Landing Moe today was one of those moments...

[rrlbees]

Yep - and that compared with the rest of the ACC (at least 3 months ago) looked several spots higher in the ACC. And it makes more sense, a clearer picture.

Raw score is different than rankings. It's all relative. The discussion was team rankings. I still contend that being in the 45-55 range is not the first time in a decade.

 

[TheCusian]

Raw score is different than rankings. It's all relative. The discussion was team rankings. I still contend that being in the 45-55 range is not the first time in a decade.

I agreed with you. I was going from memory when I said decade. If you prefer "the last 8 years" or "the Marrone/Shafer era".

---

The raw score and average player ranking helps minimize class size as a determining factor in ACC rankings.

 

[Full_Rebar]

I think it's also interesting to note that the three highest rated classes based on 2 4 7's composite scores are all Shafer's classes, which backs up the belief that he and his staff are superior recruiters to their predecessors. Now, hopefully they can get it to translate into wins.

Well, that's an interesting premise. One also has to wonder what role the switch to the ACC and the improvements to SU's facilities plays. I don't think it's a coincidence that the improvements are being seen after SU pumped some money into the football locker room, lounge, meeting rooms, and of course the IPF.

Obviously the coaches have to close the deal, but does SU get a foot in the door with some of these recruits with what the previous staff was working with 5 years ago?

 

[TheCusian]

Well, that's an interesting premise. One also has to wonder what role the switch to the ACC and the improvements to SU's facilities plays. I don't think it's a coincidence that the improvements are being seen after SU pumped some money into the football locker room, lounge, meeting rooms, and of course the IPF. Obviously the coaches have to close the deal, but does SU get a foot in the door with some of these recruits with what the previous staff was working with 5 years ago?

Yep. Million dollar question and largely unanswerable.

The facts remain - this staff has capitalized on those improvements. And that's a good thing.

 

[jekelish]

Well, that's an interesting premise. One also has to wonder what role the switch to the ACC and the improvements to SU's facilities plays. I don't think it's a coincidence that the improvements are being seen after SU pumped some money into the football locker room, lounge, meeting rooms, and of course the IPF.

Obviously the coaches have to close the deal, but does SU get a foot in the door with some of these recruits with what the previous staff was working with 5 years ago?

You're definitely not wrong. The IPF is clearly making an enormous difference. Every recruit mentions how great the new facility is, and it certainly couldn't hurt in landing guys from Carolina and Georgia by giving them a chance to play games in their home state somewhat regularly (especially Carolina).

 

[JHarris44]

I think it's also interesting to note that the three highest rated classes based on 2 4 7's composite scores are all Shafer's classes, which backs up the belief that he and his staff are superior recruiters to their predecessors. Now, hopefully they can get it to translate into wins.

That's very possible but other factors may play into that such as the program being left to Shafer in a must stronger position than it was left to his predecessors, the new IPF (as already mentioned), etc. Star rankings are great to see improvement in but Wins, All-ACC selections, and future NFL draft picks will or won't bear that out. Folks tend to forget how "bad" of a recruiting staff the old regime was after pulling guys like Andrew Tiller and Shamarko Thomas and Jay Bromley and holding onto Nassib and Pugh and Lemon and the like when jettisoning most of the others.

 

[TheCusian]

That's very possible but other factors may play into that such as the program being left to Shafer in a must stronger position than it was left to his predecessors, the new IPF (as already mentioned), etc. Star rankings are great to see improvement in but Wins, All-ACC selections, and future NFL draft picks will or won't bear that out. Folks tend to forget how "bad" of a recruiting staff the old regime was after pulling guys like Andrew Tiller and Shamarko Thomas and Jay Bromley and holding onto Nassib and Pugh and Lemon and the like when jettisoning most of the others.

After debating the merits of the last 3 coaching staffs and their ability to recruit, I've come to this conclusion:

1. The ACC, IPF, and the demotion of teams not in the p5 have all helped our recruiting.

2. Our current coaches + Eric White and co. are good at what they do. Floyd Little is a clear asset as well.

3. Winning will help even more. And I don't want to see us start over, so here's to this staff finding their way into a bowl game this year.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I still contend that being in the 45-55 range is not the first time in a decade.

