2020 Recruiting Thread

[ELA]

Then do you subtract transfers out when calculating the team rankings, if you factor the new guys you add?

[Cincydawg]

The grad transfer thing is changing all of this, obviously.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so.  Recruiting is getting guys to join the team.  So their star ranking should in theory incorporate how good they are and what they can give to the team.  A one year guy and a three year guy obviously have different levels of future possible productivity.  But I'm not sure how to rank them.  

A single year snap shot is enough, or at least it's enough for predicting the in-group for NC contention. Bud Elliott publishes a "blue chip ratio" report every August. (4- plus 5-stars on roster) / total scholarship roster. I believe a team with a ratio less than 0.5 has precisely never won it all. Despite the fact that there are only 8-12 such teams per year. So that's a worthwhile ranking tool that exclusively focuses on a single year snapshot of HS rankings + current rosters and treats all transfers as equal, regardless their eligibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then do you subtract transfers out when calculating the team rankings, if you factor the new guys you add?

Again jockeying for recruiting rankings 3-4 years after the fact is super weird, but if you're going to do that, then yes. Bud Elliott's blue chip ratio is a more appropriate place to make that change, imo, and it's already happening there.

[MaximumSam]

Again jockeying for recruiting rankings 3-4 years after the fact is super weird, but if you're going to do that, then yes. Bud Elliott's blue chip ratio is a more appropriate place to make that change, imo, and it's already happening there.

I'm saying this in context of the the mythical "#1 recruiting class" and those rankings.  I think it's just a matter of time before sites like 247 start rating transfers and including them in those rankings, but how they would do that is interesting.  For example, Justin Fields appears in their 2019 commitment page but isn't included as part of the ranking for the class.

[Anonymous Coward]

Recruiting rankings are only valuable for their predictive value. The "mythical #1 recruiting class" satisfies that but only the year it's signed. After, the BCR keeps satisfying it. 

3-4 years out, why would anyone prefer outdated rankings that are blind to NFL departures, injuries, and transfers in/out to the BCR which includes those?

This conversation is articulating a problem that doesn't exist.

[847badgerfan]

UW has 6 commitments so far, for 2020.



OT Trey Wedig (1)
OT Jack Nelson (2)
OL Dylan Barrett
DL Ben Barten (7)
LB Cole Dakovich (3)
WR Chimere Dike (5)



All but Barrett (IL) are from Wisconsin. The numbers next to the Wisconsin kids are their in-state player rankings (247 composite). #'s 4 and 6 have committed to Iowa and Purdue, respectively. They did not hold UW offers. The remaining 6 ranked players are still being evaluated. I suspect a couple of camp offers will come out of those.

[FearlessF]

ya trying to crack the top 25???

[847badgerfan]

I doubt it, although the first two are highly rated with big offers. The rest probably won't garner other big offers since they are truly off the board. Hence, they won't be highly rated.

[MaximumSam]

Recruiting rankings are only valuable for their predictive value. The "mythical #1 recruiting class" satisfies that but only the year it's signed. After, the BCR keeps satisfying it.

3-4 years out, why would anyone prefer outdated rankings that are blind to NFL departures, injuries, and transfers in/out to the BCR which includes those?

This conversation is articulating a problem that doesn't exist.

The problem is that as transfers increase, the ranking is inaccurate. OSU doesn't have a class of 17, it has a class of 19. I'm not saying one must use the original ranking for a recruit. That would be silly. Also silly - ignoring transfers as if they aren't recruited.

[ELA]

The problem is that as transfers increase, the ranking is inaccurate. OSU doesn't have a class of 17, it has a class of 19. I'm not saying one must use the original ranking for a recruit. That would be silly. Also silly - ignoring transfers as if they aren't recruited.

But isn't it 18, because Martell is gone?  Anyone else?  That's why this whole thing makes no sense.

[847badgerfan]

Transfers are a separate thing and should not be factored into anything except for their possible impact on the team they join.

[MaximumSam]

But isn't it 18, because Martell is gone?  Anyone else?  That's why this whole thing makes no sense.

Perhaps, maybe, I dunno.  Hence the discussion - it used to be transfer were rare enough it wasn't worth the bother.  But they are increasing, I think they will continue to increase, so how we categorize them is going to change with it.  Justin Fields was a big time recruit, has four years to play three seasons, and is on the Heisman betting odds.  He's an easy call for a five star guy.  Jonah Jackson was, per 247, the 1799th ranked recruit in 2014 and chose Rutgers over Monmouth and James Madison.  In 2019, he chose OSU over Oklahoma and Texas.  Obviously, he is higher up on the list, but he also only has one year of eligibility.  Where that falls is certainly interesting.
Do players leaving count against you?  It never used to be, though players could get knocked if people didn't think they would get eligible.  But with the transfer portal open, it's only a matter of time before players on the portal are ranked.  They are already being ranked in order, if not with star status.  But recruiting now includes scouring the transfer portal, so might as well get with the times.

[FearlessF]

players coming and leaving the program become deathly serious once they make the 2-deep