2020 Recruiting Thread

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking just about every coach in the conference thinks he has the best class. It's all very subjective.

I doubt every coach thinks that, but I'm sure more than one does. So I agree that part is subjective. But this obviously isn't about that part. It's objectively about a published list.

[ELA]

Yeah, I don't have an issue with that part of that, it's like what is the mark you've set, that you're celebrating.  It's as on brand for UM as the stupid, cringe-worthy "Defeated with Dignity" headline is for MSU.  Like how many people had to approve this to just confirm what the worst parts of the fan base is criticized for.

It's also a published list of a made up thing.  It would be like during starting lineups, introducing your starting QB as the leader in the ESPN Heisman Watch.  It's published, but it's not a real thing.  I posted several years ago, when researching my 130 team countdown how New Mexico had a banner page you had to get through to get to the main page stating that they led the nation in yards per carry the previous year.  It's true, but what is the standard if that merits that level of celebration, which I think is what we are on the same page about, and what bothered me the most about the Defeated With Dignity thing.

[847badgerfan]

I doubt every coach thinks that, but I'm sure more than one does. So I agree that part is subjective. But this obviously isn't about that part. It's objectively about a published list.

Michigan had a big class. If you look at 247's composite, they did finish at the top of the conference. However, OSU (1) and PSU (2) have a higher player rating average than does Michigan (3). None of that really matters though. Now it's on the coaches to figure out how to make them good college football players.

[FearlessF]

recruiting "rankings" are lame

bragging about recruiting rankings is lame

but, it's obviously more acceptable in today's society than a few years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Michigan had a big class. If you look at 247's composite, they did finish at the top of the conference. However, OSU (1) and PSU (2) have a higher player rating average than does Michigan (3). None of that really matters though. Now it's on the coaches to figure out how to make them good college football players.

OSU had 17 kids and PSU had 23. That's true. But if you look at the star average for Michigan's top 17 kids, it's also better than OSU's, and if you look at it for Michigan's top 23 kids, it's also better than PSU's. Michigan has better classes than any Big Ten team in both raw score and star average if you compare them player by player. And then after that comparison, Michigan also has several 3-star freebie fliers on top of it.

2019 Star averages for:

• Michigan's top 17 signees: 92.77
• OSU's 17-man class: 91.87
• Michigan's top 23 signees: 91.45
• PSU's 23-man class: 91.01

[Cincydawg]

When did all the recruiting rankings stuff really take off and become a part of the conversation?

A long while back, I would have no clue how we recruited, or who.  Of course, back then freshmen played on the freshman team too.

Should I get excited that my team had some good recruiting years?  Well, it's a something I suppose.  But Clemson just won the NC without winning any recruiting NCs.

[847badgerfan]

When did all the recruiting rankings stuff really take off and become a part of the conversation?

A long while back, I would have no clue how we recruited, or who.  Of course, back then freshmen played on the freshman team too.

Should I get excited that my team had some good recruiting years?  Well, it's a something I suppose.  But Clemson just won the NC without winning any recruiting NCs.

Ask Texas fans about that. They won a whole lotta February Championships before finally breaking through (on Vince Young's back/will to win).

[MaximumSam]

Not really here for recruiting class arguments part ten zillion.  BUT, with the transfer portal opening and grad transfers already pretty popular, where do we rank transfers in the recruiting rankings?  It's kind of weird - JUCO transfers were included in the recruiting rankings, but players from other FBS schools aren't.  Justin Fields should rightly be a 5 star guy, considering he has three years of eligibility left.  But Jonah Jackson only has one, but will likely start.  What kind of star ranking should he get?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really here for recruiting class arguments part ten zillion.  BUT, with the transfer portal opening and grad transfers already pretty popular, where do we rank transfers in the recruiting rankings?  It's kind of weird - JUCO transfers were included in the recruiting rankings, but players from other FBS schools aren't.  Justin Fields should rightly be a 5 star guy, considering he has three years of eligibility left.  But Jonah Jackson only has one, but will likely start.  What kind of star ranking should he get?

We tend not to talk about the rankings from 4 years ago, but if we do, then I suppose we should factor in Shea Patterson and Justin Fields. Again, focusing on their high school rankings seems silly at that point, but if you're going to have that silly conversation, you might as well do it in a way that accurately reflects the roster and include them. Also, for an accurate one-season snap shot of the roster, there's really no reason to normalize these players' rankings for their remaining eligibility, whether their eligibility is one year or three their high school ranking is what it is.

[betarhoalphadelta]

When did all the recruiting rankings stuff really take off and become a part of the conversation?

A long while back, I would have no clue how we recruited, or who.  Of course, back then freshmen played on the freshman team too.

Should I get excited that my team had some good recruiting years?  Well, it's a something I suppose.  But Clemson just won the NC without winning any recruiting NCs.

Well, good recruiting doesn't cause success in the W-L column, but they sure do correlate. 
So yes, you should get excited if your team recruits studs. And then hope that your coaches do a good job of developing and coaching those studs. 
Truth is that you need both talent and coaching to win at the highest levels. Teams like Purdue and Iowa have inherent ceilings based on their limited talent level, and finding coaches who can reach those ceilings is the goal. Teams like Michigan / OSU / UGA don't have any inherent ceilings based on talent; so a coach who can maximize that talent has a legitimate shot of turning recruiting NCs into actual NCs. 

[Cincydawg]

I sense talking about recruiting is what folks do because there isn't much else happening.  I realize it is a "necessary but not sufficient" component.  I just figure our coaches are doing a good job so whether the class gets ranked by someone 1st or 3rd or 10th or 15th might not really make a difference.  If I see a 30th I would worry some.

[847badgerfan]

I sense talking about recruiting is what folks do because there isn't much else happening.  I realize it is a "necessary but not sufficient" component.  I just figure our coaches are doing a good job so whether the class gets ranked by someone 1st or 3rd or 10th or 15th might not really make a difference.  If I see a 30th I would worry some.

As a UW fan, I see a 30th once in a while. I think they hit #27 this year. Highest ever, I believe. I'll take it. They can beat teams with better athletes and not as good a coaching staff. It's when you combine a good coaching staff with those better athletes - that causes trouble for UW. Maybe that's their ceiling. Kinda seems like it.

[Cincydawg]

Yeah, I think you have to have "both", and a bit of luck, to win an NC these days.  Clemson seems to be a case where very good recruiting beat top of the heap recruiting, perhaps due to coaching (or matchups, or perhaps a bit of luck).

But a well coached team with 30th recruiting can certainly beat teams with 10th recruiting.  Duh.

I'm sure Wisconsin would be a tough out for the Dawgs who have top tier recruiting of late.

[MaximumSam]

We tend not to talk about the rankings from 4 years ago, but if we do, then I suppose we should factor in Shea Patterson and Justin Fields. Again, focusing on their high school rankings seems silly at that point, but if you're going to have that silly conversation, you might as well do it in a way that accurately reflects the roster and include them. Also, for an accurate one-season snap shot of the roster, there's really no reason to normalize these players' rankings for their remaining eligibility, whether their eligibility is one year or three their high school ranking is what it is.

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.