Heupel and improved recruiting

[Jackcrevol]

You didn't tell us who the Rivals guy was, but it's hard to have respect for someone who holds such a low opinion of their own line of work. If he believes that his field is BS, why doesn't he find another job?

Spoonman.

 

[DaddyChad]

Why you got to start bringing in damnable statistics, mathematics, logic and such?

 

[utvolmaniac]

Recruiting is an inexact science in itself ... but if you're interested in following it, 247 is not a bad reference. I would disagree that it's "all subjective and BS."

Exactly. Different sport but one of my kiddos played summer travel baseball with a kid who was highly ranked by Perfect Game. Kid was a catcher. He attended most all PG events. Ended up at a Juco where he couldn’t cut it. Ranking was solely on the number of PG events his parent would foot the bill for. He wasn’t even all that good on the summer team. I’m sure football rankings by some organizations are from this model.

 

[Ericvol2096]

Like many here, I like to look at the average recruit score over a year's recruiting class instead of the total composite score on 247Sports.

The past several to many national championship teams have had an average recruit score of 93-95, with an occasional 91 or 92. Except for 2016 Clemson (89 avg entire roster score), this has been true without exception in the past decade or more.

The Vols average recruit score over the past many years has hovered in the 85.9 to 90.9 range. Historically, just not enough depth of talent to take us to a championship.

Looks like Heupel has us on the right track though. His 2023 class was 90.9 and the 2024 class is looking to close in the 92-93 range (if we get almost any combination of the remaining players on EricVol's post on the Upcoming Targets Page, Running list of Tennessee targets planned commitment dates

Normally it takes a few years of recruiting in the 92-95 range to get the depth and talent necessary for a championship. Although 2024 will be our first year in that range in a long time, it is possible with Heupel's coaching that we get to a championship this year or next. However, if Heupel continues this trend, combined with good coaching, we should be in the mix for several years to come.

Historic graph for the Vols is below.

Things are looking much brighter. Go Vols.

View attachment 564836

Great post and love the visual!!

 

[norrislakevol]

I don't know whether scores for the recruits on recruiting sites are done by:
a) actual talent evaluators at the recruiting sites, or
b) if the recruiting sites use some sort of formula based on the offers that they get from various teams.

It seems that the task of assigning and updating the individual evaluations for thousands of recruits would take many thousands of man-hours, so (b), or a mix of (a) and (b), seems plausible.

If it is (b), then that means that the P5 teams with clout, and the evaluations done by their coaching staff, and thus the offers they give, would weigh very heavily on a recruit's score versus a limited number of talent evaluators at a given recruiting site. Once again, reasonable enough.

Regardless of the source of the score for each recruit, the scores that are given do represent a fairly good indicator of whether a team has the talent and depth of talent to compete for a championship. In this case, average team recruiting scores in the 91-95 or 92-95 range seem to be a pretty good indicator whether a team is a championship-caliber team.

Of course there are some 3* players can have hidden 5* talent, or that can be coached up to 5* performance.

But except for extreme anomalies (2016 Clemson, who had continuity of coaching and had several breaks go their way throughout the year), history has shown that a team of mostly 3* players, sprinkled with some 4* players just doesn't have the depth of talent to win championships.

Yep! And it will always be that way. That's why Vandy, Kentucky, NC State, Miss State, ect....will never win a title. They just don't have enough talented depth. It doesn't matter who coaches them either, or how well the coaches develop their players either.

 

[Cartervol]

Usually the team with better players wins the game. The line of scrimmage is still a big part of it.. If you can't move them, you're not beating them. UGA has done that part very well lately.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

As always in these raking analysis threads I state INDIVIDUAL rankings should be used as probability of future success not as a ceiling. Way too many variables even for educated observers to attain near infallibility.

HOWEVER to demean a class because it is dragged down by inclusion of some guys individual coaches have assessed as late bloomers or hidden behind other players or even because they are a little lighter or shorter than the template or played at inferior schools is not justified.

Draft day also historically shows how many 3 stars pass four stars during the college years. If a staff is good at it or even lucky they can mine the misses low and sign fewer of the overvalued high guys. It is not like they are blindly shooting into the service defined pools.

