Recruiting: So far ranked last in ACC

[Ozcuse]

Im sure if we got a 5 star tomorrow we wouldn’t be saying recruiting ranks don’t matter

 

[billsin01]

I don’t like where we are wrt the rest of the ACC and “rankings are BS” is just a Bromide for the Syracuse fans of the world.

But FFS I’m pretty sure Babers can coach, and we just went 10-3.

We were never a top 25 recruiting program in the 90s yet, more often than not, we were a top-25 team. How could that possibly happen with accurate recruiting rankings? Furthermore, when so much of a football player's career (even at a school like alabama, to be honest) is determined by the work they put in and the coaching they receive the ensuing 4 or 5 years, how could anyone really know how to rank kids specifically. Getting higher ranked kids is great but the reality of this program is, and outside of the remote possibility that we invest heavily in the program and Dino builds something more or less unprecedented, always will be that we need to identify talent in the 2/3-star group and develop them into contributors/really good players/studs. Even if we're landing a group of 4/5-star kids (which would be great and could obviously happen), the balance of the class is every bit as important.

 

[HOFCeluck]

We were never a top 25 recruiting program in the 90s yet, more often than not, we were a top-25 team. How could that possibly happen with accurate recruiting rankings? Furthermore, when so much of a football player's career (even at a school like alabama, to be honest) is determined by the work they put in and the coaching they receive the ensuing 4 or 5 years, how could anyone really know how to rank kids specifically. Getting higher ranked kids is great but the reality of this program is, and outside of the remote possibility that we invest heavily in the program and Dino builds something more or less unprecedented, always will be that we need to identify talent in the 2/3-star group and develop them into contributors/really good players/studs. Even if we're landing a group of 4/5-star kids (which would be great and could obviously happen), the balance of the class is every bit as important.

I would be willing to bet we were recruiting better in the 90's than we are today.

 

[Trueblue25]

I would be willing to bet we were recruiting better in the 90's than we are today.

true but we’re working on rebuilding a program which completely burnt to the ground in the 2000’s. One 10 win season wont mend all.

 

[billsin01]

Im sure if we got a 5 star tomorrow we wouldn’t be saying recruiting ranks don’t matter

But this isn't the point -- a 5-star recruit would be amazing (of course Johnny Morant and Cecil Howard didn't exactly light the world on fire). Signing a top 50 to 250 kid certainly increases the likelihood that you are landing a potential stud. I think we can all agree on that. But the idea that 'recruiting analysts' with little or no actual credentials are literally saying that we signed the 1,349th best player in the country is utterly laughable. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they have any verifiable way of knowing that. If we sign a kid ranked in that range and all of the sudden he picks up a Clemson offer, he'd immediately jump 500 spots despite the fact nothing changed with kid himself.

 

[OrangeDW]

I would be willing to bet we were recruiting better in the 90's than we are today.

Yeah, I’m almost positive we had quite a few top 25 classes, and we signed some stud recruits that everybody wanted like Rob Konrad.

 

[OrangeDW]

true but we’re working on rebuilding a program which completely burnt to the ground in the 2000’s. One 10 win season wont mend all.

Agreed. But coming off a 10 win season, I probably would’ve predicted at least middle of the ACC for this class as far as rankings go. We’ll see, maybe it will still end up there. Long way to go.

 

[OrangeDW]

But this isn't the point -- a 5-star recruit would be amazing (of course Johnny Morant and Cecil Howard didn't exactly light the world on fire). Signing a top 50 to 250 kid certainly increases the likelihood that you are landing a potential stud. I think we can all agree on that. But the idea that 'recruiting analysts' with little or no actual credentials are literally saying that we signed the 1,349th best player in the country is utterly laughable. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they have any verifiable way of knowing that. If we sign a kid ranked in that range and all of the sudden he picks up a Clemson offer, he'd immediately jump 500 spots despite the fact nothing changed with kid himself.

Morant with a redshirt year, a decent QB, and a non Stone Age offense...would’ve loved to see it.

