So where did we finish?

[CuseLegacy]

If we have a decent year and pull in another good recruiting year and then add Adams and the transfer from MSU, we should be in the low 40s maybe even high 30s.???

They won't be added in next year. Even though they can't play they are still part of the 2018 class. They still count towards the 85 total allowed scholarships.

 

[All4SU]

no they're not counted and they should not be counted imo.

Will they be “counted” into our ranking next year? Or do they simply never get factored in?

 

[PhatOrange]

Will they be “counted” into our ranking next year? Or do they simply never get factored in?

never.

heck if we sign a kid in May who's a 10 star i doesn't get factored in either. they don't back populate.

 

[syr14]

Off back-to-back 4-8 seasons, we did pretty damn well...

 

[rackman18]

Off back-to-back 4-8 seasons, we did pretty damn well...

I don't think there is another team out there that has done this recently. With back to back 4-8 records with a end ranking of 50.

 

[sufandu]

If you mean consistently poor(.82 and much less) from 2000-2015? Yes. This is a significant 3.6 point jump.

The lowest graded recruit, this year is better than the average recruit, for almost every year from 2000-2015.

I was surprised to see the Grob recruiting grade out that much higher than 2000 and 2001, when we were still getting some good players like Reyes, Ferri, and Morrant, and remain roughly the same until Dino got here. I expected to see more drop off with Shafer too.

 

[sufandu]

They won't be added in next year. Even though they can't play they are still part of the 2018 class. They still count towards the 85 total allowed scholarships.

It makes sense they wouldn't factor them in. How do we compare them to high school kids? Do we look at their grade coming out of high school or do we look at how they've developed while at their first school?

 

[CuseLegacy]

It makes sense they wouldn't factor them in. How do we compare them to high school kids? Do we look at their grade coming out of high school or do we look at how they've developed while at their first school?

The problem, because you have two transfers who aren't counted, is it skews rankings. It makes the class size smaller for ranking purposes. If the staff had taken two HS kids instead their rankings would have been counted in the overall ranking of the class and possibly SU would have had a higher ranking. Certainly not a perfect system.

 

[RandomGuy]

I was surprised to see the Grob recruiting grade out that much higher than 2000 and 2001, when we were still getting some good players like Reyes, Ferri, and Morrant, and remain roughly the same until Dino got here. I expected to see more drop off with Shafer too.

Went back, and checked top grades for 2000, 2001. ALL schools grades were substantially lower. Let's chalk those 2 years up to 2_47 not having the composite system proper, yet. From there on, everything looks spot on.

 

[cuse309]

So that documents the positive trend, but not as large an improvement as we might have expected.

I wouldn't say that. I'm not sure where those numbers were pulled from, but on the site that is not to be named, they have a "roster talent" grade for each team. For 2017 Wake had a roster talent score of 82.43, last in the ACC. Florida state was first in the ACC with a 90.94. So 8 points separates a team like Wake, from a team like FSU. FSU is obviously light years more talented than Wake, meaning that 8 points is a huge difference. So a jump in recruit class talent, from an 82 to an 85 is quite impressive. Here are some other in the 84-85 range in terms of roster talent:
Maryland, Nebraska, Mich. State, TCU, Va Tech, Pitt, Baylor, Louisville, Wisconsin, OK State, Utah.
So on paper, the class we pulled in, has talent equal to the overall talent at those schools. There are some pretty good teams there.
That's how you rebuild a program.

 

[clayman32]

The problem, because you have two transfers who aren't counted, is it skews rankings. It makes the class size smaller for ranking purposes. If the staff had taken two HS kids instead their rankings would have been counted in the overall ranking of the class and possibly SU would have had a higher ranking. Certainly not a perfect system.

But like he said there's no way to compare them. Does Jackson retain his 4 star rating from two years ago when he only had 12 catches or whatever during his sophomore season in college?

 

[CuseLegacy]

But like he said there's no way to compare them. Does Jackson retain his 4 star rating from two years ago when he only had 12 catches or whatever during his sophomore season in college?