Every team would prefer to have a class full of no brainers, but if you can’t get in the short straws for whatever reason you target the best available regardless of rankings primarily attained through a kids JR year. Especially way before signing day.

 

[Shades]

As always in these raking analysis threads I state INDIVIDUAL rankings should be used as probability of future success not as a ceiling. Way too many variables even for educated observers to attain near infallibility.

HOWEVER to demean a class because it is dragged down by inclusion of some guys individual coaches have assessed as late bloomers or hidden behind other players or even because they are a little lighter or shorter than the template or played at inferior schools is not justified.

Draft day also historically shows how many 3 stars pass four stars during the college years. If a staff is good at it or even lucky they can mine the misses low and sign fewer of the overvalued high guys. It is not like they are blindly shooting into the service defined pools.

You might have missed the quote:

Of course there are some 3* players can have hidden 5* talent, or that can be coached up to 5* performance.

The stated purpose of the OP is not to demean a whole class of recruits of whatever *rating they are. The main purpose of the OP was also not to project whether an individual 2* or 3* will excel in the NFL (many do), but to project the probability of whether a whole team of 3*'s with a few 4*s versus a whole team of 4-5* with a few 3*s could achieve a national championship, as judged by historical past championships.

Doing this type of projection does not demean or infer that any individual player cannot make it to the NFL, or that any particular team has less heart or plays with less intensity than another team.

Is it demeaning of a recruiting class to say that a team full of 2* has a very very low probability of reaching a national championship? How about a team of mostly 3* and a few 4* having a reasonably low probability? Of course not, it is simply exercising reason and logic, based on history.

 

[Franklin_Vol09]

You didn't tell us who the Rivals guy was, but it's hard to have respect for someone who holds such a low opinion of their own line of work. If he believes that his field is BS, why doesn't he find another job?

The rankings and how they rank them are BS. I’m not going to out the guy. Couldn’t care less what anyone thinks in here. Everyone has their own opinion. This guy does it for a living so his opinion is much more credible than us when it comes to how these guys are ranked.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The rankings and how they rank them are BS. I’m not going to out the guy. Couldn’t care less what anyone thinks in here. Everyone has their own opinion. This guy does it for a living so his opinion is much more credible than us when it comes to how these guys are ranked.

You missed my point.

I don't run across many people who openly say that the work they do for a living is BS. Most people want to take pride in what they do. If he genuinely feels that way .... it seems like he would seek another field of employment.

Also, there is a big difference in the quality of Rivals and 247. The recruiting services are not all the same.

 

[TrippieRedd]

So the rankings are BS, but he is more credible about his own BS, got it.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

You might have missed the quote:


The stated purpose of the OP is not to demean a whole class of recruits of whatever *rating they are. The main purpose of the OP was also not to project whether an individual 2* or 3* will excel in the NFL (many do), but to project the probability of whether a whole team of 3*'s with a few 4*s versus a whole team of 4-5* with a few 3*s could achieve a national championship, as judged by historical past championships.

Doing this type of projection does not demean or infer that any individual player cannot make it to the NFL, or that any particular team has less heart or plays with less intensity than another team.

Is it demeaning of a recruiting class to say that a team full of 2* has a very very low probability of reaching a national championship? How about a team of mostly 3* and a few 4* having a reasonably low probability? Of course not, it is simply exercising reason and logic, based on history.

It all depends on WHO evaluated and signed them and when in the process they were accepted. So relativity for UT current class is in question. Reaches are a higher probability late in the process. Even then you could get lucky and they need to be graded after some field time.

ALSO it is my speculation real reaches we used to see will decrease in favor of portal shots much later in the process further questioning the use of free shots in these threads at this site regardless of statistical analysis for all of D1, especially for pre Portal eligibility change years.

Now if you have some data limited to top 30 P5 teams post change bring it on. Like to see it for both 3 and 4 stars at those schools. That might have some real significance. The 3 star pool for those teams should be much different than the entire 3 star world.

 

[Franklin_Vol09]

So the rankings are BS, but he is more credible about his own BS, got it.

