2018 Recruiting Thread

[PSUinNC]

Correlation is not the same as causation.  It's also certainly possible that the types of coaches that bring in top recruiting classes are also the types of coaches that are simply good at coaching the game, hence the positive results.  Or any number of other variables I don't care enough to discuss or explore.
But yeah, like I already said, I'd always rather get good player than bad players.  And if a player gets offers from Alabama, Southern Cal, Oklahoma, and Ohio State, there's a decent chance he's going to succeed at those schools, or any other school he chooses to attend. Not because he has a certain number of stars next to his name, but because several successful programs with proven track records of talent evaluation have independently made the decision that he's worth an offer.

Well, obviously the recruiter has to be able to coach as well.  But if you're gunning for NC's, I'd rather have a lights out recruiter who is an above average coach than a world class coach who is an OK at recruiting.  

[mcwterps1]

Maryland seems to have done well in recruiting.
How are the 2017 QBs recovering? Will Maryland play a tight end at QB? Are there other injured personnel returning?
The Twerps get to play the Hawkeyes, who had 66 yards total offense against Wisconsin in 2017. If Maryland were not the Twerps, then the Hawkeyes Offense which was No. 116, would qualify as Twerps.

Anyway . . . if Maryland has a defense, they could probably stop Iowa. But, Iowa has a defense.  Send some scouting material on the Twerp offense and defense from someone in the know.

What in the actual F is this jibberish? 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Correlation is not the same as causation.  It's also certainly possible that the types of coaches that bring in top recruiting classes are also the types of coaches that are simply good at coaching the game, hence the positive results.  Or any number of other variables I don't care enough to discuss or explore.

I think they're two very distinct skills, and not necessarily correlated. I.e. being a good coach doesn't necessarily mean you're a good recruiter, and being a good recruiter doesn't mean you're a good coach. To be able to do both at an elite level [Saban] is rare. 
Now, I agree with you that high recruiting classes don't "cause" program success. If you put me in charge of coaching Alabama's roster, I think Alabama would finish the year with a losing record. Because I have zero coaching experience and all the talent in the world wouldn't mask that. 
Nor does coaching "cause" program success. If you put Nick Saban in charge of coaching UAB's roster, he's not reaching the CFP. He might have a winning record against G5 competition, but he'd have a losing record against P5 competition. 
The two are related. Talent and coaching together win football games. I personally think coaching is more important than talent overall--as is often seen when a new coach takes over a blue-blood program with an elite roster and fails, or when a new coach [like Jeff Brohm] takes over a team with pretty mediocre talent and actually gets them to outperform. But talent matters, and recruiting rankings are an imperfect but valuable measure of talent.
The only thing I would state is while I don't think "ability to coach" and "ability to recruit" are correlated, I would say that recruiting rankings correlate with coaching talent, for one reason: success recruits itself. You can be a mediocre recruiter but if you can win football games, you don't have to "recruit" talent nearly as much as it comes to you. Winning football games makes the job of recruiting MUCH easier, but I would still say there's a lot of skill involved in recruiting on top of merely kids being attracted to program success.

[847badgerfan]

After UW won back-to-back Rose Bowls almost 20 years ago, King Barry and Co. swung for the fences and tried to land the upper-level kids. What he got was a bunch of plan B and plan C kids, and it showed.

2001: 5-7 (last bowl miss)
2002: 8-6
2003: 7-6

He got back to what "brought" him in 2001 and the results were:

2004: 9-3
2005: 10-3 (his final season)
2006: 12-1 (BB's first season)

Only now, almost 30 years since he took over and a long string of success this decade+, are "big time" recruits starting to pay attention when UW offers.

30 years. And UW is still not "there" yet. Getting very close, but not quite. Think about that.

The other thing is that there are only so many wins to go around in the conference. UW's success over the last 12-15 years coincides with Michigan not being Michigan. So, in the simplest sense, UW has been taking Michigan's wins. Thus, for another school to rise, one of two things needs to happen:

Someone else has to fall, or the bottom of the conference has to completely suck (the 0-2 conference wins kinda suck, and only winning against each other).

