Basic recruiting question

F

fuzzymath

25+ Posts
Caveat: I don't follow recruiting closely but there is nothing else to read in the offseason, so I am trying to learn about it.

I have been reading a lot of posts about how everyone is really excited about how such and such guy just committed. Also reading speculation about how this could be one of Mack's best classes ever.

My question is, what is it that is making this current haul of 11 or 12 guys so great? Are the star rankings for these guys out? On what basis do we know if they are any good, besides the "if our coaches offered them they must be good" argument? Kind of my concern here is that we started out with a #1 class last year because we got a couple of elite athletes and a whole bunch of good athletes. Then, as USC and LSU started to fill out their classes, they actually ended up with more elite athletes than we did.

I understand why last year's class was strong early on, because we got this Gilbert kid who everyone says is awesome. This year it sounds like the key talent is this DE Jeffcoat and RB Seastrunk. I have read that Jeffcoat looks like an instant game-changer who could start right away, and that Seastrunk has incredible talent and is a once-every-few-years type of player. So my question is, given how we haven't gotten commitments from these two key players, how can we say that this class is great? We never seem to add more elite athletes later on, so basically, why do we think this class is going to get any better than it already is?

From what I can tell the only kind of ranking that has come out is the Lone Star 100, which is the 100 best players in the state. We have one guy committed who is in the top 10. After that, it seems that the rankings are pretty fungible. Is getting someone who is #50 in the LSR a really great get? To me, if you are the #50 player in Texas, you are probably not even in the the top 250 nationally (if we went purely by per capita, being #50 in Texas would put you somewhere broadly around #500 in the country). It seems to me what we should really care about is how much "top" talent we get--isn't it the guys in the top 100 or 250 or whatever nationally that have the highest chance of being a real VY or Colt or Derrick Johnson or whatever star that will be able to take over a game and win it for you?

So, if we take something like 22 kids per year, am I wrong in thinking about this by saying that "hey, what really makes a class great is if all 22 of those are among the top 100 or 250 or whatever prospects nationwide".

I could be way off base. But my reasoning is so far away from the majority of what I have read that it makes me think that I am missing some key point, and I'd appreciate if someone can help me fill this gap.
 
The Lone Star 100 rankings will change so much between now and signing day that they are practically worthless. I try to look at what other programs have offered the kid, and most of the kids we've landed have an impressive list of offers. For example, 9 of the kids we have committed right now are holding offers from OU.
 
Good post. My take on this class is that we are in the "good" range now, not "great". Expectation is that we will land several of the top 10 in Texas this year, which will then move us into the "great" territory. If you are a craps player, we are betting on the "come".
The talent level in Texas this year is miles above past years, so getting a lot of the top 10 will translate to a "great" class. We are currently in the running for a large group of the best this state has offered in many years, so optimism reigns!
hookem.gif
 
Admittedly, I also don't follow recruiting as closely as some and I don't have an account on Rivals, so I can't watch videos on most of these guys, but it is way too soon to be calling this one of Mack's best classes. If we let Jeffcoat, Seastrunk AND Wilson go, I would not call this one of Mack's best classes. We need those guys. Badly.
 
That is a great question fuzzymath and I am sure it is going to get a large amount of different opinions probably with none being completely right or completely wrong. We do get excited when we get a top ranked recruit because this is part of our future. Of course recruits only have the potential to be good or great players and none of us has a crystal ball and can tell. Usually the rankings are fairly reliable but must be taken with a grain of salt. Also as you know some recruits work out well others unfortunately don't because of the unforeseen such as bad injuries, attrition, grades, etc. We are pleased with the 12 we have and hope they all become great and have great futures. I am like most others I don't look much at national rankings because you never know. I have seen No. 1 ranked recruiting classes go on to win national championships and others have disappointments. It is the future production on the football field that really measures success and not opinions even though it is nice to be highly thought of. Incredible talent does not always produce unfortunately even though it usually does. I have seen top ranked recruits not make it big and others not as highly thought of become big stars such as Colt being a good example.
It is true we go a lot on our coaches say that they are good but it is for good reason. We have had 10 win seasons for a while now and probably at least 95% or more of big times schools would love to have our record. We have now movied up to no. 2 in all time wins. The Coaches have earned our trust in recruiting because of the great success on the field with all the ten won seasons and the NC of 2005 plus we should have had a shot last year.
It is true we mainly recruit Texas players and for good reason. We have talent here and many want to be Longhorns. Remember we have won 4 NCs and have been in the hunt other times with mainly Texas players.
It is interesting to discuss top 100 players in the State and in the Country but it is just opinions. As mentioned most become good but not always and there are always exceptions to every rule. Remember how LSU class jumped up when RP changed from Texas to LSU. But look what happened in the long run.
It all makes great discussion especailly in the off season but future production is what counts. Plus our coaches have earned our trust in their judgements regarding athletes. That is one reason we get excited on the early announcements and hope we get more.
hookem.gif
 