I agree there is no comparable way to rank them. I am just pointing out an issue with the ranking system.

 

[sufandu]

The problem, because you have two transfers who aren't counted, is it skews rankings. It makes the class size smaller for ranking purposes. If the staff had taken two HS kids instead their rankings would have been counted in the overall ranking of the class and possibly SU would have had a higher ranking. Certainly not a perfect system.

Those count toward the 85 but not the 25, right? So, technically, they don't affect the size of the class anymore than a senior staying for his 5th year does.

 

[ottodaorange]

It makes sense they wouldn't factor them in. How do we compare them to high school kids? Do we look at their grade coming out of high school or do we look at how they've developed while at their first school?

The whole point of rating a recruiting class these days is to evaluate the level of talent that is being brought in for any calendar year. Whether they are high school, prep school, JUCO, or transfers, (grad or otherwise) should make no difference. In fact, I would argue that anyone above a HS graduate is more experienced against a higher level 0f competition and should be evaluated with this in mind. I believe that the present system is a long way from perfect, but this seems to be the biggest flaw.

However, I also remember time that recruiting classes were evaluated on additional criteria than level of talent. The most obvious criteria was filling areas of need or replacing people on the coaching staff... but as mustache was fond of saying, "that's another story."

 

[IthacaMatt]

43rd by the numbers website
50th composite ranking
53rd by ESPN

I think if you count the 4 star transfers, we have a "real" ranking of about 40th. If we had closed with a couple more of those kids, I think we would have been in the 30s, just based on the number of 4 star players listed for the other teams. If we take our best case, we have five 4 stars, not just the 1 or 2 being reported on these sites.

The kids have way better offers in this class than we had at any time under Shafer, and we know that these kids will make it to campus. Looking at that Post-Standard article about the 2014 class that Shafer brought in, you only see about 4 or 5 kids out of the class who made an impact.

 

[sufandu]

The whole point of rating a recruiting class these days is to evaluate the level of talent that is being brought in for any calendar year. Whether they are high school, prep school, JUCO, or transfers, (grad or otherwise) should make no difference. In fact, I would argue that anyone above a HS graduate is more experienced against a higher level 0f competition and should be evaluated with this in mind. I believe that the present system is a long way from perfect, but this seems to be the biggest flaw.

However, I also remember time that recruiting classes were evaluated on additional criteria than level of talent. The most obvious criteria was filling areas of need or replacing people on the coaching staff... but as mustache was fond of saying, "that's another story."

The whole point is really publicity. It's a way for these websites to make money.

If we want to truly be accurate we need to do annual full roster evaluations taking into account injuries, transfers, in and out, and progress of current players. Of course that's not reasonable. The real way any of these classes will be accurately rated will be the last weekend of august through december/january.

I'm fine with it the way it is. We're excited this year because we got a couple transfers of a higher caliber than we normally get, and they happened to come around the same time as the high school recruiting period. If these guys came after spring semester, nobody would care how they impacted the perception of our recruiting class despite there being no real difference.

 

[IthacaMatt]

The whole point is really publicity. It's a way for these websites to make money.

If we want to truly be accurate we need to do annual full roster evaluations taking into account injuries, transfers, in and out, and progress of current players. Of course that's not reasonable. The real way any of these classes will be accurately rated will be the last weekend of august through december/january.

I'm fine with it the way it is. We're excited this year because we got a couple transfers of a higher caliber than we normally get, and they happened to come around the same time as the high school recruiting period. If these guys came after spring semester, nobody would care how they impacted the perception of our recruiting class despite there being no real difference.

No, it increases competition in practice, even if they don't change the transfer eligibility rule for next year. We will be better for these guys being on the team, whether they are eligible or not this year. It makes a big difference that they are here.

