So where did we finish?

[Trueblue25]

Eight ACC teams.

Encouraging yet terrifying.

 

[All4SU]

Eight ACC teams.

...and Kent State.

 

[NJCuse97]

...and Kent State.

Noticed the same. Why does everyone get better with us!?

 

[chugg21]

I don’t think this is right. The technology has been improving - but these sites have been around for years.

But more importantly, the avg rating isn’t the only measure. Other offers from P5 schools (while still sometimes faulty) has ticked up at the same time.

It’s not a mirage, these guys are better recruiters.

Well it is right. I just went all the way back to 2005 and the average recruit grade is pushing higher and higher as years go by. I didn't do anything too scientfic but the average recruit in a class ranked 50th has increased accordingly:

2005 - 80.79
2007- 82.37
2009- 84.23
2011- 82.03
2013 - 82.83
2015- 84.02
2017-84.69

Besides the blip in 2009, there has been a steady increase of almost 4 pts in the average recruit of an average class. I also took a look at what the average recruit in a very good class, ranked 25th, looked like:

2005 - 84.34
2007 - 85.6
2009 - 86
2011- 85.64
2013- 86.86
2015- 86.44
2017 - 87.58

Nearly identical, it has inreased steadily and is up over 3 pts over time.

While I agree that our class looks like the strongest in quite some time, the players ratings compared to ones prior are just increasing at a similar rate that the entire database is.

 

[TheCusian]

Well it is right. I just went all the way back to 2005 and the average recruit grade is pushing higher and higher as years go by. I didn't do anything too scientfic but the average recruit in a class ranked 50th has increased accordingly:

2005 - 80.79
2007- 82.37
2009- 84.23
2011- 82.03
2013 - 82.83
2015- 84.02
2017-84.69

Besides the blip in 2009, there has been a steady increase of almost 4 pts in the average recruit of an average class. I also took a look at what the average recruit in a very good class, ranked 25th, looked like:

2005 - 84.34
2007 - 85.6
2009 - 86
2011- 85.64
2013- 86.86
2015- 86.44
2017 - 87.58

Nearly identical, it has inreased steadily and is up over 3 pts over time.

While I agree that our class looks like the strongest in quite some time, the players ratings compared to ones prior are just increasing at a similar rate that the entire database is.

Fair enough. I'll concede that the numbers have risen.

- That ranking of 50 or of 25 is based on the pts system (which factors in size of class). Unless you manually went through and re-ranked all the teams every year based on avg recruit - your numbers are skewed a bit. Lots of noise.

- Choosing 13 years is advantageous to your argument. Your data suggests a 4 pt raise across the entire database over 13 years. What folks are excited about here is the trend in the last 4 - but more importantly this last class, compared to the last:

2015: #57, 82.69
2016: #62, 83.45
2017: #54, 83.57
2018: #51, 85.58

Another 2 point jump in 2019 would put us in your top 25, regardless of the slow overall rise in rankings.

- This class is pretty small, comparatively. 19 kids (avg of 85.58) and ranked #51 is pretty good. In 2010, we signed 33(!) and ranked #60 with an avg rank of 82.70. In 2017 we signed 26 and ranked #54 with an avg rank of 83.57. Had we signed an average sized class of 20-25 and maintained our avg, we'd be in the 30-40 range pretty easily.

That's all to say - good point on the slow and steady rise of the numbers. But I'd be careful attributing too much to that. Lot's of signs that we're rising.

 

[Louie and Bouie]

Well it is right. I just went all the way back to 2005 and the average recruit grade is pushing higher and higher as years go by. I didn't do anything too scientfic but the average recruit in a class ranked 50th has increased accordingly:

2005 - 80.79
2007- 82.37
2009- 84.23
2011- 82.03
2013 - 82.83
2015- 84.02
2017-84.69

Besides the blip in 2009, there has been a steady increase of almost 4 pts in the average recruit of an average class. I also took a look at what the average recruit in a very good class, ranked 25th, looked like:

2005 - 84.34
2007 - 85.6
2009 - 86
2011- 85.64
2013- 86.86
2015- 86.44
2017 - 87.58

Nearly identical, it has inreased steadily and is up over 3 pts over time.

While I agree that our class looks like the strongest in quite some time, the players ratings compared to ones prior are just increasing at a similar rate that the entire database is.

You are correct in this analysis. I did a similar look at the Scou# database a few years ago. I saw that the number of 3 stars increased by a significant number from just 3 years prior. On that database you were able to filter and see the total number of recruits by their star rating. It seems that a lot more kids are getting a 3-star rating than ever before and I would guess this number keep moving up each year since I had researched it. Obviously, this has a direct effect on all class ratings and comparing year to year becomes somewhat futile when just looking at numbers. Unfortunately, on the new site you can't filter by total number of recruits per year by star rating so I can't provide the numbers here.

