number of cases. Fan can go overboard in trying to discount them because they like to believe that our hidden gems are better, or our coaches are better at development etc, or who can really compare etc., or players blossom or not, or what if the players don't stick or ...

I don't know. How is it going overboard to point out that there are ton of factors beyond Signing Day rankings that impact the ultimate success of a class? I mean, if you get the majority of a 20-player class to show up, work hard and stay 4-5 years, you've probably got a pretty good class. Yes, you'd rather have 4-star kids than 2-star kids, but ultimately getting them to stay, work hard and develop goes a long way toward the overall success of the team. I also very much believe that the coaches are the ones doing the rankings -- the idea that this ragtag network of 'scouts' (using the term incredibly loosely in most cases) is accurately ranking a TE in New Mexico vs. an ILB in Maine is patently absurd, IMO.

For starters, this class is almost entirely 3 stars (one two star DB who played WR and has good size and speed to convert to defense); as was the 2015 class. It turns out that 2015 class did not have academic issues (one exception) and looks deep at this point. We have already seen some of the results -- Dungey, Frederick, Strickland, Clark. It was a highly rated class for good reason, as it turns out. It does not show up in stars, but Babers and his staff seem to have allowed guys with qualification issues to de-commit, and his commits seem OK on the qualification score, and also good in terms of size & speed (check out the 4 OL recruits, for example, and also look at their videos).

I agree on this and on the recruits for this year. I think you can compare recruiting classes to previous groups and get a relative feeling that you're improving or declining. But, I don't really think the stars play into it in a meaningful way ... or at least as anything more than a single data point among a lot of other relevant factors (offers, measurables, technique/polish, projectability, how well the staff develops the players -- we saw GRob run into issues in S&C and we've seen Babers completely overhaul that part of the program as well ...)

Not saying the measures are perfect. Some will always say it takes 4 or 5 years to judge a class -- or some white chips turn into blue chips etc. Usually, the selector schools don't have to be defensive about their classes.

My thing on it is this -- if there were really solid data behind the 'rankings' and 'stars' you would see it reflected as legit more often than not. So yes, when you look at Alabama and Michigan and whomever, you can pretty much bank on the fact that they are getting really good talent. But just about anyone could tell you that.

However, it just seems like so many 2-star kids have become stars here and I literally can't remember the last 4-star that was just a flatout stud for us. You'd think that over time the 4-stars would play out. If you look at the list below for the past 11 years according to Riv@ls, it's interesting. I mean, it's largely anecdotal, but look at all the really good players who came in as two stars vs. the complete lack of really good players who came in as 4 stars. Spruill was great and Sales was good. That basically concludes the list.

2-star
Clark (15)
Fredericks (15)
Phillips (14)
Isaiah Johnson (13)
Dyshawn Davis (10)
Shamarko Thomas (09)
Justin Pugh (09)
Alec Lemon (09)
Chandler Jones (08)
Derrell Smith (06)
Art Jones (05)

4-star
KJ Williams (never made it)
Spruill (10)
Averin Collier (08)
Miranovich (08)
Sales (08)
Romale Tucker (08)
Jermaine Pierce (07)
Baskin (06)
Adam Rosner (06)
Lobdell (05)


So what does it mean? I don't know. Would I rather have a class full of 4-stars than 2-stars? Yes. Would I be 75% aroused if the cuse signed a top 25 class per the ratings services? Yes, absolutely. But I just feel that what the services tend to tell you is just how good the talent is that is going on to the big schools and they are providing info, but I would say inconsistent scouting/ranking information on the vast majority of 2-3 star kids. That's why I believe any successful staff here is going to have to find lower-rated kids and they are going to have to take raw athletes and turn them into football players. What happens after signing day and how successfully they find really projectable athletes is going to be a huge key regardless of the ratings on the first Wednesday in Feb.