Comparing Classes

[Lake City Hog]

I have never been a "Star Gazer" and truly believe that our coaches know more about prospects than guys at Rivals or 247. Saying that leads me to today's Demozette and the SEC classes.
Using Rivals as a baseline since it appears that the paper did I kinda compared our class to some of the other SEC classes. According to my count we signed
7 recruits @ 4*
16 recruits @ 3*
1 recruit @ 2* and had an overall rating of 25th.

Tennessee killed it with 4 recruits @ 5*!! 29 recruits total
They finished at #5 overall.

S Carolina came in ranked behind Mississippi State at #19.
They got 11 recruits @ 4*, that's right 11! 2 @ 2* and the rest @ 3*. Oh and they had 31 recruits sign!!!

Mississippi State came in with 28 recruits and a team ranking of # 16.
6 recruits @ 4*
20 recruits @ 3*
2 recruits @ 2*
In my opinion a bit less of a quality of a class than us but ranked 9 spots higher!

Ole Miss signed 22 and finished #21, 4 spots above us.
6 recruits @ 4*
14 recruits @ 3*
2 recruits @ 2*
Again, in my opinion a class of lesser quality than ours.

I cannot understand how a class with 1 less 4* recruit, 1 MORE 2* and 2 less recruits overall could be rated higher than us. BTW, none of the 2* recruits mentioned were kickers!

Two things really jump out at me:
1. Several SEC teams are circumventing the SEC limit of 25 and again, in my opinion gaining an unfair advantage.

2. There seems to be no real rhyme or reason to recruiting rankings. If you really look at it Tennessee had the best overall class probably in the country! 5 5* and 12 4* are you kidding me???


I think that we signed a very good class and probably just a bit better than our ranking shows. I would say that we should probably be at #19 with Ole Miss taking our spot and Mississippi State falling right in that range too(maybe 24).

[Huds_HawgTide]

Agreed on the MS schools

[Huds_HawgTide]

Sounds like they both got some bonus pts for how highly rated a cpl 4 stars were...shouldnt we get some bonus pts for having number one TE class

[redeye]

You need to look at the numerical ratings, rather then the stars, and rivals likely awards bonus points for players in their rivals100, etc.  When you look at the numerical rating, you'll likely find that teams that are unsuspectingly ahead of us have higher rated 4-star players, because this is where it shows up the most.

Back in the old days, you'd see the same thing with rivals, except teams would be ranked higher simply because rivals thought they filled their needs better.  I don't think that subjectivity exists today, but I may be wrong.

[hawginbigd1]

There isn't in most year a plug nickels difference between 7or8 to around 25! The top 100 recruits get bonus points, but not 101, 102 and so on. The top 300 recruits on most shift and move over about 18 months, some to do with injuries, camps attended, on field performance, and who they have received offers and interest from. So ratings are very arbitrary hence the reason they don't matter near as much as some think. Several schools star ratings or below or equal to ours but they signed recruit #98 and we signed # 106, the difference between those 2 must be huge! Sarcasm off

[hawgfan4life]

# Uncommon is not factored into ratings.  If it were, we would be significantly higher.  Do not mean that jokingly.  If we signed the class we did and they have the character and work ethic that truly meets the uncommon mantra, we have a much higher rated team. Woo Pig

[WarPig88]

I have seen the criteria for ranking classes by some of the services before and "meeting your needs" is one of them.

I think it is bs that a recruiting service that does not know what you have developing in practices and off season can claim to know if a program is meeting it's needs or not.

I feel like it is the gray area that allows them to cherry pick ratings based on a programs recent tradition rather than really having an idea of how good recruits really are.

I mean HALF of NFL first rounders are 3 and 2 star guys. When you understand that in a draft cycle that there are more than enough 5 and 4 star guys to cover the entire draft, much less the first round, then you begin to see through the bs of class rankings.

These services are about selling subscriptions and you don't do that by rating the gung ho fan bases' teams low year in and year out.

[jgphillips3]

All of our kids have character.  All of our kids can contribute and they are all capable of making their grades, staying on the roster and graduating.  Yes, some will transfer, get injured or leave for other reasons, but we don't have high talent/low character kids that inflate rankings but will likely flame out.  Re rank this class in 2019 and I bet it could be as high as a top ten class based on their full 4 year production.