In any event, as the whole database has trended up in regard to 3-star ratings the only useful measurement in using these services for comparative purposes is the overall/conference team ranking which allows one to compare against other D-I/P-5 schools for that class year. The actual team grade for the year is pretty useless when attempting to compare to past years classes.

Using the team ranking definitely shows an uptick but not by the leaps and bounds shown in the numeric grade rating shown in this thread as all teams have trended up due to their being so many more 3-star prospects in the database.

At the end of the day the recruiting classes/services provide a topic of discussion for the diehards and provides worth in that area. However, at our level of recruiting, attempting to compare/distinguish whether an .8500 is better than an .8200 before they ever make it onto campus and onto the field is fools gold. The only real competent analysis of 3-stars is after a few years when they have played meaningful snaps (or haven't played meaningful snaps).

Anyway, just my 2 cents on an interesting topic.

 

[TheCusian]

You are correct in this analysis. I did a similar look at the Scou# database a few years ago. I saw that the number of 3 stars increased by a significant number from just 3 years prior. On that database you were able to filter and see the total number of recruits by their star rating. It seems that a lot more kids are getting a 3-star rating than ever before and I would guess this number keep moving up each year since I had researched it. Obviously, this has a direct effect on all class ratings and comparing year to year becomes somewhat futile when just looking at numbers. Unfortunately, on the new site you can't filter by total number of recruits per year by star rating so I can't provide the numbers here.

In any event, as the whole database has trended up in regard to 3-star ratings the only useful measurement in using these services for comparative purposes is the overall/conference team ranking which allows one to compare against other D-I/P-5 schools for that class year. The actual team grade for the year is pretty useless when attempting to compare to past years classes.

Using the team ranking definitely shows an uptick but not by the leaps and bounds shown in the numeric grade rating shown in this thread as all teams have trended up due to their being so many more 3-star prospects in the database.

At the end of the day the recruiting classes/services provide a topic of discussion for the diehards and provides worth in that area. However, at our level of recruiting, attempting to compare/distinguish whether an .8500 is better than an .8200 before they ever make it onto campus and onto the field is fools gold. The only real competent analysis of 3-stars is after a few years when they have played meaningful snaps (or haven't played meaningful snaps).

Anyway, just my 2 cents on an interesting topic.

Lots to digest - some good points. I do agree that there is a more volatility as the stars decrease.

But I think the most helpful number is the difference between this year and the last bunch. Higher avg rating, less kids, higher overall ranking. Which was the point the discussion sprang from.

 

[chugg21]

Lots to digest - some good points. I do agree that there is a more volatility as the stars decrease.

But I think the most helpful number is the difference between this year and the last bunch. Higher avg rating, less kids, higher overall ranking. Which was the point the discussion sprang from.

Think everyone is in agreement that this class seems to be the best in ages. We're now beating out our lower end P5 peers for the majority of kids instead of MAC and AAC teams. That's a major step in being able to compete in the ACC. We're still a very bottom tier school among P5 teams but trajectory is pointing upward to get us hopefully somewhere towards the average P5 schools that are winning 6-8 games most years with floor and ceilings of 5 or 9.

 

[RandomGuy]

Well it is right. I just went all the way back to 2005 and the average recruit grade is pushing higher and higher as years go by. I didn't do anything too scientfic but the average recruit in a class ranked 50th has increased accordingly:

2005 - 80.79
2007- 82.37
2009- 84.23
2011- 82.03
2013 - 82.83
2015- 84.02
2017-84.69

Besides the blip in 2009, there has been a steady increase of almost 4 pts in the average recruit of an average class. I also took a look at what the average recruit in a very good class, ranked 25th, looked like:

2005 - 84.34
2007 - 85.6
2009 - 86
2011- 85.64
2013- 86.86
2015- 86.44
2017 - 87.58

Nearly identical, it has inreased steadily and is up over 3 pts over time.

While I agree that our class looks like the strongest in quite some time, the players ratings compared to ones prior are just increasing at a similar rate that the entire database is.

I like the idea of comparing to the competition. Where are you getting your #'s? Mine were 2_4_7 composite, as I felt 3/4 samples would be more accurate. Your cuse #'s are significantly higher for many years.

Other than that. 4 of the years you posted are a 3.23-4.03 below #25. 2017 is 1.79 below. I can't do anymore, because I dunno where your info is from.(24 and 7 straight up, posts the average, and not the #'s you found)

 

[chugg21]

I like the idea of comparing to the competition. Where are you getting your #'s? Mine were 2_4_7 composite, as I felt 3/4 samples would be more accurate. Your cuse #'s are significantly higher for many years.