I'm not sure why this is such a polarizing topic. The rankings, stats, etc are pretty black-and-white. We have nabbed a 4-star prospect or two in the past several recruiting cycles... maybe missing out completely in one or two classes... but any slight bump in the overall rating would be attributed to less 2-stars rounding out the group.

Bottom line, if the trends continue, we'll have less fat to jiggle on the rosters... which will help improve overall depth... but make no mistake, the cupboards are still begging for playmakers. RW and MN are very good pickups, but we need a McNabb or Harrison-type in each class to start changing national perceptions. The "pro bono" appeal to guys like RW will run out of steam if we don't start to see results.

 

[reedny]

To make this about the star rating of one player misses the entire point. I don't want to speak for RF, but if I understand the OP correctly, this is about one critical piece being added to a bigger recruiting puzzle. Several other key pieces are already in place. So, whereas getting a 3 star is not normally a big deal, getting Moe Neal is. Actually, I could care less whether he has 1 star or 4 stars. If his film and his measurables are for real, he has elite speed AND elite moves. A guy who can catch the ball out of the backfield, stop and start on a dime, change direction and then explode in space -- that's a special player.

Now -- put that skill package in the same backfield as Robert Washington and Rex Culpepper ... and you have something (playmakers at 3 essential offensive skill positions) to get excited about. And it has nothing to do with Koolaid.

 

[Marroniac]

we need a McNabb or Harrison-type in each class to start changing national perceptions.

So let me get this straight. We need to bring in someone on the level of our best QB ever, or our best receiver ever, every single class? That's the bar you're setting?

 

[jekelish]

So let me get this straight. We need to bring in someone on the level of our best QB ever, or our best receiver ever, every single class? That's the bar you're setting?

 

[FrancoPizza]

So let me get this straight. We need to bring in someone on the level of our best QB ever, or our best receiver ever, every single class? That's the bar you're setting?

Don't try to be cute. We routinely had very good playmakers at Qb and WR for a solid 15-year stretch. That didn't happen overnight, it required establishing pipelines so that there would be several RW-type talents in every class. You want to mince words to deflect the general theme? Go right ahead.

 

[TheCusian]

Don't try to be cute. We routinely had very good playmakers at Qb and WR for a solid 15-year stretch. That didn't happen overnight, it required establishing pipelines so that there would be several RW-type talents in every class. You want to mince words to deflect the general theme? Go right ahead.

Truth is every staff is trying to nab RW-types in every cycle. We have and will continue to try. I think getting him and Moe could be the start of a run.

Saying we need elite-very good level talent in every cycle is obvious.

 

[TheCusian]

May have overstated our average player rating as a metric that would move us ahead of other ACC teams (I think UVa moves below us and Pitt moves ahead of us - so if you go by average player rating, we're still 10th). So I'm acknowledging my mistake .

However - this illustrates what I was talking about a bit better... Which of these classes would you rather have:

 

[IthacaBarrel]

May have overstated our average player rating as a metric that would move us ahead of other ACC teams (I think UVa moves below us and Pitt moves ahead of us - so if you go by average player rating, we're still 10th). So I'm acknowledging my mistake .

However - this illustrates what I was talking about a bit better... Which of these classes would you rather have:

Don't know will tell you in 3 years

 

[TheCusian]

Don't know will tell you in 3 years

Yeah, I could make a kick-a$^% class with the benefit of hindsight. Not the question though.

 

[Scooch]

Yeah, I could make a kick-a$^% class with the benefit of hindsight. Not the question though.

People here do try to have it both ways, though.

When our recruiting rankings suck it's an avalanche of comments about how the star system is a joke and rankings mean nothing. Then a lot of those people spend the season complaining about our lack of talent. Then they overrate that talent in the spring and summer.

When our recruiting rankings tick upward people race to claim that it's a sign of improvement. Apparently ignoring all those better ranked schools that underachieved and formed the basis of their prior argument.

It's unsatisfying, but we all know IB is right.

 

[TheCusian]

People here do try to have it both ways, though.

When our recruiting rankings suck it's an avalanche of comments about how the star system is a joke and rankings mean nothing. Then a lot of those people spend the season complaining about our lack of talent. Then they overrate that talent in the spring and summer.

