2020 Recruiting Thread

[FearlessF]

yes, good read

maybe there is hope for UNL

[ELA]

Did that Athlon use the 5-star system? Was it Tom Lemming; was there anyone else back then? Also, the '97 team would have been built of '93 through '97 classes. That's picking nits (if there were rankings in '95, there were probably rankings a year and more earlier than that), but all this does put a fence around unanswered questions that are key to the conversation.

Tom Lemming, 93-97

http://a.espncdn.com/ncf/s/2002/0205/1323082.html

[ELA]

Here, I think Blue Chip Illustrated's rankings might have been what Athlon published.  Aside from Orlando Pace, these didn't pan out so well.

It's also led to us being unable to judge players on their own merits, but just whether a player exceeded or fell short of his recruiting ranking.  Chris Howard and Chris Floyd were part of a solid backfield for the national title team.  The narrative surrounding those two is way different today, based on us hearing since 1993, O"Michigan signed 2 of the top 3 RBs in the nation!". They were solid players, but certainly not that.


https://twitter.com/ChadCarson247/status/697433116982513664?s=19

[Cincydawg]

If we take 247 recruiting from 3 years ago, here were the rankings:

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/

Alabama, OSU, UGA, no shock, then USC, hmmmm, Michigan, FSU.  Clemson comes in at 16.

Most expect USC and FSU to be mediocre this year, but they might have some talent.  For 2018, these kids would be sophomores, UGA "won" with OSU, Texas, USC, and then Bama, PSU, and Clemson.  I see UNC at 20th, so perhaps they also have some talent there, might be a bowl team?

UGA of course lost 5 star Fields and OSU picked him up, so they would flip spots today.

I'm idly wondering if USC and FSU should be expected to be decent this year.  I know it's about coaching etc.

[FearlessF]

https://twitter.com/ChadCarson247/status/697433116982513664?s=19

no Huskers on the top 20

[Anonymous Coward]

Tom Lemming, 93-97

http://a.espncdn.com/ncf/s/2002/0205/1323082.html

That's good evidence of Michigan being "in." And if the "BCR >50%" threshold for that period included 10 or fewer teams (rather than 13 or so, as it did in 2018), then that does suggest UNL was "out."

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, I think Blue Chip Illustrated's rankings might have been what Athlon published.  Aside from Orlando Pace, these didn't pan out so well.

It's also led to us being unable to judge players on their own merits, but just whether a player exceeded or fell short of his recruiting ranking.  Chris Howard and Chris Floyd were part of a solid backfield for the national title team.  The narrative surrounding those two is way different today, based on us hearing since 1993, O"Michigan signed 2 of the top 3 RBs in the nation!". They were solid players, but certainly not that.


https://twitter.com/ChadCarson247/status/697433116982513664?s=19

A 10% hit rate of "super stars whose names everyone remembers for decades" (Pace and Manning) is pretty good -- arguably excellent.

[ELA]

A 10% hit rate of "super stars whose names everyone remembers for decades" (Pace and Manning) is pretty good -- arguably excellent.

But I think anyone can identify those generational talents.  The vast majority of those guys, I don't even recognize the names, and I watched as much college football in that era as anyone.  I would bet that is not the case with the Rivals top 20 from say 2002.

[Anonymous Coward]

But I think anyone can identify those generational talents.

I'm not so sure. Many more kids seem generational than actually are. I think the real ones can only be "predicted" by casting a sufficiently wide net and expecting x% to fall inside. That's the idea behind recruiting rankings working quite well in aggregate and significantly less well individually.

The vast majority of those guys, I don't even recognize the names, and I watched as much college football in that era as anyone.  I would bet that is not the case with the Rivals top 20 from say 2002.

Maybe the industry has gotten better since 2002. I think that might be your point, and I don't want to fight that one. But I do think that many guys in five-star status, maybe even a majority, will end up utterly anonymous outside their fan base, certainly outside their conference 20 years after matriculating.

[ELA]

Maybe the industry has gotten better since 2002. I think that might be your point, and I don't want to fight that one. But I do think that many guys in five-star status, maybe even a majority, will end up utterly anonymous outside their fan base, certainly outside their conference 20 years after matriculating.

I'm saying I think the industry got better between 1995 and 2002.  Has it since then?  Possibly, harder to judge since in between I actually started paying attention to recruiting, so by my unscientific test, I'm going to know more names, simply because I remember them as being major recruits.

[Cincydawg]

In my experience, the five star players almost always end up being between very good and first rounders.  You get some busts at the 4 star level of course, but the correlation between number of stars and draft position is actually pretty good.

[Mdot21]

I took a look at the top 20 in the Rivals100 class of 2002 rankings for shits and gigs to compare it to the list ELA posted from the 90s from twitter.

Doesn’t look all that much different to be honest. Lots of wtf how was he ranked so high in there too. 

1) Vince Young, QB - Texas 
2) Haloti Ngata, DT - Oregon 
3) Lorenzo Booker, RB - FSU
4) Ben Olson, QB - Miami
5) Reggie McNeal, ATH - Texas A&M
6) Chris Davis, ATH - FSU
7) Ryan Moore, WR - Miami
8) Marcus Vick, QB - VT
9) Leon Washington, RB - FSU
10) Ciatrick Faison, RB - Florida 
11) Kai Parham, DE - Virginia 
12) Gerald Riggs Jr, RB - Tennessee
13) Rodrique Wright, DT - Texas
14) Michael Johnson, RB - Virginia 
15) Justin Blalock, OG - Texas
16) DiShon Platt, WR - FSU
17) Ricardo Hurley, LB - South Car.
18) Nathan Rhodes, OT - Washington
19) Brandon Jeffries, OT - Tennessee 
20) Trent Edwards, QB - Stanford 



Honestly, doesn’t look much different from that 90s list to me. Actually, looks kinda worse. FSU and Tennessee had lotta 5* busts right there. Holy moly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Full agreement on this point. I think it's probably gotten better whether we change the year or not. Still I think the services predict the arrival of significantly more "generational athletes" than actually exist. And I think that if you view the Top 20 from, say, 2015 in 2035 that you'd be similarly struck by how many utterly anonymous names are listed.

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, the five star players almost always end up being between very good and first rounders.  You get some busts at the 4 star level of course, but the correlation between number of stars and draft position is actually pretty good.

I'm in a weird spot in this conversation because I fully agree with you. I'm not dogging the rankings. I am fully in board with their success in aggregate. I'm just acknowledging that we should also expect them to highly rank a different swath of kids whose names we'll eventually easily forget. It can be both ways.