Syracuse 61st in 4yr Recruiting Rankings

[anomander]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...-rankings-ratings-2015-college-football-teams

This is made up of 3 of Shafer's classes, and Marrone's last 1. This gives a better overall look since it's by 2 4 7 who uses a combination of all 3 of the major services. The only P5 programs we are Wake Forest, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, and Boston College. Coincidence that those 5 programs (probably minus BC) are viewed as the dregs of the P5, i think not.

 

[CUSU]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...-rankings-ratings-2015-college-football-teams

This is made up of 3 of Shafer's classes, and Marrone's last 1. This gives a better overall look since it's by 2 4 7 who uses a combination of all 3 of the major services. The only P5 programs we are Wake Forest, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, and Boston College. Coincidence that those 5 programs (probably minus BC) are viewed as the dregs of the P5, i think not.

If we can set this year as the low bar, and continue on our recruiting trajectory, in a couple years we will have significantly improved talent.

 

[TheCusian]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...-rankings-ratings-2015-college-football-teams This is made up of 3 of Shafer's classes, and Marrone's last 1. This gives a better overall look since it's by 2 4 7 who uses a combination of all 3 of the major services. The only P5 programs we are Wake Forest, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, and Boston College. Coincidence that those 5 programs (probably minus BC) are viewed as the dregs of the P5, i think not.

Awful.

I will say that with the p5 getting autonomy, the gulf between us and our rear view mirror (non-5) is widening. So being a dreg of the p5 is a thousand times better than where we were or where we'd be without the ACC. I'm still counting our blessings that we are not UCONN. At the end of the day - we get a shot at climbing the ladder. Something that can't happen in a non p5.

No where to go but up!

 

[javadoc]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...-rankings-ratings-2015-college-football-teams

This is made up of 3 of Shafer's classes, and Marrone's last 1. This gives a better overall look since it's by 2 4 7 who uses a combination of all 3 of the major services. The only P5 programs we are Wake Forest, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, and Boston College. Coincidence that those 5 programs (probably minus BC) are viewed as the dregs of the P5, i think not.

How does our record over the last four years compare to those teams'?

 

[anomander]

How does our record over the last four years compare to those teams'?

I think we have slightly out performed our recruiting rankings during that period. We have been basically a .500 program, which i'd guess is what a top 50 class would get you.

 

[PhatOrange]

not a lot of correlation between that list and great records. Sure I'd rather be at the top but ...

Of all these schools in that top 25 list and NONE finished better than 8-5 and several of them had losing record and most around the 7-6 type record.

LSU
Auburn
Texas A&M
Texas
Notre Dame
Tennessee
Oklahoma
Miami
Michigan
South Carolina
Stanford
Washington
Arkansas
Virginia tech
Penn State

15 schools. More than half had marginal at best records.

 

[GoSU96]

All these rankings are skewed to who gets the four and five star players. SU has worked hard to bring up the bottom, and the top to bottom quality of classes has improved over time. Less reaches (qualifying, character) for athletes, less B and C list filler.

What hasn't happened is breaking through to recognized impact players, what list and however you want to define it.

Need to grab two or three consensus 4 stars, solid set of 3's, and then some high ceiling developmental kids from NY State like Bromley who have the measurables but might not have the experience and coaching you would find elsewhere.

I'm going to argue that just from a demographic perspective NYS has to have enough D-1 level athletes to support a the single P5 program in the state, they just are developed as game ready football players yet.

 

[javadoc]

I think we have slightly out performed our recruiting rankings during that period. We have been basically a .500 program, which i'd guess is what a top 50 class would get you.

Sounds reasonable. We have to do better, and at the risk of sounding like a skipping record... 2016 could be the year.

 

[anomander]

not a lot of correlation between that list and great records. Sure I'd rather be at the top but ...

Of all these schools in that top 25 list and NONE finished better than 8-5 and several of them had losing record and most around the 7-6 type record.

LSU
Auburn
Texas A&M
Texas
Notre Dame
Tennessee
Oklahoma
Miami
Michigan
South Carolina
Stanford
Washington
Arkansas
Virginia tech
Penn State

15 schools. More than half had marginal at best records.

