247 Team Talent Composite

[chugg21]

2021 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

247 updated their team talent composite a few days ago. It's basically a rolling 4 year cumulative recruiting figure. It's a pretty accurate indicator of the overall talent level of teams. Sure you can pick it apart in some aspects but it's pretty interesting and can indicate teams that are on the rise such as A&M as they move into being a powerhouse after a few years of high end recruiting under Jimbo. Nothing earthshattering by any means but man does it not shine a good light on us. 4th worst P5 team, only ahead of Kansas, Kansas State and Rutgers. Kind of hard to argue with though.

 

[javadoc]

2021 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

247 updated their team talent composite a few days ago. It's basically a rolling 4 year cumulative recruiting figure. It's a pretty accurate indicator of the overall talent level of teams. Sure you can pick it apart in some aspects but it's pretty interesting and can indicate teams that are on the rise such as A&M as they move into being a powerhouse after a few years of high end recruiting under Jimbo. Nothing earthshattering by any means but man does it not shine a good light on us. 4th worst P5 team, only ahead of Kansas, Kansas State and Rutgers. Kind of hard to argue with though.

I do argue with it. Don’t know how many times we need to document Dohn’s BS (and others’) to get people off the 247 love fest. It’s crap.

 

[Pyle]

2021 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

247 updated their team talent composite a few days ago. It's basically a rolling 4 year cumulative recruiting figure. It's a pretty accurate indicator of the overall talent level of teams. Sure you can pick it apart in some aspects but it's pretty interesting and can indicate teams that are on the rise such as A&M as they move into being a powerhouse after a few years of high end recruiting under Jimbo. Nothing earthshattering by any means but man does it not shine a good light on us. 4th worst P5 team, only ahead of Kansas, Kansas State and Rutgers. Kind of hard to argue with though.

Unfortunately 4 winning seasons in the past 20 years backs this up. Everyone who thinks we have more talent or even on par talent with our supposed Peer schools should take a long hard look at this. People think our peer schools are BC, Pitt, WV, etc. Looks like it's Rutgers, Kansas, and everyone else we make fun of. We are the Vandy of the ACC. One miracle season in the past 10 years doesn't change that. The excuses about why we are always picked last are crap, it's not because reporters are lazy, it's because we don't have enough talent to compete.

 

[Pyle]

I do argue with it. Don’t know how many times we need to document Dohn’s BS (and others’) to get people off the 247 love fest. It’s crap.

Right so 247 is crap, Rivals is crap, etc, etc. Except we don't win football games so maybe not so far fetched as some want to make it.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Cuse only credited with 72 commits over 4 years. Such notable NAs as Bradford, Chestnut, IJones, LaBrosse, Linton, Nunn, Roscoe, Simmons, Szmyt

 

[chugg21]

I do argue with it. Don’t know how many times we need to document Dohn’s BS (and others’) to get people off the 247 love fest. It’s crap.

Good luck with that argument as we end up looking up at Wake Forest in the standings each year.

 

[javadoc]

Good luck with that argument as we end up looking up at Wake Forest in the standings each year.

Good lord.

 

[Pyle]

Good lord.

You have a better explanation for 4 winning seasons in the past 2 decades?

 

[OrangeinBoston]

Good lord.

7
3	2019	ACC	8	5	0	.615	4	4	0	.500	3.23	0.00		19		Dave Clawson (8-5)	Pinstripe Bowl-L
4	2018	ACC	7	6	0	.538	3	5	0	.375	2.41	2.41				Dave Clawson (7-6)	Birmingham Bowl-W
5	2017	ACC	8	5	0	.615	4	4	0	.500	11.42	6.03				Dave Clawson (8-5)	Belk Bowl-W
6	2016	ACC	7	6	0	.538	3	5	0	.375	0.73	1.80				Dave Clawson (7-6)	Military Bowl-W

 

[richmondcuse03]

Cuse only credited with 72 commits over 4 years. Such notable NAs as Bradford, Chestnut, IJones, LaBrosse, Linton, Nunn, Roscoe, Simmons, Szmyt

Missing a starting freshman who's potentially our best recruit from last year seems to reinforce the point that the data may not be the best. Even discounting that, none of this is surprising. Our averages are right in the pack of lots of teams -- coaching has to teach up guys. We know we're not getting the guys who are often going to be studs on day one. We have to identify talent, hold onto them, and coach them up.