Kid would’ve been a better Etta Tawo in Dino’s offense, IMO.

 

[billsin01]

I would be willing to bet we were recruiting better in the 90's than we are today.

You're talking about results. We were never ranked top 25 and generally, from what I remember, finished in the 40s, roughly. But don't forget we were also winning games. How much of those rankings were predictive versus how much of those rankings were reactive based on our winning games is debateable.

We are signing kids that are ranked somewhat similar to the kids we were signing under Shaffer, yet our team on the field looks 180-degrees different. That is literally all we need to know. The idea that someone on this board with no inside source on the staff has any clue what type of recruits we are signing is laughable. Both Marrone and Dino have taken a big chunk of another coach's kids and won games. That alone tells you that what you're doing with whatever recruits you're signing is a huge part of the calculus. That's not orange colored glasses, that's the reality of college football.

 

[djorange1989]

it's only June kids. and screw the rankings. based on the Crystal Ball site, we were 50th last year with a composite number of 85.61. you know what would have put us in the top 25? 87.13. so basically, some biased douche like Dohn is probably the difference between being 50th and 30th.

 

[HOFCeluck]

You're talking about results. We were never ranked top 25 and generally, from what I remember, finished in the 40s, roughly. But don't forget we were also winning games. How much of those rankings were predictive versus how much of those rankings were reactive based on our winning games is debateable.

We are signing kids that are ranked somewhat similar to the kids we were signing under Shaffer, yet our team on the field looks 180-degrees different. That is literally all we need to know. The idea that someone on this board with no inside source on the staff has any clue what type of recruits we are signing is laughable. Both Marrone and Dino have taken a big chunk of another coach's kids and won games. That alone tells you that what you're doing with whatever recruits you're signing is a huge part of the calculus. That's not orange colored glasses, that's the reality of college football.

No Im not. If we re finishing in the fortys, which I have no idea, that would still be better than how we are currently doing.

Lets see how we do if we continue to stack up classes ranked 12-14 in the ACC. I suspect not great, but I would love to be wrong.

 

[billsin01]

Morant with a redshirt year, a decent QB, and a non Stone Age offense...would’ve loved to see it.

Kid would’ve been a better Etta Tawo in Dino’s offense, IMO.

True -- don't disagree but that's sort of my point. Morant oozed talent but didn't produce for three years. Was that him? Was it the coaching/offense? Probably a little from column A, a little from column B. But the point is there are so many factors at play. A program needs to find good athletes (and lots of them if you want any depth), fit them into a good system and mold them into the best FB players they can be. And we've seen soooo many examples of this througout the years -- Morlon Greenwood didn't play football until late in his teens, Keith Bullock was an OK safety recruit that became a monster at MLB, Dwight Freeney wasn't a 4/5-star kid but put on a bunch of weight and became a monster, Art Jones was a nobody, Tebucky Jones was a big recruit at RB but wasn't very good there and only blossomed when he switched positions ... the list goes on and on.

Getting highly recruited kids is great, but you need to sign as many classes with 20+ solid prospects as possible to really build something. We seem to be doing that and it's evident when you look at the team on the field today vs. even 2 years ago. Anyone who doesn't see that but wants to judge the quality of recruits we're getting is absurd, IMO.

 

[Ozcuse]

But this isn't the point -- a 5-star recruit would be amazing (of course Johnny Morant and Cecil Howard didn't exactly light the world on fire). Signing a top 50 to 250 kid certainly increases the likelihood that you are landing a potential stud. I think we can all agree on that. But the idea that 'recruiting analysts' with little or no actual credentials are literally saying that we signed the 1,349th best player in the country is utterly laughable. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they have any verifiable way of knowing that. If we sign a kid ranked in that range and all of the sudden he picks up a Clemson offer, he'd immediately jump 500 spots despite the fact nothing changed with kid himself.

Sure, the coaches know better than the recruiting analysts however it’s hilarious that we question the rankings when it’s not in our favor and then we tout the rankings when they are. I would trust the recruiting analysts who are paid to be correct and their long term job security is tied into being correct more than not over some local fan who only gets invested in the players his school is interested in and develops a cognitive bias that they are somehow better than their rankings because we’re irrational sports fans.