 

[kcsu]

My take is that this is an excellent class. Best in over 10 years why..
All are qualified
Most where early offers and therefore high on our board.
All the kids had significant offers. No more MAC wins
Filled positions of need.
And most importantly landed a great QB. It is obvious that in College Football QB is the most important position. SU with Eric could play with anyone. Without him we couldn't beat anyone.
Landing Chance is huge. The kid jumps off the film. Sure he is a little raw but he has a size, speed, and a big arm. For me he makes this class special.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Those count toward the 85 but not the 25, right? So, technically, they don't affect the size of the class anymore than a senior staying for his 5th year does.

No. Grad tansfers don't count towards the 25. Normal transfers do count.

 

[cuse309]

I think if you count the 4 star transfers, we have a "real" ranking of about 40th. If we had closed with a couple more of those kids, I think we would have been in the 30s, just based on the number of 4 star players listed for the other teams. If we take our best case, we have five 4 stars, not just the 1 or 2 being reported on these sites.

The kids have way better offers in this class than we had at any time under Shafer, and we know that these kids will make it to campus. Looking at that Post-Standard article about the 2014 class that Shafer brought in, you only see about 4 or 5 kids out of the class who made an impact.

We would then have to count the transfers at other schools too to make that comparison.
Bottom line is this: The 2018 roster, on paper, is a nice bump up in talent overall, and that's really the goal. Consistently bring in better talent every year. Replace the guys on the way out, with more talented guys coming in.

 

[sufandu]

No, it increases competition in practice, even if they don't change the transfer eligibility rule for next year. We will be better for these guys being on the team, whether they are eligible or not this year. It makes a big difference that they are here.

I'm not saying anything about the players coming. Obviously that's a good thing, and they improve the team. I'm talking about recruiting rankings.

 

[sufandu]

No, it increases competition in practice, even if they don't change the transfer eligibility rule for next year. We will be better for these guys being on the team, whether they are eligible or not this year. It makes a big difference that they are here.

I was talking about recruiting rankings, not the impact the transfers will have on the program. How was that not clear? Of course these guys are expected to help us.

 

[qdawgg]

I think if you count the 4 star transfers, we have a "real" ranking of about 40th. If we had closed with a couple more of those kids, I think we would have been in the 30s, just based on the number of 4 star players listed for the other teams. If we take our best case, we have five 4 stars, not just the 1 or 2 being reported on these sites.

The kids have way better offers in this class than we had at any time under Shafer, and we know that these kids will make it to campus. Looking at that Post-Standard article about the 2014 class that Shafer brought in, you only see about 4 or 5 kids out of the class who made an impact.

Just my opinion but we can't bump our class up to the 40's or 30's because we have transfers coming in that had been 4 star recruits coming out of H.S. They very well might be but most of the time they haven't realized that 4 star talent in college, or didn't turn into the playmakers they were expected to be. They still might but I don't believe we can just classify them the same as 4 star players coming out of H.S. In the same way, if we had a player transfer in who was a 2 star out of H.S. but decided to transfer after coaching change or whatever and they had been one of the best players on their previous college team. We wouldn't still consider them a 2 start player. Just my opinion. Not saying they aren't potentially very good players but don't think it deserves us overvaluing the class either.

2014 class - I went back and looked at their offers and that class actually wasn't that terrible on paper. If you look at the 2015 class though, just looking at offers from other schools, that class was atrocious. Almost the entire bottom half of that class had no offers, or offers from schools we would be embarrassed about.
Looking at that class I started to remember how some of the Shafer diehards defended his recruiting. He was getting players that fit his system, we got on them early so the other schools knew they were solid SU commits (LOL), diamonds in the rough - a couple years in our S&C program..., H.S. team had a bad record so nobody noticed this great player. I think some people had convinced themselves that that bottom of the ACC class was actually mid-pack.

 

[chugg21]

I think the general uptick in avg rating is probably universal due to them evaluating more and more kids every year. Imagine there is a crap ton more kids that are now 2 and 3 star kids than ever before just due to exposure and technology.

 

[chugg21]

Not knocking this years class as it's obviously the best in quite some time. Just thinking from that year by year post that there has been a general increase in our avg while all of the classes were generally the same level of mediocre.