2025 Strategy Shift?

[vegasnick]

The whole "recruiting rankings don't matter" is probably the most wildly inaccurate argument that gets repeated on this forum.

They are on average correct but with wild variability for individual players. A single guy who is rated 90 probably only has about a 60% chance of being better than a single guy who is rated 85. But if you repeat that over 20-25 players per year for 4 years, there is a 100% chance that a roster full of 90's is a better team than a roster full of 85's. Literally 100%.

Here are the class rankings the last 4 years for the teams that made the final 4 of the CFP:
OSU 5, 4, 4, 2
ND 9, 12, 7, 9
Texas 6, 3, 5, 15
PSU 15, 14, 6, 21

Other teams of note:
Oregon 3, 9, 13, 4
UGA 1, 2, 3, 6

If you are not bringing in top 10-15 classes every year you can absolutely forget competing for a national title. Pointing to one guy where the rankings didn't pan out is a complete misunderstanding of statistics -- it's like saying Vegas has no idea what they are doing because they got the line wrong for one game. Ok, then try betting against Vegas 80 more times and see how it works out.

• A high three-star (87-89): is considered a player with significant NFL upside who expect to be an impact college football player.

Not All Recruiting Stars Are Created Equally

As I was writing other content for the site, I learned something about recruiting ratings and the number of players associated with each rating. Many of you all may already know this information. Some commentators I respect (including Geoff Ketchum) have said this before, but I wanted to...

www.larrythegm.com

For the record in the 2025 Class Syracuse had 13 recruits rank 87 or higher and they had 14 in 2024.

Another reason why they want to develop the talent they have!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Fran is on record with the following.
Wants to build via the HS ranks
Will take portal players but wants more than one year out of them.
Has a huge incoming class and a huge number of guys that are coming back.
There are not very many open spots.
The staff fills good about replacing most of our attrition with current players.
We landed the QB we wanted.
We will most likely add a few more kids before the fall.
I believe that Fran is executing his plan.

Yes, Fran said he wants portal guys with more than one year BUT will take a one year guy if they have NFL potential.

 

[Kalima45]

We have also missed out on at least three portal guys we wanted to bring in with Garcia, Herring and McVay all going to other schools. I believe there are still some holes to fill that the staff is aware of.

 

[vegasnick]

We have also missed out on at least three portal guys we wanted to bring in with Garcia, Herring and McVay all going to other schools. I believe there are still some holes to fill that the staff is aware of.

This is true. We missed on 5 recruits who were scheduled to visit and then Committed elsewhere before we had a chance to get them on campus. AJ Pena, Riley Wilson, and the three mentioned above. Based of conversations I’ve had with people close to the program the schools that landed them “overpaid”. That is not a good recipe for success long term.

As much as I’ve been reiterating the staffs goals of developing the players they have- I do think they will continue to watch the portal for a possible OL, DL, LB, DB. That’s not to say they’re definitely going to add all 4 - but I’d doubt they are done adding.

We also have to see who we lose in the spring portal- that will likely give a better idea in the direction they will go.

 

[Nahson]

Lol @ ripping on all the other players on the team but saying you're high on Villari, one of the worst players on our roster.

Who did a rip on? Other than maybe the defense.

 

[bnoro]

The whole "recruiting rankings don't matter" is probably the most wildly inaccurate argument that gets repeated on this forum.

They are on average correct but with wild variability for individual players. A single guy who is rated 90 probably only has about a 60% chance of being better than a single guy who is rated 85. But if you repeat that over 20-25 players per year for 4 years, there is a 100% chance that a roster full of 90's is a better team than a roster full of 85's. Literally 100%.

Here are the class rankings the last 4 years for the teams that made the final 4 of the CFP:
OSU 5, 4, 4, 2
ND 9, 12, 7, 9
Texas 6, 3, 5, 15
PSU 15, 14, 6, 21

Other teams of note:
Oregon 3, 9, 13, 4
UGA 1, 2, 3, 6

If you are not bringing in top 10-15 classes every year you can absolutely forget competing for a national title. Pointing to one guy where the rankings didn't pan out is a complete misunderstanding of statistics -- it's like saying Vegas has no idea what they are doing because they got the line wrong for one game. Ok, then try betting against Vegas 80 more times and see how it works out.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The highest ranked programs have the best classes because when the kids commit there, they get a ratings boost. Those sites have the most subscribers because they have the biggest fanbases so there is more bias.

Then, those "former 4 stars" hit the portal and go to other smaller schools because they weren't actually good enough, but because classes aren't ranked after the fact they can keep doing what they're doing.

I'm sure there are a few 7-5 teams in the top 25 recruiting rankings. You'll never see an unbiased system because the sites exist to make money. Teams use proprietary systems, they aren't looking at 2 4 7 or r i v a l s.