Yeah. I know, it’s tough when reality smashes your made up narrative.

 

[Franklin_Vol09]

You missed my point.

I don't run across many people who openly say that the work they do for a living is BS. Most people want to take pride in what they do. If he genuinely feels that way .... it seems like he would seek another field of employment.

Also, there is a big difference in the quality of Rivals and 247. The recruiting services are not all the same.

I agree they aren’t the same. But let’s take Tennessee for example. Pick any recruiting service. Rivals, 247, On3. Who are their scouts that give the players ranks? That’s my point. The rankings are bases more off of who is recruiting someone vs an actual knowledge base of evaluating a players film. They don’t have the expertise or the bandwidth to do it.
If a kid goes to a 247 camp, they get a bump because they went to the camp. Not because of their performance. If a kid doesn’t camp or go to an event, they are moved down. These services are created to make money, accuracy is secondary. It’s easy to bump a player who is relatively unknown, because a UGA offered.
A big portion is reactionary to whether a program offers or not.

Plus, they don’t have the scouts to do it. If they were good scouts, they would be employed with a university.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I agree they aren’t the same. But let’s take Tennessee for example. Pick any recruiting service. Rivals, 247, On3. Who are their scouts that give the players ranks? That’s my point. The rankings are bases more off of who is recruiting someone vs an actual knowledge base of evaluating a players film. They don’t have the expertise or the bandwidth to do it.
If a kid goes to a 247 camp, they get a bump because they went to the camp. Not because of their performance. If a kid doesn’t camp or go to an event, they are moved down. These services are created to make money, accuracy is secondary. It’s easy to bump a player who is relatively unknown, because a UGA offered.
A big portion is reactionary to whether a program offers or not.

Plus, they don’t have the scouts to do it. If they were good scouts, they would be employed with a university.

A lot of these things you have listed are common sense ... Yes, the offer lists are the most important thing. That's not some nugget you've stumbled upon, and that's not trusting a recruiting service. That's trusting the evaluations of coaches, who tend to have well-established track records.

Of course, recruiting is an inexact science ... but I wouldn't describe what 247 does as BS. It's an educated guess, based on their contacts and available information.

Like I have said twice now, it is weird for someone to refer to their own line of work in such a manner.

 

[Jack Burton]

I agree they aren’t the same. But let’s take Tennessee for example. Pick any recruiting service. Rivals, 247, On3. Who are their scouts that give the players ranks? That’s my point. The rankings are bases more off of who is recruiting someone vs an actual knowledge base of evaluating a players film. They don’t have the expertise or the bandwidth to do it.
If a kid goes to a 247 camp, they get a bump because they went to the camp. Not because of their performance. If a kid doesn’t camp or go to an event, they are moved down. These services are created to make money, accuracy is secondary. It’s easy to bump a player who is relatively unknown, because a UGA offered.
A big portion is reactionary to whether a program offers or not.

Plus, they don’t have the scouts to do it. If they were good scouts, they would be employed with a university.

This has been going on for years though. There has been shenanigans at the individual recruit rating level for a long time. What these ratings often get correct are the aggregate totals though. If you sign a top 3 class, despite the ratings hits or misses individually, there’s a great chance you’ll make the playoffs at some point with those kids.

Some recruits get bumped higher based on where they commit or who has offered them. Some recruits pay under the table to be rated higher. Some recruits are evaluated fairly. Overall totals seems to predict future potential fairly well. If you have goober of a coach he can screw up that potential. A great coach can get more out of his class than the numbers suggest.

The debate about stars is silly. We always take the argument to the extreme. I think we can agree that it’s not a perfect system, and stars do matter, but they are not the only thing that matters.

 

[Shades]

Sorry to nerd out some more, but maybe someone out there will find it interesting.

Gonna look at this info with a slightly different twist:

1) Rank teams each year by the average 247 recruit score for the entire team (not just for one recruiting year).
*Note this includes attrition suffered by the team from past recruiting classes and also includes incoming and outgoing portal transfers that exist on the team.
*So it is a snapshot of the talent level (* ratings) for the entire team.

2) Do this for the top 100 teams.