Also pointing to one year and saying “SEE THE RANKINGS WERE WRONG!” when we’ve averaged a 4-8 season for the last 15 years is pretty dumb.

 

[billsin01]

No Im not. If we re finishing in the fortys, which I have no idea, that would still be better than how we are currently doing.

Lets see how we do if we continue to stack up classes ranked 12-14 in the ACC. I suspect not great, but I would love to be wrong.

But were we in the 40s because our recruits were better or because our results on the field were better? If they are struggling to rank an entire nation full of players then how was tom lemming covering the nation before the internet and all the available film?

There's just so much ambiguity. My guess is we continue to win a solid number of games this year -- not sure it's 10 but let's say 7-8 -- and be a solid program for as long as we can keep dino and crew together, but I'm not sure we'll ever climb above somewhere in the middle of the acc recruit ranking wise. We will never have the type of class on signing day that makes florida state or miami jealous.

But, to me, if this staff is seeing kids and getting early commits and then adding some solid 3-star type kids with solid offer sheets as we get into the later fall/winter months and then get most of those kids to sign in Feb. and show up in july or whenever, we are going to get back to being a very solid program. If we can sustain that for a bit maybe we can lure a few more difference-making type kids away from the factories, but that is never going to be where we live in recruiting.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Yes. Please use your magic wand to get us some more and higher rated recruits.

We've had ONE really good season, in these kids' entire lifetimes.
Our last 10-win season was before most of them were born.

Come on. We made a couple bowls in the Marrone years. That wasn't that long ago.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Sure, the coaches know better than the recruiting analysts however it’s hilarious that we question the rankings when it’s not in our favor and then we tout the rankings when they are. I would trust the recruiting analysts who are paid to be correct and their long term job security is tied into being correct more than not over some local fan who only gets invested in the players his school is interested in and develops a cognitive bias that they are somehow better than their rankings because we’re irrational sports fans.

Also pointing to one year and saying “SEE THE RANKINGS WERE WRONG!” when we’ve averaged a 4-8 season for the last 15 years is pretty dumb.

Or just pointing to Chandler Jones as PROOF that the whole system is a farce.

 

[HOFCeluck]

But were we in the 40s because our recruits were better or because our results on the field were better? If they are struggling to rank an entire nation full of players then how was tom lemming covering the nation before the internet and all the available film?

There's just so much ambiguity. My guess is we continue to win a solid number of games this year -- not sure it's 10 but let's say 7-8 -- and be a solid program for as long as we can keep dino and crew together, but I'm not sure we'll ever climb above somewhere in the middle of the acc recruit ranking wise. We will never have the type of class on signing day that makes florida state or miami jealous.

But, to me, if this staff is seeing kids and getting early commits and then adding some solid 3-star type kids with solid offer sheets as we get into the later fall/winter months and then get most of those kids to sign in Feb. and show up in july or whenever, we are going to get back to being a very solid program. If we can sustain that for a bit maybe we can lure a few more difference-making type kids away from the factories, but that is never going to be where we live in recruiting.

I mean, if we were consitently middle of the pack recruting-wise in the ACC I would be quite happy with that.

 

[DeGrozz]

Over 1500 kids commit to P5 schools every year.

There are only 50 5 star recruits, and only 250 4 star recruits.

The next 500 are 3 stars, and everyone else gets a 2 star ranking.

Obviously a 3 star puts you in the top half.

That can't be right, can it? Going off of all day/everyday's rankings, we have eight 3-star commits, with only 1 being ranked nationally (#779). Seems like there would have to be more than 800 kids ranked 3-star or better.

 

[qdawgg]

Lot of the same arguments we heard when Shafer was here. Rankings don't matter, they would be 4 star kids if recruited by..., hidden talents, we got on them early before anyone knew about them, big schools are recruiting them behind the scenes, etc etc.