Our issue last few years is injuries, not recruiting the right positions (on coaches) and some bad in-game coaching decisions and some questionable assistants. We can win with the talent (as Wake shows, since our average rating is above theirs...)

 

[Pyle]

Missing a starting freshman who's potentially our best recruit from last year seems to reinforce the point that the data may not be the best. Even discounting that, none of this is surprising. Our averages are right in the pack of lots of teams -- coaching has to teach up guys. We know we're not getting the guys who are often going to be studs on day one. We have to identify talent, hold onto them, and coach them up.

Our issue last few years is injuries, not recruiting the right positions (on coaches) and some bad in-game coaching decisions and some questionable assistants. We can win with the talent (as Wake shows, since our average rating is above theirs...)

I think you completely missed the point, our average is NOT in the middle of the pack, neither is our record. There is 20 years of hard evidence correlating the two. And our average rating is not above theirs. Did you open the link?

 

[javadoc]

You have a better explanation for 4 winning seasons in the past 2 decades?

That was not the point of my comment at all.

 

[TheCusian]

From this thread I would have thought Clawson and Wake were way up the ladder lol. They are two spots higher?!

What he's done has been good, not great. Dino's time features higher highs and lower lows, but is mostly in line with our recruiting ranking as others have said. We're a developmental type program, like our peers - but with less natural recruiting advantages. Those wondering how to overcome that will prob end up googling "how to re-establish a rich HS football tradition in the NE" and see that it's too big to fix lol

I think our recruiting ranking is both true and more baked in, HC to HC than most imagine. Dino has done better than Marrone and Shafer, but only marginally so. I'm not sure the next coach does much better. Those trying to use this as a total indictment of Dino should probably check themselves a bit, IMO.

(Also - does the ranking, while excluding key contributors, also exclude transfers? That would seem dumb moving fwd with the portal mixing up teams more and more)

 

[SoBristol]

Would expect Dino to do better than Marrone and Shafer, because Dino has the advantages of ACC reputation and money and had head coach background. Also had recruited in Ohio, Chicago and Detroit before taking over here.

We can put together a competitive team when we have senior experience in both lines and an above average QB. Hard to be bowl worthy consistently unless we recruit at the level of BC and Pitt.

 

[SWC75]

#68 vs. #118 tonight. I hope that matters.

 

[qdawgg]

From this thread I would have thought Clawson and Wake were way up the ladder lol. They are two spots higher?!

What he's done has been good, not great. Dino's time features higher highs and lower lows, but is mostly in line with our recruiting ranking as others have said. We're a developmental type program, like our peers - but with less natural recruiting advantages. Those wondering how to overcome that will prob end up googling "how to re-establish a rich HS football tradition in the NE" and see that it's too big to fix lol

I think our recruiting ranking is both true and more baked in, HC to HC than most imagine. Dino has done better than Marrone and Shafer, but only marginally so. I'm not sure the next coach does much better. Those trying to use this as a total indictment of Dino should probably check themselves a bit, IMO.

(Also - does the ranking, while excluding key contributors, also exclude transfers? That would seem dumb moving fwd with the portal mixing up teams more and more)

Good lord - you take information correlating 20 years of recruiting and our record, then somehow find a way to turn it into your personal crusade to protect DB’s name. I mean, I guess I’m not surprised but it’s def weird.

In 20 years our recruiting has not been good. Our record proves that. Everyone arguing higher quality recruits (going back to Marrone and Shafer) it just isn’t accurate. Every time we get a class we perceive as being special or a huge upgrade, it still gets ranked low by all publications and everyone freaks out with excuses why. But the perception by those ranking our classes and yearly records are far more accurate. And you the proof is in our record.