Recruit rankings

[PhatOrange]

I'm talking about teams of recruits. AppSt was a great (and very rare) upset, which I enjoyed immensely.

Well based on performances from this summer the first player I would draft is only a 3 star. Just sayin.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

10 out of 10? Really?

10 out of 10 when the majority of the team isn't high?

 

[TheCusian]

I'd prefer to see the staff success rate on their top targets as a more telling number than the various and flawed rankings from random sites.

It seems we are having better success than years past.

 

[ImperialOrange]

10 out of 10? Really?

Curious what the real number is. 8 out of 10 maybe? App State and Boise State type losses happen quite a bit to bigger teams but there is a reason some teams win ~10 games every year as well.

 

[Oakland]

I'd prefer to see the staff success rate on their top targets as a more telling number than the various and flawed rankings from random sites.

It seems we are having better success than years past.

Are you suggesting that the staff has evaluated the prospects in the next class and determined that most of the best players are rated 3 stars (based on the offers that the staff has made)?

 

[javadoc]

Are you suggesting that the staff has evaluated the prospects in the next class and determined that most of the best players are rated 3 stars (based on the offers that the staff has made)?

Also have to factor in whether they "fit" the program that the staff wants to run. McDonald has said that he loves gym rats, for instance.

 

[TheCusian]

Are you suggesting that the staff has evaluated the prospects in the next class and determined that most of the best players are rated 3 stars (based on the offers that the staff has made)?

No - I'm assuming that they have a big board of guys they think they can get, that fit it in the system, etc. I wonder what the % of those guys have committed vs. years past.

 

[RF2044]

I just got a lesson in this on the BB side just by stating that some of our recruits were not our first option, and I didn't even criticize the players!

That's one way to rationalize it.

Another is that the positions you were espousing were generally off-target, and after several posters respectfully responded, disagreeing with your premise, you got belligerent in response despite the fact that they cleaned your clock on merit.

 

[anomander]

I'd prefer to see the staff success rate on their top targets as a more telling number than the various and flawed rankings from random sites.

It seems we are having better success than years past.

this is the key. we are hitting it out of the park.

Franklin, Moskal, Cabinda, and Bennett were all top targets at LB. We won every battle.

We got KJ at WR, and have a good shot at Christian Blake. Although he is not a "star" guy the staff wants him bad. Same can be said for Steve Ishmael.

We will get a much better idea of how we are doing when guys like Ollison, Witter, Mavety, Holley, Brosnen, and Custis decide. If we can get half of them then I would have to think the staff would be ecstatic of the results. I definitely do not remember a year where we were getting this many of our priority recruits.

 

[Oakland]

That's one way to rationalize it.

Another is that the positions you were espousing were generally off-target, and after several posters respectfully responded, disagreeing with your premise, you got belligerent in response despite the fact that they cleaned your clock on merit.

Among other things, you apparently don't know what belligerent means.

 

[RF2044]

Among other things, you apparently don't know what belligerent means.

Oh, I'm quite aware of what it means.

I didn't respond to that thread, because your positions got sufficiently trounced by Francis and Sarge, and there was no need to pile on. I'd say that your responses speak for themselves vis a vis whether they got belligerent after your perspectives were sufficiently debated upon merit.

Read 'em and weep.

http://syracusefan.com/threads/jaquan-newton.52267/page-3

 

[Antiprodigy]

Among other things, you apparently don't know what belligerent means.

No, I think he hit the nail right on the head.

 

[007]

Among other things, you apparently don't know what belligerent means.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I definitely know better than to comment...

But, I gotta tell you that Francis is one of the most gracious and knowledgeable posters on here. He respectfully attempted to answer the questions you asked and you openly mocked his response. Maybe that was not your intent, but as someone who was following along, it sure looked that way.

 

[orangefog]

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I definitely know better than to comment...

But, I gotta tell you that Francis is one of the most gracious and knowledgeable posters on here. He respectfully attempted to answer the questions you asked and you openly mocked his response. Maybe that was not your intent, but as someone who was following along, it sure looked that way.

Agree with this completely. I am sure you aren't here to make friends, as you have many A list friends already, but you are alienating yourself by mocking some very well respected posters with highly reliable sources.

 

[Van111]

All of us on this board are "family" so to speak. I couldn't be happier with the inside knowledge I get off this board while only contributing pretty much my own point of view. I think we are all devout "Orangemen" to the core, we may have different views and we all say something from time to time we wish we hadn't, but in the end we want a winner. On the lighter side, this time last year we were ranked 82nd nationally in recruiting. We are ranked 56 on average this year today. (Not the scorecard either, but based on caliber players) The average commitments for top 40 BCS schools is 11 commitments at this point. We are only 3 off the pace and if we had 3 of the same caliber as we are currently committing (3 star or higher), that would bring us into the mid to upper 40's nationally. Now that is a great sign for this program, in my humble opinion.

 

[orange44pride]

Not to mention when they upgrade the rankings, I think Ziggy will be a 4 star player.

 

[Camillus]

Rankings are fun and interesting for sure, especially to gauge the future, but I really wish they would submit rankings for players at the end of their college careers. I'd like to see how many extra stars we'd churn out.

 

[RMH44]

Rankings are fun and interesting for sure, especially to gauge the future, but I really wish they would submit rankings for players at the end of their college careers. I'd like to see how many extra stars we'd churn out.

They do, sort of...it's called the NFL draft. ;-)

 

[anomander]

Rankings are fun and interesting for sure, especially to gauge the future, but I really wish they would submit rankings for players at the end of their college careers. I'd like to see how many extra stars we'd churn out.

Services have turned recruiting into a business, and it's not going to get any smaller. With the increased emphasis on recruiting, and rankings I expect the industry to continue to grow. It could be harmful to the kids, but since when does anything having to do with collegiate football worry about the players? With that said I love it. It fills our desire for competition in the 8 month off season.

 

[Shaggy]

Sc00ut now has us ranked overall at 51. We are moving up the charts a bit from last month when we were in the 70's and then 57.

 

[Whitey23]

Sc00ut now has us ranked overall at 51. We are moving up the charts a bit from last month when we were in the 70's and then 57.

i think the recent move was due to Cooper getting his 3 stars back.

 

[Van111]

Oh, I'm quite aware of what it means.

I didn't respond to that thread, because your positions got sufficiently trounced by Francis and Sarge, and there was no need to pile on. I'd say that your responses speak for themselves vis a vis whether they got belligerent after your perspectives were sufficiently debated upon merit.

Read 'em and weep.

http://syracusefan.com/threads/jaquan-newton.52267/page-3

HCSS defn: Belligerent: to skedaddle the opposition in a hostile environment called a Dome; hard-nosed with an aggressive attacking defense with militant precision; Declares war on recruiting snubs, especially those of NY State, recognonized by all syracusefan.com personnel, and sanctioned by the spirit of #44. (See also George "the general" McDonald, OC and slicer & dicer of opposing Defenses; Lt Commander Chuck "the hammer" Bullough with a no mercy/ no quarter defensive mission coming for your viewing pleasure in 44 days, 4 hours, and 44 minutes) Sent at 10:44 AM