Class of 2014 ACC recruiting class rankings

[Whitey23]

http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/acc/post?id=61614


13. Syracuse, 13 commits: Syracuse has four-star QB A.J. Long (Lebanon, Tenn./Friendship Christian School) as the headliner of a class that includes three linebackers and 13 three-star commits. The Orange would love to keep No. 86 overall Thomas Holley (Brooklyn, N.Y./Lincoln High) close to home, but are fighting an uphill battle.


13 out of 14 for those counting at home.

 

[baggerbob]

ESPN writeup and the page with recruits don't add up, they say we have 13 commits, and 13 that are 3 star, yet on the recruiting page its right with 14 recruits with 1 4 star, 13 3 stars.

 

[TheCusian]

Just keep winning. Finish the IPF. Get some coaching stability. Keep monkeying with the uni's/brand. Just keep winning.

 

[Trueblue25]

We have a history of taking lowly/mid rated recruits and turning them into NFL caliber players.

It's what we do.

 

[syr02esq]

To be competitive in the ACC, we need upgrade our recruiting (even on paper).

 

[orangenauburn]

We also have 7 or so fewer commits than our peers

Skews the rankings

 

[javadoc]

To be competitive in the ACC, we need upgrade our recruiting (even on paper).

Possibly. Depends on what you mean by competitive. If we finish 4-4 in conference this year, we're already competitive by a perfectly reasonable definition. Next couple weeks will be a fun measuring stick.

 

[Trueblue25]

Meanwhile lower recruits like Bromley, Spruill and Smith are tearing it up.

 

[SUFan44]

Not really worried about this. Football recruiting rankings are, for the most part, meaningless.

Once you get past the top 15-20 recruiting classes, it's nearly impossible to compare.

 

[syr02esq]

Possibly. Depends on what you mean by competitive. If we finish 4-4 in conference this year, we're already competitive by a perfectly reasonable definition. Next couple weeks will be a fun measuring stick.

I meant competitive for an ACC championship.

 

[NashvilleOrange]

Not really worried about this. Football recruiting rankings are, for the most part, meaningless.

Once you get past the top 15-20 recruiting classes, it's nearly impossible to compare.

True; it's tough cause the other ACC teams are recruiting so well. There are about 6-7 ACC teams that fall in that top 20 range.

 

[RMH44]

Meanwhile lower recruits like Bromley, Spruill and Smith are tearing it up.

I agree but just as an fyi...Spruill was a 4-star recruit on one of the sites.

 

[wfschrec]

I agree but just as an fyi...Spruill was a 4-star recruit on one of the sites.

Yep Rivals ...

 

[IthacaBarrel]

They are meaningless until we lose a few games and people say we don't have enough talent and that shafer isn't the guy can't recruit, facilities aren't there, and stars do mean something!!!! Wash, rinse, repeat, seen it for 15 years now. Call me crazy but I would feel much better about the program if we were 5th in the ACC here as opposed to 13th, call me crazy but just my opinion. It's the end all be all but is what it is. We need good cacophony and good recruiting


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[anomander]

i think the Clemson game showed that overall talent level usually reflect the recruiting rankings some what accurately. Of course there are a couple hits and misses here and there, but big picture they are pretty accurate

 

[orangefog]

i think the Clemson game showed that overall talent level usually reflect the recruiting rankings some what accurately. Of course there are a couple hits and misses here and there, but big picture they are pretty accurate

I think you are absolutely correct. I would rather have a stable of highly rated recruits with the occassional diamond in the rough over the pressure of having to develop a ton of diamonds in the rough every year, it has to be exhausting.

 

[Trueblue25]

I agree but just as an fyi...Spruill was a 4-star recruit on one of the sites.

Alright well Eskeridge then haha

 

[PhatOrange]

3 years ago these teams had top 25 recruiting classes and as it stands right now none of them are ranked in the top 25 polls, none. More than half.

Texas - #3
USC - #4
Georgia - #5
Auburn -#7
Notre Dame -#10
Tennessee - #13
Nebraska - #15
UNC - #16
California - #17
Mississippi - #19
Michigan - #21
Washington - #23
Arkansas - #24
Virginia - #25

I didn't pick this 'year' because it supported anything, I went back 3 years because its smack dab in the middle of freshman and 5th year seniors. I did browse other years and they are pretty much the same. I'm going to do a more thorough analysis but draw your own conclusions.

 

[Whitey23]

3 years ago these teams had top 25 recruiting classes and as it stands right now none of them are ranked in the top 25 polls, none. More than half.

Texas - #3
USC - #4
Georgia - #5
Auburn -#7
Notre Dame -#10
Tennessee - #13
Nebraska - #15
UNC - #16
California - #17
Mississippi - #19
Michigan - #21
Washington - #23
Arkansas - #24
Virginia - #25

I didn't pick this 'year' because it supported anything, I went back 3 years because its smack dab in the middle of freshman and 5th year seniors. I did browse other years and they are pretty much the same. I'm going to do a more thorough analysis but draw your own conclusions.