Difference is - I never believed it with Shafer and I do with Babers. We aren't recruiting midgets that will have to grow 6 inches and add 50 lbs like all the Shafer defenders predicted.

 

[djorange1989]

Lot of the same arguments we heard when Shafer was here. Rankings don't matter, they would be 4 star kids if recruited by..., hidden talents, we got on them early before anyone knew about them, big schools are recruiting them behind the scenes, etc etc.

Difference is - I never believed it with Shafer and I do with Babers. We aren't recruiting midgets that will have to grow 6 inches and add 50 lbs like all the Shafer defenders predicted.

hey, they were all team captains, that meant they WOULD grow 6 inches, Shafer just needed more time and that would have happened.

 

[djorange1989]

Come on. We made a couple bowls in the Marrone years. That wasn't that long ago.

that was 9 and 7 years ago. once Shafer got his hands on the program it might as well have been 90 and 70 years ago

 

[qdawgg]

hey, they were all team captains, that meant they WOULD grow 6 inches, Shafer just needed more time and that would have happened.

Don't forget our S&C program...

All other college recruits would stay the same size and talent, while Shafers recruits were all on an upward trajectory that couldn't be stopped.

 

[FloridaFan]

No Im not. If we re finishing in the fortys, which I have no idea, that would still be better than how we are currently doing.

Lets see how we do if we continue to stack up classes ranked 12-14 in the ACC. I suspect not great, but I would love to be wrong.

Those were our recruiting classes the first years with babers and we won ten games. Im sure we would be fine.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Those were our recruiting classes the first years with babers and we won ten games. Im sure we would be fine.

k

 

[billsin01]

Sure, the coaches know better than the recruiting analysts however it’s hilarious that we question the rankings when it’s not in our favor and then we tout the rankings when they are. I would trust the recruiting analysts who are paid to be correct and their long term job security is tied into being correct more than not over some local fan who only gets invested in the players his school is interested in and develops a cognitive bias that they are somehow better than their rankings because we’re irrational sports fans.

Also pointing to one year and saying “SEE THE RANKINGS WERE WRONG!” when we’ve averaged a 4-8 season for the last 15 years is pretty dumb.

Do you have any idea who these recruiting analysts are? It's a job I was offered when I was covering high school sports but it paid nothing. It's not like it's a network of former college coaches who were lured in with lucrative offers who are now lending their expertise to a recruiting network of some sort. I mean, if a retired coach like P or someone was offering insight after breaking down some film, I'm all in. That's not what this is.

These sites/publications make money by people paying for content. The people that pay for the most content are the massive fan bases of the football factories and, as one can reasonably deduce, those football factories are pulling in lots of talent. But the bottom line is you're never going to see Notre Dame ranked 50th and get a short blurb on one of these sites despite the fact that at times Notre Dame has really struggled in recruiting at times (the ty willy era in particular). It just doesn't make financial sense to do that.

And no one -- at least absolutely not me -- is arguing that the fans know better than the analysts. I'm saying no one knows unless they have some connection to the staff and even then it's hard to say for sure.

But my point is really is not so much that these places aren't identifying which dominant programs are landing elite talent, it's simply that we aren't now and likely will never be in that mix. But that doesn't mean we can't get difference-making kids that can compete with those schools if we run the right system and develop those kids. That's where these sites struggle, IMO.

Consider: We have had two 8-win teams and a 10-win team this decade, yet our recruiting rankings have never changed. We have had 15 4/5--star kids this century and the best player of that group was ... take your pick Diamond Ferri? Johnny Morant? Damien Rhodes? Marcus Sales? (I'll even give you Doug Hogue, which r***ls didn't list as a 4-star but I seem to remember he was at least somewhere).

Of the non-4/5-star kids we've brought in in that time (so kids exhausting eligibility beginning in 2004) we've had Tony Fiametta, Art Jones, Mike Williams, Adam Terry, Tanard Jackson, Shamarko, Nassib, Chandler Jones, Pugh, Bromley and Dixon. And that's only listing the players who either put together pretty solid NFL careers or were at least drafted pretty highly (like Nassib).