3) Mark the teams on the list that made the playoffs that year, and which team won the championship.
*Note if any of the four playoff teams got slaughtered (one indicator of lack of team depth and/or talent).

4) For kicks, highlight the Vols for an easy visual of where they stood each year in team talent.


Data is below, but here are some conclusions:

1) Each year there are only 4-5 teams that have the team talent and depth (high team avg recruit score) to survive the season and the playoffs to win a championship.


2) Here are the full team average recruiting score rankings for the past 8 national champions:
#2, #2, #1, #4, #6, #1, #11, and #1

#11 is the anomaly year of Clemson's 2016 Championship. They beat Bama, and Bama's team talent was slightly lower than "normal" that year.
* You just can't win national championships without stellar talent, and stars are a pretty good indicator of this type of talent.
* To win championships (except for the very rare unicorn), *stars* do greatly matter, regardless of where and how the star ratings are created.


3) The percentage of 4* and 5* players on the entire team for the past 8 national champions:
80%, 78%, 84%, 61%, 66%, 84%, 53%(Clemson), and 78%.
Only very elite teams have percentages of 4*+5* players above 70%. Even above 60% is well above average and is usually still within the top 6-8 in terms of overall talent.


4) Just because a team has a very high team average recruit score, doesn't mean they will win a championship.
In addition to a very high avg recruit rating, championship teams usually also need:
Very good coaching. Continuity of coaching is a plus.
Very good QB.
Very good OL and DL with depth.
A break or two along the way.
SEC refs on your side. Joking, not joking.


5) If a team does not have an avg team recruit score in the top 5-6 in the nation, you can almost guarantee that they will not have the depth of talent to survive through the battles of the season and the playoffs to win a championship.
Some teams outside the top 5-6 in avg recruit score might sneak into the playoffs, but many times they end up getting slaughtered in the playoff game.


6) 2* and 3* players can develop into 5* players. 2* and 3* players can make it into the NFL. But you rarely, if ever, get a team full of those types of players (including their backups), as evidenced by a lack of such teams winning national championships.

7) The Vols had a good class for 2023 and are looking to close an excellent class for 2024, which should beef up our overall team talent to out of the 87-88 range to up hopefully above 90. What Heupel did last year with 87.8 team talent was very, very impressive.

 

[Franklin_Vol09]

This has been going on for years though. There has been shenanigans at the individual recruit rating level for a long time. What these ratings often get correct are the aggregate totals though. If you sign a top 3 class, despite the ratings hits or misses individually, there’s a great chance you’ll make the playoffs at some point with those kids.

Some recruits get bumped higher based on where they commit or who has offered them. Some recruits pay under the table to be rated higher. Some recruits are evaluated fairly. Overall totals seems to predict future potential fairly well. If you have goober of a coach he can screw up that potential. A great coach can get more out of his class than the numbers suggest.

The debate about stars is silly. We always take the argument to the extreme. I think we can agree that it’s not a perfect system, and stars do matter, but they are not the only thing that matters.

Stars matter but it’s the HOW that is the BS. That’s exactly why some kids want that coveted offer because they know their ratings will bump up.

Most of the 5* guys are ones who have been on the circuit for years.

I didn’t mean to sidetrack the OP. I just thought it was interesting since I sat down with a rivals guy and the topic of convo was this subject.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This has been going on for years though. There has been shenanigans at the individual recruit rating level for a long time. What these ratings often get correct are the aggregate totals though. If you sign a top 3 class, despite the ratings hits or misses individually, there’s a great chance you’ll make the playoffs at some point with those kids.

Some recruits get bumped higher based on where they commit or who has offered them. Some recruits pay under the table to be rated higher. Some recruits are evaluated fairly. Overall totals seems to predict future potential fairly well. If you have goober of a coach he can screw up that potential. A great coach can get more out of his class than the numbers suggest.

The debate about stars is silly. We always take the argument to the extreme. I think we can agree that it’s not a perfect system, and stars do matter, but they are not the only thing that matters.

No one has ever said that high star classes don't win. Just that you can win if you find unrated talent as well.

It's like cars. You know you will be fast if you buy a super car. Then that diesel truck outruns a supercar.