I get your point but Georgia, Auburn, Nebraska, Michigan and Washington are each in at least one of the two polls.

 

[PhatOrange]

I get your point but Georgia, Auburn, Nebraska, Michigan and Washington are each in at least one of the two polls.

i erred on georgia #15, auburn #24 and washington #20, they're ranked - my bad - i was putting this together quick from a phone. Take them away an you're still at half the teams.

fwiw i dont consider the coaches poll at, they're all biased to a degree but the coaches poll is rigged.

 

[SUFan44]

i think the Clemson game showed that overall talent level usually reflect the recruiting rankings some what accurately. Of course there are a couple hits and misses here and there, but big picture they are pretty accurate

The top classes as I said are usually correct. But you get past the top 20 and its a crap shoot. There are so many players in so many different locations that these "gurus" have no idea about - not to mention the bias of the star system that we already know about.

I hold out a glimmer of hope that we can eventually get to the level of getting top 20 recruiting classes - if McDonald can help Minnesota get the 17th ranked class in the country, why not at Syracuse?

But realistically, if we live in the 30-60 range in recruiting classes for most years there isn't much difference. In 2011, Iowa was #30 and Arizona State was #57. Missouri was #31, Arkansas #34 and Cincy #50. Syracuse was #75 and #67 in each of those years.

We can compete with all of those schools. I'd venture to guess we might actually have a winning record against those schools (Iowa is bad, as is Arkansas. And Cincy?).

 

[chakka3421]

i think the Clemson game showed that overall talent level usually reflect the recruiting rankings some what accurately. Of course there are a couple hits and misses here and there, but big picture they are pretty accurate

My take is that you need to have a few key high level players (star positions) in key positions starting with the QB along with a complementary cast of WRs & RBs. The offensive line, no matter how star struck they are (ie Geogia), need to play more as a unit than as individuals - granted they need to be athletic but stars don't mean as much as it takes a long time to develop a high school big ugly to turn them into a great college player. Same on defensive side of the ball we need more playmakers in the backfield as Clemson exposed and exploited our DBs.

I highly doubt we will be in contention for quite some time for the very best out high school like a Holley - combine the effects of the disasters of hiring Grob and the continuous erosion of Big East football's competitiveness after UMiami, VT & BC leaving - no wonder SU fell to such lows especially with the perception that we are a basketball school - mainly due to SUs winning ways in bball - you have a recipe for disaster in the making for SU football - and did happen.

That's why the NC State game was so important to win and how the team did it, along with the next 3 games of bringing "Northern hardnosed football" to the south (our new identity if we can keep it going) - I can see perceptions should finally start to change in the positive sooner rather than later. One thing that has to also change is to stop getting blown out by teams like NW & Clemson - losing that way also hurts perceptions especially if that happens too often - even if we win the next 3 games we really need to make it a game with FSU. Nuff said.

 

[anomander]

The top classes as I said are usually correct. But you get past the top 20 and its a crap shoot. There are so many players in so many different locations that these "gurus" have no idea about - not to mention the bias of the star system that we already know about.

I hold out a glimmer of hope that we can eventually get to the level of getting top 20 recruiting classes - if McDonald can help Minnesota get the 17th ranked class in the country, why not at Syracuse?

But realistically, if we live in the 30-60 range in recruiting classes for most years there isn't much difference. In 2011, Iowa was #30 and Arizona State was #57. Missouri was #31, Arkansas #34 and Cincy #50. Syracuse was #75 and #67 in each of those years.

We can compete with all of those schools. I'd venture to guess we might actually have a winning record against those schools (Iowa is bad, as is Arkansas. And Cincy?).

I agree with that. But I also think we have to be inside a top 40 recruiting class each season to become more of a threat to contend for a conference championship eventually . Where we have been finishing lately you may be able to max out around 7 wins, maybe a little better in special years.

As most who read here know the star system is mostly based on potential, so it's up to their respective schools to maximize that potential. Some staffs do it better then others. But usually when you have a higher ranked class you have a lot of big and fast kids, so obviously maxamizinf their potential will get better results.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1

 

[upperdeck]

I dont think the star system is based on potential as much as you think.. I think most of the people evaluating are looking at what they see now based on size, speed, production. if you are big/fast and productive in HS you get ratings. you can be the best player you want to be, but if you are skinny and play at a bad school you can have all the potential in the world but you wont get rated. we all hope coaches find those kids but its much harder than finding the kids who already look ready.

 

[anomander]

I dont think the star system is based on potential as much as you think.. I think most of the people evaluating are looking at what they see now based on size, speed, production. if you are big/fast and productive in HS you get ratings. you can be the best player you want to be, but if you are skinny and play at a bad school you can have all the potential in the world but you wont get rated. we all hope coaches find those kids but its much harder than finding the kids who already look ready.

Well wouldn't the skinny kid not have as much potential? We are basically saying the same thing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1