[HogsOfAnarchy]

All of our kids have character.  All of our kids can contribute and they are all capable of making their grades, staying on the roster and graduating.  Yes, some will transfer, get injured or leave for other reasons, but we don't have high talent/low character kids that inflate rankings but will likely flame out.  Re rank this class in 2019 and I bet it could be as high as a top ten class based on their full 4 year production.

Thank u for writing this. Possibly the best post I've ever read on HV. Couldn't have said it better myself

[reddogjcss]

Please explain how some schools can sign more than 25 and why we could not, even with extra scholarships?
I just never had it explained to me and do not know rules on this.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I believe most services only consider the best 20 in a class when figuring the ranking. 

And of course our coaches, or any coaching staff for at matter, can better evaluate a player than any service, but that's an irrelevant argument.  The fact is, our staff offered many, many 4 and 5 star players, which would suggest they agreed with the "evaluation" of the recruiting services.  They just didn't get the vaaaaaast majority of them...like most programs. 

Please explain how some schools can sign more than 25 and why we could not, even with extra scholarships?
I just never had it explained to me and do not know rules on this.

Very Generally speaking, if a team under signs one year by say 2 (signs 23 total), then the next year they can over sign by 2 (total 27) provided those 2 are early enrollees, and they don't exceed 85 total.  As early enrollees, The 2 extras would count toward the previous class that was deficient by 2 giving it now a total of 25.   And the current class of 27 would actually then be 25. We've signed our 25 allotment the last couple years, so we've not had available slots to take extras to count back to a previously deficient class...because there hasn't been a deficient class.

Clear as mud.

[reddogjcss]

Thank u Bubba

[FBREW000]

anyone want to explain gray shirts, blue shirts, etc...

Tenner has been playing this up for a while now, and quite frankly it sucks!

[Pork Twain]

Stars matter and it is hard to argue, but how much they matter is what is debatable.  Like I have said before, the difference between a high 3* and a low 5* is very minor and I doubt there is a recruiting service out there that accurately access all college eligible players.  Here is a look at the assessed value given to the top and bottom at each star ranking.  You also have to keep in mind who the guys are that are making these grades down to the ten thousandths.  These are not coaches or recruiters we are talking about here.

Top 5* player (#1)
Trent Thompson 0.9991

Lowest 5* player (#35)
Osa Masina  0.9845

Top 4* player (#35)
Kyle Phillips 0.9831

Lowest 4* player (#343)
Jay Jay Wilson  0.8901

Top 3* player (#344)
Jon Dietzen 0.8898

Lowest 3* player (#2070)
Jonah Jackson  0.7970

Top 2* player (#2071)
Joshua Thomas  0.7967

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool

[hawg IQ]

I have never been a "Star Gazer" and truly believe that our coaches know more about prospects than guys at Rivals or 247. Saying that leads me to today's Demozette and the SEC classes.
Using Rivals as a baseline since it appears that the paper did I kinda compared our class to some of the other SEC classes. According to my count we signed
7 recruits @ 4*
16 recruits @ 3*
1 recruit @ 2* and had an overall rating of 25th.

Tennessee killed it with 4 recruits @ 5*!! 29 recruits total
They finished at #5 overall.

S Carolina came in ranked behind Mississippi State at #19.
They got 11 recruits @ 4*, that's right 11! 2 @ 2* and the rest @ 3*. Oh and they had 31 recruits sign!!!

Mississippi State came in with 28 recruits and a team ranking of # 16.
6 recruits @ 4*
20 recruits @ 3*
2 recruits @ 2*
In my opinion a bit less of a quality of a class than us but ranked 9 spots higher!

Ole Miss signed 22 and finished #21, 4 spots above us.
6 recruits @ 4*
14 recruits @ 3*
2 recruits @ 2*
Again, in my opinion a class of lesser quality than ours.

I cannot understand how a class with 1 less 4* recruit, 1 MORE 2* and 2 less recruits overall could be rated higher than us. BTW, none of the 2* recruits mentioned were kickers!

