'17 NC OL TJ Moore (former USCe commit)

[BigOrangeD]

Maybe you flip some players and maybe some of your commitments explode in their senior season. Rating systems right now rely heavily on sophomore and junior level performances plus camp results (if attended). Keep in mind that we are talking about kids who grow, develop, figure things out, become committed... I think the biggest failing in the "star" ratings is that it is evaluating 15-18 year olds and projecting how they will perform as 19-22 year olds. The NFL can't even manage to make those projections as reliably as they would like with far more data and weeks of evaluation. An excellent class isn't determined by the stars coming in, but by the results before they leave. I'm not going to panic over every rating... It just isn't that precise or accurate.

You make some valid points but the rating system has been a very good indicator of how teams will do. Just have to look at Bama and OSU for that. If we were to consistently land top 5 247 recruiting classes, our chances of winning more games goes way up. Does not mean it can't be done with lower rated guys but it is not the norm.

 

[BigOrangeD]

In 2014 & 2015 our class ranking mattered as it was higher. When it's in that 14-25 range, class ranking doesn't matter.

Lets go with that. Sure.

Got that right.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Just for the curious, I thought this is interesting.

Note that, since 2003, the eleven teams in the "five-star" group have combined for 21 appearances in the BCS Championship game, compared to one appearance by any of the 64 teams listed below. (The lone exception in that span, Oregon, just barely missed the cut for five-star status.) The only "five-star" teams that never played for a title in the BCS era are Georgia and Michigan; among the rest, only Notre Dame failed to make a repeat trip.

Source:
Recruiting Matters: Be they ever so humble, the rankings (still) get it right - Football Study Hall

 

[Dust10]

I don't think there is any question that those 2 highly ranked classes in 2014 and 2015 are the #1 reason we are back. Need this class to end up in the top 10 to keep the momentum going.

 

[vols 30]

You just destroyed all the nega vols. Too bad they will reshape like terminator 2.

We'll be back

 

[BigOrangeD]

We'll be back

lol

 

[bignewt]

I don't think there is any question that those 2 highly ranked classes in 2014 and 2015 are the #1 reason we are back. Need this class to end up in the top 10 to keep the momentum going.

I think last year's class will wind up being just as good. The jury is still out on this one but its summer.

 

[BigOrangeD]

I think last year's class will wind up being just as good. The jury is still out on this one but its summer.

I can see that.

 

[Glitch]

We'll be back

he gone, but he'll be back?

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

It's one thing to lose recruits. It's another for recruits to lie to the coaches, get the media hyping up a commitment, and then commit elsewhere.

You're right. It's embarrassing for the program and the coaching staff.

Here we go again

 

[SSVol]

Recruiting services are excellent at identifying those who demonstrate talent and/or desirable physical characteristics, so false positives are somewhat more rare.

What they can't do is identify talent and/or desirable physical characteristics in those who don't demonstrate them, but actually do or can possess them. This generates lots of false negatives.

And in either case, the services can only evaluate players who place themselves in the position to be evaluated. If Peyton Manning was actually named Peyton Jones, attended a small private school in rural LA that had nobody and played nobody, while not attending any camps, do you think he would be a 5*? No.

Which means there are lots of gems hidden in that pile. Are we smart enough to find them? Are we capable of developing them? Hard to say, but we are now in a better position to try than we were three years ago.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Recruiting services are excellent at identifying those who demonstrate talent and/or desirable physical characteristics, so false positives are somewhat more rare.

What they can't do is identify talent and/or desirable physical characteristics in those who don't demonstrate them, but actually do or can possess them. This generates lots of false negatives.

And in either case, the services can only evaluate players who place themselves in the position to be evaluated. If Peyton Manning was actually named Peyton Jones, attended a small private school in rural LA that had nobody and played nobody, while not attending any camps, do you think he would be a 5*? No.

Which means there are lots of gems hidden in that pile. Are we smart enough to find them? Are we capable of developing them? Hard to say, but we are now in a better position to try than we were three years ago.

Butch and Co have done a good job of this so far. It is much harder to do, no doubt.

 

[AV_12]

In 2014 & 2015 our class ranking mattered as it was higher. When it's in that 14-25 range, class ranking doesn't matter.

Lets go with that. Sure.

Basically

 

[Kristy*]

How much more negative can you be? Our class last year was in the 14 - 25 range? It was also in the 1 - 14 range. But yeah, let's go with the 14 - 25 range. Negas gonna nega and trolls gonna troll. This spiel has been old since January.

 

[CrunchingTheVolz]

How much more negative can you be? Our class last year was in the 14 - 25 range? It was also in the 1 - 14 range. But yeah, let's go with the 14 - 25 range. Negas gonna nega and trolls gonna troll. This spiel has been old since January.

The 14-25 was more describing 2016 & thus far in 2017 as I feel we are likely to end up closer to 15-25 than 1-14.

I like our chances getting Smith, Chandler, and a couple others. Still not likely to crack the top 15.

 

[BigOrangeD]

The 14-25 was more describing 2016 & thus far in 2017 as I feel we are likely to end up closer to 15-25 than 1-14.

I like our chances getting Smith, Chandler, and a couple others. Still not likely to crack the top 15.

Agree. The only way we do is for some of the other commits to get bumped up or recruited over.

 

[RikidyBones]

How much more negative can you be? Our class last year was in the 14 - 25 range? It was also in the 1 - 14 range. But yeah, let's go with the 14 - 25 range. Negas gonna nega and trolls gonna troll. This spiel has been old since January.

I don't think you realize just where our class fell. it was clearly in the 14-120 range.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Agree. The only way we do is for some of the other commits to get bumped up or recruited over.

Which happens every year. So we good.

A few will get bumped to 4 stars, a few 3's will be asked to leave and will be replaced with 4's and we'll add a couple 4/5 stars. Just like the last 3 classes.

 

[vols 30]

Agree. The only way we do is for some of the other commits to get bumped up or recruited over.

I'm think(hopeful) this is what will happen

 

[BigOrangeD]

Which happens every year. So we good.

A few will get bumped to 4 stars, a few 3's will be asked to leave and will be replaced with 4's and we'll add a couple 4/5 stars. Just like the last 3 classes.

Agree. Happens every year under Butch.

 

[Kristy*]

I don't think you realize just where our class fell. it was clearly in the 14-120 range.

lol: My mistake.

 

[CrunchingTheVolz]

Did we have any got bumps last year say from 3* to a 4* on the composite? I don't remember.

I think JG got a bump, but it didn't take him to a 5*.

Only bumps this year have been down I believe. Fant & Crosby.

 

[bignewt]

they haven't played a year of football either.

 

[chargervol]

It honestly appears that some are less worried about if they can play well in our system than if the receive a bump.

I get that a bump means they balled out their Sr. season, but that doesn't seem like what some are concerned with.
More of "if the same player gets a bump, then I can support him. Doesn't even have to happen after performance.
Just give him a star and suddenly we good".

 

[CrunchingTheVolz]

It honestly appears that some are less worried about if they can play well in our system than if the receive a bump.

I get that a bump means they balled out their Sr. season, but that doesn't seem like what some are concerned with.
More of "if the same player gets a bump, then I can support him. Doesn't even have to happen after performance.
Just give him a star and suddenly we good".

Yeah, the meaningless bumps to me are bad for the services. 247 bumping Lewis 300 spots based on his committing to UT looked bad.

"Hmmm, Tennessee took him so is he really the 1500th best player nationwide"?

"Let's just bump him to 1200(as he committed 6hrs ago) and call it good".

If the services want to be taken seriously, these are the types of moves they need to avoid. I mean at least wait till he's played a couple games.