The Clemson Insider Forums

The Clemson Insider Forums (http://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/mb/index.php)
-   All In Recruiting (http://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/mb/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Team Recruiting Rankings (http://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/mb/showthread.php?t=54432)

dgpegues 12-15-2015 07:41 AM

Team Recruiting Rankings
 
Some time ago, someone posted the name of the recruiting site where you could see recruiting rankings stacked by team and weighted so teams bringing in large classes didn't out score smaller classes in the point system.


Anyone remember or know what site that was?

I was trying to describe it to a coworker this morning and haven't figured it out.

Thanks...Go Tigers!

jslacktiger 12-15-2015 01:06 PM

Re: Team Recruiting Rankings
 
I don't know the site you are referencing...but your question got me thinking...

Where would our class rank IF we had larger numbers?

So I went to the 247 class calculator (lots of fun to play with, btw) and added a couple of names to see what would happen.

If we were to add 4 names to our commit list: Shaq Smith, Overton, Simpson (all reasonable additions based on what we are hearing/reading around here) and Blue (since we didn't get Edwards) just for fun..

the calculator bumps us up to the 3rd ranked class overall (255.25 score)...with 17 commits...same # of commits as OSU, LSU, FSU and Bama (ranked 1, 2, 4, & 5) in that scenario...

so although it doesn't give you the website you are looking for, it does provide some fun data!

dgpegues 12-15-2015 01:31 PM

Re: Team Recruiting Rankings
 
You are so absolutely right...I love going through the "what ifs" with the 247 calculator. I did the same thing this morning.

I can definitely see your scenario coming true.


I want to say it was Rivals who does a weighted rank, but I couldn't find it and just got too busy to look over the other sites.

Thanks for your response...I could talk about recruiting all day. This is why I prefer college football over the NFL. The coaches have to plan and foster a program knowing they may only have three years with each player. No ability to just shop the marketplace when a need arises.

What Dabo is doing is a true hallmark of a great program, not just focusing on one year's team.

MRTTMT 12-15-2015 02:05 PM

Re: Team Recruiting Rankings
 
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...k/2016/all/all

Click on the AVG column ,might have to click twice. You'll get it ranked be pure player average. Right now, we're 4th with a 3.64 average per player.

dgpegues 12-15-2015 02:19 PM

Re: Team Recruiting Rankings
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MRTTMT (Post 334366)
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...k/2016/all/all

Click on the AVG column ,might have to click twice. You'll get it ranked be pure player average. Right now, we're 4th with a 3.64 average per player.

Awesome...thanks!

I was also looking at 247 and the average player score there. I think it has us as at fourth, but a different order of leaders.

TigerNE 12-15-2015 05:03 PM

Re: Team Recruiting Rankings
 
Ratings, schmatings. I've never seen a follow up review of the values given to high school kids after some or all of their college experience. I still say it's mostly arbitrary. Highly ranked kids are good. Very lowly ranked kids probably will never play at an elite level. But there are enough Baker Mayfields out there to prove it to be inaccurate.

On top of individual rankings, the team rankings are even worse. Size of class has a greater impact than individual rankings. So if you simply build up with a lot of midrange talent, somehow that is better than filling only a few needed slots with all elite players. You couldn't engineer anything with that math.

dgpegues 12-16-2015 07:31 AM

Re: Team Recruiting Rankings
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerNE (Post 334391)
Ratings, schmatings. I've never seen a follow up review of the values given to high school kids after some or all of their college experience. I still say it's mostly arbitrary. Highly ranked kids are good. Very lowly ranked kids probably will never play at an elite level. But there are enough Baker Mayfields out there to prove it to be inaccurate.

On top of individual rankings, the team rankings are even worse. Size of class has a greater impact than individual rankings. So if you simply build up with a lot of midrange talent, somehow that is better than filling only a few needed slots with all elite players. You couldn't engineer anything with that math.

I agree to an extent with what you're saying about ratings not being the end all, be all, but this is all I have. I wish I had time to watch film on all of the recruits out there and evaluate them myself (not to mention I wish I had the football intelligence also).

You're absolutely correct when it comes to taking a big class and how that is somehow better than a smaller, more elite one...that's the purpose of this thread, to rank classes based on quality, not quantity.

Regardless, the player development track record at Clemson does speak for itself. The way I look at it is a lot like most degrees...kind of just shows how trainable you are. My hopes are, you put good into the system, you get better out...no matter what level you start.

TigerNE 12-16-2015 09:03 AM

Re: Team Recruiting Rankings
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dgpegues (Post 334469)
I agree to an extent with what you're saying about ratings not being the end all, be all, but this is all I have. I wish I had time to watch film on all of the recruits out there and evaluate them myself (not to mention I wish I had the football intelligence also).

You're absolutely correct when it comes to taking a big class and how that is somehow better than a smaller, more elite one...that's the purpose of this thread, to rank classes based on quality, not quantity.

Regardless, the player development track record at Clemson does speak for itself. The way I look at it is a lot like most degrees...kind of just shows how trainable you are. My hopes are, you put good into the system, you get better out...no matter what level you start.

I think we agree. At least my view is you can generalize about ratings. And looking at player "star" averages is maybe the best way to do that. Team ratings are almost a joke. I remember last year (2015 class) noticing that WVU had pretty high ratings because of a massive class - was it 31 kids? But they only had three 4 star picks and everybody else was 3 star or lower. But somehow they ranked higher than teams with 4 and 5 star picks just because of.....well, quantity.

Generally, if teams are routinely getting mostly 3, 4, and 5 star players, and are generally getting high class ratings, that is generally good. Generally. But thinking a team that ranks 5th one year is necessarily doing better than a team ranking 10th is silly. At least to me. Generally.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.