What happens when a staff builds a diesel?

@Jackcrevol this diesel reference is for you.

 

[Jackcrevol]

No one has ever said that high star classes don't win. Just that you can win if you find unrated talent as well.

It's like cars. You know you will be fast if you buy a super car. Then that diesel truck outruns a supercar.




What happens when a staff builds a diesel?

@Jackcrevol this diesel reference is for you.

booo!!!

 

[Shades]

Someone was asking about Washington's composite recruiting in another thread, so here is an thread update that covers this year's recruiting info for the two teams in the championship game.

As seen below, most championship teams have had a composite recruiting ranking of around 93, with more than ten 5* players, and with greater than >75% of 4* plus 5* players.

There have been a few mild anomalies, such as 2018 Clemson and 2019 LSU, and a stronger anomaly of 2016 Clemson.

If Michigan wins for 2023, their composite recruiting will be a mild anomaly for a championship team.
If Washington wins for 2023, their team will be a major anomaly for any championship team in recent history.




For reference, the table below shows where the Vols have stood in composite recruiting in the past several years.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Someone was asking about Washington's composite recruiting in another thread, so here is an thread update that covers this year's recruiting info for the two teams in the championship game.

As seen below, most championship teams have had a composite recruiting ranking of around 93, with more than ten 5* players, and with greater than >75% of 4* plus 5* players.

There have been a few mild anomalies, such as 2018 Clemson and 2019 LSU, and a stronger anomaly of 2016 Clemson.

If Michigan wins for 2023, their composite recruiting will be a mild anomaly for a championship team.
If Washington wins for 2023, their team will be a major anomaly for any championship team in recent history.

View attachment 607367


For reference, the table below shows where the Vols have stood in composite recruiting in the past several years.

View attachment 607369

Excellent work. Many just won’t believe and accept this. Especially @sjt18. But actual days like this tells it all. Just yet another example that backs the rule. To win at the highest level, you have to have the best talent.

 

[Jackcrevol]

Amazing what happens when we don’t suck anymore. Recruiting machine is gonna start humming.

brr?

 

[sjt18]

Excellent work. Many just won’t believe and accept this. Especially @sjt18. But actual days like this tells it all. Just yet another example that backs the rule. To win at the highest level, you have to have the best talent.

You have said that you CANNOT win a championship without top 5 talent as determined by the recruiting sites.

I have argued two things that are not disproven in any way by his "work". One, the rankings follow the successful programs and NOT the other way round. Two apparently equal recruits in terms of performance and measurables with one being a priority for Saban and the other not... which one gets the 5th star? There is the difference in your recruiting rankings.

But now you have DIRECT proof that you do NOT need top 5 classes to win the NC... and you are still trying to say that you do. How someone can be as stubbornly wrong as you are and have been is just amazing.

 

[PurpleTraveler]

Someone was asking about Washington's composite recruiting in another thread, so here is an thread update that covers this year's recruiting info for the two teams in the championship game.

As seen below, most championship teams have had a composite recruiting ranking of around 93, with more than ten 5* players, and with greater than >75% of 4* plus 5* players.

There have been a few mild anomalies, such as 2018 Clemson and 2019 LSU, and a stronger anomaly of 2016 Clemson.

If Michigan wins for 2023, their composite recruiting will be a mild anomaly for a championship team.
If Washington wins for 2023, their team will be a major anomaly for any championship team in recent history.

View attachment 607367


For reference, the table below shows where the Vols have stood in composite recruiting in the past several years.

View attachment 607369

Washington has QB1, WR2, RB1,CB1 as portal pickups who were all 3*. Seeing them play, they are all playing like 4 or 5 stars would be expected to. Like 3* Michael is the best player in college football. Our talent far exceeds what they were projected to be out of high-school. It's the same way how the NFL is mostly made of 3* guys... it's not like the hit rate is higher for 3*s... there are just so many more of them and the ones who exceeded expectations rise to the top for the NFL (or in this case, UW). Talent certainly matters, but with the portal, it will make the use of high-school evaluations a less reliable indicator for teams that are capable of using NIL to attract players.