Other than that. 4 of the years you posted are a 3.23-4.03 below #25. 2017 is 1.79 below. I can't do anymore, because I dunno where your info is from.(24 and 7 straight up, posts the average, and not the #'s you found)

They are literally off of the 2 4 7 site class rankings for those years. They are the average recruit rating for the teams that finished 25th and 50th in each of those years.

 

[NJCuse97]

I like the idea of comparing to the competition. Where are you getting your #'s? Mine were 2_4_7 composite, as I felt 3/4 samples would be more accurate. Your cuse #'s are significantly higher for many years.

Other than that. 4 of the years you posted are a 3.23-4.03 below #25. 2017 is 1.79 below. I can't do anymore, because I dunno where your info is from.(24 and 7 straight up, posts the average, and not the #'s you found)

I don't think those are Cuse numbers, they are the number for the #50 ranked class for those years.

 

[RandomGuy]

They are literally off of the 2 4 7 site class rankings for those years. They are the average recruit rating for the teams that finished 25th and 50th in each of those years.

Hah.. I was thinking they were the cuse #'s. Apologies.


I ran them all again. Too many to post. For the odd years selected. From 2017-2005, cuse was 3.75-5.51 behind #25.

2016 2.57 behind
2018 2.01 behind #25

Taking out 2007, the top graded classes have been consistently between 91.5 and 94.2. 2018 Georgia at 94.2. 2005 top class also had a 94.2, and the top grades are consistent throughout.

2005 top:. 94.26
2005 Cuse:. 79.65

2018 top : 94.23
2018 Cuse: 85.58.

The lower level curve is increasing (thank you). Cuse is increasing more. In regards to the consistent top grades, Cuse is also gaining ground.

 

[chugg21]

Hah.. I was thinking they were the cuse #'s. Apologies.


I ran them all again. Too many to post. For the odd years selected. From 2017-2005, cuse was 3.75-5.51 behind #25.

2016 2.57 behind
2018 2.01 behind #25

Taking out 2007, the top graded classes have been consistently between 91.5 and 94.2. 2018 Georgia at 94.2. 2005 top class also had a 94.2, and the top grades are consistent throughout.

2005 top:. 94.26
2005 Cuse:. 79.65

2018 top : 94.23
2018 Cuse: 85.58.

The lower level curve is increasing (thank you). Cuse is increasing more. In regards to the consistent top grades, Cuse is also gaining ground.

That's good to see but I don't really believe the top is relevant to us in any way as we are playing in a different sandbox than those teams battling in the top 10-20 every year. The top is already fitted with a hard cap as they can't really push any higher. They are also irrelevant to my hypothesis that more and more kids are being rated and are being given 3 stars. The top classes are barely involved with those kind of kids so it has a very minimal impact on them.

I'm more interested in our comparison to peer schools that are more in that 25/30-60 range. Those are the 2nd/3rd tier P5 schools that we are generally going to be battling for better bowl slots and on the recruiting trail.

 

[RandomGuy]

The #'s shown, agree with your , more three stars, point. With Hudl, social media, combines, etc, there are more opportunities for kids to he seen, and evaluated. Makes sense.

The comparison with the top, is an attempt at introducing a constant. The rising tide is floating more boats, but the numbers also dictate that our tide is a little higher. ;-)

I very much like your premise. I'll see if the #'s definitively prove my last statement, in regards to, and based on your hypothesis.

 

[PhatOrange]

More subscribers means more kids across the board have to be rated higher.

 

[RandomGuy]

More subscribers means more kids across the board have to be rated higher.

Perhaps... Twitter has made it easier for kids to contact coaches/show film. Combines(the opening, etc.) Help find the quicker kids. Hudl seems to be in full use. There is also a hudl app that let's kids "accurately" record their 40's, vert, etc, and compete against all others using the app. (Exposure- gets them invites, or film watched.)

 

[RandomGuy]

There is some of evidence, of the more 3 stars argument. Although, it's not so cut and dry.

With recruiting averages trending slightly higher, it's reasonable to assume, that the more classes with 80+ averages(3 star), the more likely supply of 3 star prospects.

Here are the number of classes that achieved an 80+ grade(3 star) from 2009 to 2018:

2009: 79
2010: 93
2011: 71
2012: 73
2013: 79
2014: 75
2015: 85
2016: 86
2017: 83
2018: 96

Bumper crop in 2010, and 2018. What about the increase from 2015-2018?

Hudl was formed in 2006, and steadily became a major player, in recruiting tools. Interestingly, in 2015 Hudl made an additional investment of $70 million. Followed by another $30 million investment in 2016. Is it coincidence that the # of 3 stars increased after that? I don't think so.

No time to post at the moment, but I ran more thorough numbers to see if Cuse is merely hanging with the curve, or getting ahead of it - based on yearly fluctuations.