Two things really jump out at me:
1. Several SEC teams are circumventing the SEC limit of 25 and again, in my opinion gaining an unfair advantage.

2. There seems to be no real rhyme or reason to recruiting rankings. If you really look at it Tennessee had the best overall class probably in the country! 5 5* and 12 4* are you kidding me???


I think that we signed a very good class and probably just a bit better than our ranking shows. I would say that we should probably be at #19 with Ole Miss taking our spot and Mississippi State falling right in that range too(maybe 24).

Again, on recruiting would make more sense, if they were to be re-ranked each season all the way through to senior season. I will guarantee a lot of 4-stars and some 5 stars will be complete flops.
 
Where teams like Alabama gets better players is in the numbers. Also they circumvent the system with gray shirts.
  This don't ever get mentioned, but big boosters do get smarter also .

[Shorttimer]

I think you'd be better served to look at recruiting rankings as a lag indicator instead of a lead indicator.  As was correctly pointed out earlier in this thread, college coaches are much more qualified to evaluate talent than recruiting services.  Becuase of that, recruiting services more often than not assign rankings, not based on their evaluations, but based on which school is interested/offering.

Arkansas can be on a kid and he will not be highly ranked until Saban or Miles walks into his high school to talk to his coach.  Because of the on-field success of the Alabama or LSU programs, that recruit automatically gets an elevated ranking.  Not because his ability changed, but rather because teams that have been uber-successful in evaluating and recruiting talent in the past have deemed the kid worthy of attention.

Stated differently, everyone on Alabama's wish list is rated highly because Alabama has them on their wish list. 

[Pudgepork]

This coaching staff recruits to its system, period.   I don't think they ever recruit a super star knowing that he really doesn't fit into what they run.  I don't think that was the case in Arkansas not so distant past

[Qadi999]

I think you'd be better served to look at recruiting rankings as a lag indicator instead of a lead indicator.  As was correctly pointed out earlier in this thread, college coaches are much more qualified to evaluate talent than recruiting services.  Becuase of that, recruiting services more often than not assign rankings, not based on their evaluations, but based on which school is interested/offering.

Arkansas can be on a kid and he will not be highly ranked until Saban or Miles walks into his high school to talk to his coach.  Because of the on-field success of the Alabama or LSU programs, that recruit automatically gets an elevated ranking.  Not because his ability changed, but rather because teams that have been uber-successful in evaluating and recruiting talent in the past have deemed the kid worthy of attention.

Stated differently, everyone on Alabama's wish list is rated highly because Alabama has them on their wish list. 

This may be the dumbest post Ive ever seen. According to your logic Bama should get 25  5* every year .

[reddogjcss]

Red shirt means you practice with team, you are a team member but you don't play in any games that year and the year you red shirt does not count toward your 4 years of eligible playing time. If you play any during your red shirt year your eligibility is counted for the year.
As far as grey, blue and any other color shirt, I have no idea only guesses.

[ricepig]

Red shirt means you practice with team, you are a team member but you don't play in any games that year and the year you red shirt does not count toward your 4 years of eligible playing time. If you play any during your red shirt year your eligibility is counted for the year.
As far as grey, blue and any other color shirt, I have no idea only guesses.

Grey shirt- you wait until Jan to join the football team, and thus will be counted in the next year's recruiting class. If you attend in the fall, you must pay for our own way and can not be associated with the program in any fashion.

Blue shirt- is a recruit who hasn't been on an official visit to the school, or had an in-home visit with the staff. This recruit shows up in fall and is put on scholarship and counts towards the next class, too.

[Shorttimer]

This may be the dumbest post Ive ever seen. According to your logic Bama should get 25  5* every year .

That's not what my logic indicates at all.

Alabama being on a kid doesn't make him a 5 star.  But you can't reasonably argue that it doesn't elevate his ranking with recruiting services.  In that sense, Alabama's recruiting classes--or Ohio State's or Florida State's--will continually be high as long as they continue their on-field success.

[Science Fiction Greg]

This may be the dumbest post Ive ever seen. According to your logic Bama should get 25  5* every year .

Actually, he's one of the few that has it right.