When our recruiting rankings tick upward people race to claim that it's a sign of improvement. Apparently ignoring all those better ranked schools that underachieved and formed the basis of their prior argument.

It's unsatisfying, but we all know IB is right.

Yeah - I'm operating from the assumption that we have no earthly idea how a class will actually perform. I'm also not one of those people who think stars don't matter (though there are plenty of things wrong with the way kids get ranked).

In the end it's a crapshoot. That's recruiting. But give me your 4, and high 3-star guys all day .

 

[Scooch]

Yeah - I'm operating from the assumption that we have no earthly idea how a class will actually perform. I'm also not one of those people who think stars don't matter (though there are plenty of things wrong with the way kids get ranked). In the end it's a crapshoot. That's recruiting. But give me your 4, and high 3-star guys all day .

Agreed. Like I said last week, give me a dozen 4 stars and if half are huge flameouts, I still have a half dozen 4 stars.

 

[TheCusian]

Agreed. Like I said last week, give me a dozen 4 stars and if half are huge flameouts, I still have a half dozen 4 stars.

Yep. I think of stars more like "% that they will be contributors and/or special" ... I'm going with the higher % guys all day

 

[Scooch]

Yep. I think of stars more like "% that they will be contributors and/or special" ... I'm going with the higher % guys all day

Agreed. It's a very rough measure of overall talent, loaded with subjectivity and biases. But it does provide some directional insight, at the class level anyway.

I did an analysis a few years back and typically half the top 25 had a class that was also ranked top 25 three to four years prior. So of course half did not, but we're talking about 100 schools competing for those 10-15 spots. It's a tough needle to thread.

I think if our classes were consistently ranked in the 30s/low 40s, coupled with strong coaching, that'd be enough to get back to a top 25-ish level.

 

[RF2044]

Agreed. It's a very rough measure of overall talent, loaded with subjectivity and biases. But it does provide some directional insight, at the class level anyway.

I did an analysis a few years back and typically half the top 25 had a class that was also ranked top 25 three to four years prior. So of course half did not, but we're talking about 100 schools competing for those 10-15 spots. It's a tough needle to thread.

I think if our classes were consistently ranked in the 30s/low 40s, coupled with strong coaching, that'd be enough to get back to a top 25-ish level.

Adding classes consistently ranked in the 30s / low 40s would stock the coffers with talent, so I agree with your premise.

And then every once in awhile, you'd land a great QB or a great WR or some other key positional player, and things would get better as a function of having said elite player emerge.

 

[rrlbees]

May have overstated our average player rating as a metric that would move us ahead of other ACC teams (I think UVa moves below us and Pitt moves ahead of us - so if you go by average player rating, we're still 10th). So I'm acknowledging my mistake . However - this illustrates what I was talking about a bit better... Which of these classes would you rather have:

Of those 4 schools? Probably ours. But what's your point? There are 2 ways to sort the site databases. Total points which benefits a larger class or average per player which ignores class size. In some cases out average is worse than the total so the excuse we have a small class doesn't always hold water.

 

[baggerbob]

Depth of talent is the current problem. We used to be able to take players like Tebucky Jones who was buried at running back. They moved him to safety, and he became the 22nd pick in the NFL draft, behind his teammate Donovin Darius at 21.

 

[FrancoPizza]

There are 2 ways to sort the site databases. Total points which benefits a larger class or average per player which ignores class size. In some cases out average is worse than the total so the excuse we have a small class doesn't always hold water.

Avg rating should be the primary metric. It's not like some schools have a higher scholarship limit. Every school, over 4 years, will have doled out the same number of schollies.

I'd love to see one of our resident statisticians compile a weighted, 4-year ranking based on average stars and see how that measures up with the current top 25-50 in the polls or whatnot. Compile the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 classes. To calculate overall impact on the field for this year, multiply the averages by seniority which factors in projected playing time by class. Current seniors and juniors (2011 and 2010 recruiting classes) would be weighted at 1.0... then sophs at .75... and RFs at .25. Just an idea, but I'd be surprised if there was not a strong correlation to the star-system when all is said and done.