Sure those schools may have had a bad record this year, but a bunch of them have been top 10 teams in the past 2 or 3 years, which is covered in those rankings. Hell Auburn, ND, and LSU played in the BCS Championship games, and Texas A&M, So Carolina, Stanford, and Oklahoma all played in a BCS game last year. Out of that group only Tennessee, and Arkansas have struggled.

 

[Upstate]

Miami is ahead of Oregon, Tennessee ahead of Clemson, Arkansas ahead of Baylor, Vandy ahead of Arizona, Texas Tech above TCU.

That's all you need to know about recruiting rankings.

 

[anomander]

Miami is ahead of Oregon, Tennessee ahead of Clemson, Arkansas ahead of Baylor, Vandy ahead of Arizona, Texas Tech above TCU.

That's all you need to know about recruiting rankings.

Sure there are outliers, but they look pretty straight forward to me. I don't think it's a coincidence that a handful of schools in the top 10 have recently played in the Championship game, and everyone below 50 (minus Duke last 2 yrs, and Gt this yr) has been a non-factor on the national landscape.

Also, do you realize the one constant with 4 of the examples you listed? Oregon, Baylor, Zona, and TCU all win with scheme, so it shows that a perfect scheme can win with lesser talent, something I wish we would go with, but that's a whole other thread.

 

[tep624]

Shafer's first two classes rate as follows:

2014

Rivals - 51st
Scout - 53rd
247 - 49th

Rough Average around 50

2015

Rivals - 62nd
Scout - 49th
247 - 54th

Rough Average around 55

I refuse to include ESPN because they compile their team rankings differently including subjective factors that the other sites don't include. It's not apples to apples.

Definitely room for improvement. I'd like to see us in the 30's consistently.

 

[Upstate]

Sure there are outliers, but they look pretty straight forward to me. I don't think it's a coincidence that a handful of schools in the top 10 have recently played in the Championship game, and everyone below 50 (minus Duke last 2 yrs, and Gt this yr) has been a non-factor on the national landscape.

Also, do you realize the one constant with 4 of the examples you listed? Oregon, Baylor, Zona, and TCU all win with scheme, so it shows that a perfect scheme can win with lesser talent, something I wish we would go with, but that's a whole other thread.

I agree with you, and it was partially my point. Scheme and style of play influence a lot. Also, for many teams, we see a lot of "veteran leaders", which I'd imagine is the style that HCSS wants to get into (and really he doesn't have much of a choice as of yet), as opposed to the flash-in-the-pan, lights-out freshman. But it goes to show, apart from the top of the top, it can really be a crapshoot. It certainly helps, but coaching may just trump talent.

 

[NashvilleOrange]

I agree with the point that a few impact players will make all the difference for us. That said, here are two articles from the last couple days on the importance of top recruiting classes.
Of note: Since 1998 every team to win the national title has had at least two top 10 recruiting classes in the previous 4 years.

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...sses-are-necessary-for-national-titles-020515

 

[longtimefan]

I agree with the point that a few impact players will make all the difference for us. That said, here are two articles from the last couple days on the importance of top recruiting classes.
Of note: Since 1998 every team to win the national title has had at least two top 10 recruiting classes in the previous 4 years.

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...sses-are-necessary-for-national-titles-020515

It's very unlikely we will ever have more than a single top ten class (if that) in a four year period.

 

[NashvilleOrange]

It's very unlikely we will ever have more than a single top ten class (if that) in a four year period.

Unfortunately true. One positive is that Oregon did not have a top 10 class over the last 4 years and they had a shot.

I recall hearing on the radio that the 1999 Virginia Tech team was the only team to appear in a BCS championship and not have a top 15 recruiting class over the previous 4 years. I can't find that stat anywhere online though.

 

[CanadianSU]

Oh...that's well ugh

 

[Full_Rebar]

Give Washington 44. Need to get one elite kid to draw the attention of others to SU...either that or this staff is going to have to do better with development and game day plans/adjustments if we want to move up in the ACC.