[SFBadger96]

To be fair to Michigan, some of the wins also come as a benefit of conference expansion/dilution. Not only do the teams play more games, but they play fewer against the conference beasts. Everyone hopes that the divisions are balanced, but right now they aren't--and rarely have been. There were a couple of years there--when Wisconsin was really, really good--the Legends and Leaders divisions were both really competitive, but since the east/west split it hasn't really been that way. That's allowed some great regular seasons without having to play the top teams. In the old days a team missed maybe one of the big kids. Now that same team might miss three.

[847badgerfan]

To be fair to Michigan, some of the wins also come as a benefit of conference expansion/dilution. Not only do the teams play more games, but they play fewer against the conference beasts. Everyone hopes that the divisions are balanced, but right now they aren't--and rarely have been. There were a couple of years there--when Wisconsin was really, really good--the Legends and Leaders divisions were both really competitive, but since the east/west split it hasn't really been that way. That's allowed some great regular seasons without having to play the top teams. In the old days a team missed maybe one of the big kids. Now that same team might miss three.

You make good points, but I was also thinking of the rise (after the brief "fall") from 2009-2011.

PSU was also down a lot of that time, but seems to be legitimately "back" under Franklin - at the expense of Michigan probably.

So if Michigan gets "back", where are the wins coming from? OSU, PSU or MSU? For the next 4 years their crossover is Wisconsin. They can certainly manage that given the talent they bring in (even still), but it's the toughest draw out of all the rest of the East schools - for now at least.

[847badgerfan]

The West, by the 247 average player rating:

1. Nebraska, 87.7
2. Wisconsin, 86.5
3. Minnesota, 86.2
4. Iowa, 85.6
5. Northwestern, 85.4
6. Purdue, 84.7
7. Illinois, 84.0

The East, by the 247 average player rating:

1. Ohio State, 94.3
2. Penn State, 91.7
3. Michigan, 88.8
4. Maryland, 87.1
5. Michigan State, 87.0
6. Indiana, 84.9
7. Rutgers, 84.4

Compared with the below, which includes the total number of players in the ranking basis.



The East stays the same but the West gets shuffled as UW (20) and NU (18) had relatively small classes.

[FearlessF]

Gophers don't usually end up 3rd in the west in average player rating

[FearlessF]

https://www.cornnation.com/2018/2/9/16994746/national-signing-day-recruit-map-2018

[FearlessF]

sorry, this one is just the B1G

[FearlessF]

Rivals.com top 25 recruiters of 2018

Led by Rivals.com Recruiter of the Year Dell McGee, the list of the top 25 college football assistant coach recruiters of the 2018 class spans the country and includes staff members from each of the Power Five conferences.

After McGee, we list the coaches alphabetically.

https://nebraska.rivals.com/news/rivals-com-top-25-recruiters-of-2018

[ELA]

3* DT Dashaun Mallory who has been trying to commit to MSU for months has still not been cleared by admissions, and will not sign today.  Kind of weird to see a guy who hasn't even officially committed say he won't sign with MSU today, but it's clear admissions is the only hurdle.  Unclear if he'll keep trying, or do JUCO for a year, or go elsewhere where he can get admitted.

Sounded for a while like he might end up at Illinois, but apparently yesterday he was cleared at MSU, and he's signing today.  He could certainly use a redshirt, but at a position of need, my guess is he sees the field this year.

[847badgerfan]

Sounded for a while like he might end up at Illinois, but apparently yesterday he was cleared at MSU, and he's signing today.  He could certainly use a redshirt, but at a position of need, my guess is he sees the field this year.

If he was waiting on clearance, there was probably no shot for Illinois. They have really high admission standards down there - among the toughest in the conference for athletes.

[ELA]

If he was waiting on clearance, there was probably no shot for Illinois. They have really high admission standards down there - among the toughest in the conference for athletes.

I think it had to do with a class counting, and having to retake it.  MSU has always been really weird when it comes to that.  As someone who transferred in, I can attest to that not being an athletics thing.  They've missed out on transfers in the past.  There was a JUCO OL maybe 5 years ago who easily cleared every academic requirement, but MSU didn't count two of his classes, so he wasn't admitted.  He went to Purdue.  He wasn't an academic risk at all.  Hell, I transferred in from a different Big Ten university, and had all kind of hoops to what they would and wouldn't accept.