I think the defense is already shaping up to be great. We'll probably see national top 100 players in Dixon, Bible, and Benson. If we can land Wilson and either Hicks or Nelson that would be great. If we are able to land all three, well......
yippee.gif


Its on the offensive side where it might be a little tougher trying to grab Seastrunk, Matthews, and the two OOS players. It'd be great if, say, Demarco Cobbs committed this weekend.
 
i would just like to point out that our heisman runner-up qb colt mccoy was not a some big time elite recruit. our coaches believed he would be great. so, sometimes, you do have to tip your hats to the coaches that evaluate and project talent.

skc
 
The 2009 class just signed actually ranked third in the nation. Just behind LSU and Alabama and ahead of USC and Florida. Though any class rankings are meaningless at this point.

Who had the best class? Check back in three or four years and find out. Did anybody notice how horrible those 2*/3* recruits at Utah looked when they played 4*/5* Alabama?
 
Thanks everyone for the responses. A followup, to the extent that you put stock in recruiting rankings at all, do yall put more emphasis on the integer ranking or the average star number? The average star number is an indicator of overall quality, but to me doesn't tell the whole story--you could get all three stars, or have 1 five star, 9 four stars, 9 two-stars, and a no star and have an average less than three, but in my opinion still have a better class (because the two stars won't start anyway but the top players will make a big difference on the field). On the other hand, the aggregate ranking is a combination of quantity and quality but I have no idea how much they weight the two, so it's hard to draw much from it.

As an aside, a buddy of mine from law school (a Florida State fan) told me that even the star rankings can hide some bias. He said that they try to distribute the five star rankings evenly across the country to drive up interest, but in reality some of the four stars from a talent-rich state like Texas might actually be five stars in other parts of the country. So, he was saying that in truth some of our classes might be underrated even before they step on the field. Would like to get some thoughts on this too.
 
Fuzzymath,

(1) Your Florida State friend is correct.

(2) Generally speaking, I would put a lot more stock into average star rating. However, there are a couple situations where the number could be skewed. First, for example, if there were a situation where a kicker and punter were signed in the same class (don't even know the last time that happened), it would significantly skew the average star rating downward. Going by average stars, the class may just look ok or decent, where in actuality it would be great. Another situation where it could get weird is if the star average was high but the class itself was really small (say 11 or 12 people). However, Texas will likely have a class of 19-23 for 2010. Therefore, I'd just compare the average star rating between Texas and other schools to get an idea of how we're doing in recruiting.
 
Fuzzy...rating recruiting classes is at best a crap shoot.

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, you can't really get a good picture of how good or not a class is until three or four years down the line.

The coaches rely on observation, feedback from high school coaches, family, schools, and personal visits with recruits. Potential recruits are tracked a long time, usually starting around their sophomore years in high school, and in some cases, even earlier. One of the last measurables in deciding whether or not to make an offer would be some recruiting service's ratings.

This is not to say the recruiting service ratings are without merit. It is to say that the ratings are subjective. You can check the difference in ratings of various players from one service to the next to see what I mean about subjective. You can also track the ratings of a player from the start of his senior year to the end of recruiting season...those ratings are fluid.

The recruiting service ratings are about the only tool available to the average fan, so the more stars, the more attractive the recruit. As noted previously, a better way to rate a recruit for the average fan would probably be to check on the schools that are actively recruiting the player. There's no certainty in this, but it's highly probable that a player being recruited by OU, LSU, USC etc. is a better high school player than one being recruited only by directional schools and small time 1-A teams.

Like I said...it's a crap shoot rating recruiting classes, but it's about the only fun available between the end of the season and the start of spring training.
 
One caveat on these recruiting rankings: don't put all your faith in one or two. There are probably a dozen or more (Rivals, Scout, ESPN, Parade, Texas Football, DMN, et al.) of these both at state & national levels.

It's best (if you're really serious about recruiting) to cross-reference how various players stack up. You get a better overall picture. For instance, Rivals likes to spread its 5-* rankings (which it only awards to about 20 players in each class) around the country, as your FSU friend pointed out. Scout has a lot more 5-* rankings, so you can't really look at just that factor in comparing with other services. Focus on position rank.

ESPN seems to have a bias for East & West coast athletes. For instance, any time Pete Carroll gets a commit, that player automatically becomes a national top-50 recruit.
rolleyes.gif
 
Scout's new list is up.

the link

From this list you can probably gather that Bible and Dixon are 5-star recruits, and that Wood, Hopkins, and Benson are national 100 type recruits. If you assume that we get one of Jeffcoat/Wilson, Nelson/Hicks, Darius White/Cobbs, that we might really want to zero in on Lache Seastrunk.

ESPN rankings are terrible, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top