 

[jekelish]

Shafer's first two classes rate as follows:

2014

Rivals - 51st
Scout - 53rd
247 - 49th

Rough Average around 50

2015

Rivals - 62nd
Scout - 49th
247 - 54th

Rough Average around 55

I refuse to include ESPN because they compile their team rankings differently including subjective factors that the other sites don't include. It's not apples to apples.

Definitely room for improvement. I'd like to see us in the 30's consistently.

We could get into the top 30 for '16...paging Mr. Washington, Mr. Robert "Domino Effect" Washington...

 

[Rocco]

To continue beating that horse who is dead as shitt, why do the "rankings" matter? Perception is clearly the biggest advantage for a school ranked "higher", but at the end of the day, these rankings are so horribly inaccurate year in and year out.

If we're not landing NFL-ready kids out of HS like Bama, FSU and USC, then let's keep improving on what we're doing.

When I think of rankings and the endless worshipping of them, I want to punch someone...

 

[anomander]

To continue beating that horse who is dead as shitt, why do the "rankings" matter? Perception is clearly the biggest advantage for a school ranked "higher", but at the end of the day, these rankings are so horribly inaccurate year in and year out.

If we're not landing NFL-ready kids out of HS like Bama, FSU and USC, then let's keep improving on what we're doing.

When I think of rankings and the endless worshipping of them, I want to punch someone...

How are they inaccurate? What teams below 50 are doing anything on the national landscape? Obviously it's not an exact science, but for the most part they you're pretty close to where you are in the rankings. The one's who over achieve (Oregon, Baylor, Zona, TCU) are the ones who out scheme you.

 

[Rocco]

How are they inaccurate? What teams below 50 are doing anything on the national landscape? Obviously it's not an exact science, but for the most part they you're pretty close to where you are in the rankings. The one's who over achieve (Oregon, Baylor, Zona, TCU) are the ones who out scheme you.

It's difficult to quantify, but there are so many outliers that the "rankings" completely miss and then are the "studs" who end up being bust. It's incredibly inaccurate.

Besides the factory schools year in and year out who just crush it, everyone is very mediocre.

Remember the "great" Rutgers classes (per the "rankings") over the last several years? Where did that get them??? Absolutely nowhere.

Anything outside of the top 5-7 is a crapshoot. JMO.

 

[chakka3421]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...-rankings-ratings-2015-college-football-teams

This is made up of 3 of Shafer's classes, and Marrone's last 1. This gives a better overall look since it's by 2 4 7 who uses a combination of all 3 of the major services. The only P5 programs we are Wake Forest, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, and Boston College. Coincidence that those 5 programs (probably minus BC) are viewed as the dregs of the P5, i think not.

Ano - I get your point and it's ok to be down. But I would content we were probably in the 70s to 80s ranking when Marrone took over. That's what Grob did to the program. To build a program back up like SU, you have to look long term.

My point is that we are getting better each year in many ways not just rankings. Next year, assuming we have a 6-7-8 win season and since the staff is so far ahead moving into 2017 recruits, let's look for the trend next year. If we bring overall 4 year rankings into the mid 50s next year, let's stop being critical and start getting pumped! Can we at least do that next year?

Call me the eternal optimist, but I like what Shafer and company are doing on the recruiting trail. Even more impressive is the diversity of the states we recruit from including being back in NE-NJ-PA along with IL & FL and heck even AL. It bothered me (and I know it did to you) that it seemed like Shafer left the NE-NJ recruiting ground that Marrone had build up. Shafer made a terrific hire with Acosta - he's back in NE-NY-NJ and that's what was missing in Shafers first 2 recruiting classes.

Let it play out and you should be supporting Shafer now because of the Acosta hire and the diversity of the recruiting grounds and what Marrone never did, get out in front of the class 2-3 years out. Nuff said.

 

[rrlbees]

Ano - I get your point and it's ok to be down. But I would content we were probably in the 70s to 80s ranking when Marrone took over.

40's and 50's actually.

 

[Upstate]

40's and 50's actually.

I was thinking the same. It's funny how different styles, types, personalities of coaches can get similar classes. I see what could set HCSS and FHCDM together, but it's pretty obvious how different they are, as well.