Rating classes

#29
#29
You can't evaluate classes based on ratings. You have to have two years of coaching and development before you can evaluate.

That being said, the teams that have the most five star prospects (Ala, LSU, UF, ect.) are at the top of the conference. So it makes a difference but it is more boom or bust.
 
#30
#30
The big difference in th #1 and #20 recruiting class is....a #1 class makes a lot of supporters happy. Other than that either class will develop according to the coaching they get. I believe we are going to be allright.
 
#31
#31
ddwright said:
The big difference in th #1 and #20 recruiting class is....a #1 class makes a lot of supporters happy. Other than that either class will develop according to the coaching they get. I believe we are going to be allright.
Click to expand...

The AD could use some 5* themselves. Hell at this point some 3* would be good.
 
#32
#32
Having read these posts, I think both sides are correct. The most important recruiting aspect of recruiting is to who you get to come to your camps. to accurately evaluate the talent at your camps, and be able to sign those players who fit in best with you scheme. If that turns out to be #1 great, but if it turns out to be #20 that is OK too. Class rankings are usually based on how many highly ranked skill position players you sign, and if you run a pro offense and sign the #1 ranked pro style QB, you are off to a high ranked class. However, if you run a spread offense and your scheme needs speed at the QB position, that same QB will help you have a high ranked class, but will not help you win the National Championship. Therefore, I think the best class depends on what you need for your system and how well you recruit to your needs for that system. It could be #1 or # 20. By the way, I would rather fill my needs than feel my needs in recruiting.
 
#33
#33
you need two-to three years in a row of this however.

one year and bad coaching I would agree with this statement
 
#35
#35
VOLINVONORE said:
Having read these posts, I think both sides are correct. The most important recruiting aspect of recruiting is to who you get to come to your camps. to accurately evaluate the talent at your camps, and be able to sign those players who fit in best with you scheme. If that turns out to be #1 great, but if it turns out to be #20 that is OK too. Class rankings are usually based on how many highly ranked skill position players you sign, and if you run a pro offense and sign the #1 ranked pro style QB, you are off to a high ranked class. However, if you run a spread offense and your scheme needs speed at the QB position, that same QB will help you have a high ranked class, but will not help you win the National Championship. Therefore, I think the best class depends on what you need for your system and how well you recruit to your needs for that system. It could be #1 or # 20. By the way, I would rather fill my needs than feel my needs in recruiting.
Click to expand...

The diff. Between GREAT and OK is you coming in first or watching others come in first.
I don't like watching from the back of the room.
Highly ranked class's will have you doing the teaching. JMO
 
#36
#36
You've got to have talent, but I'm convinced more & more that you are better off with 2, 3 & 4 star kids with a coach who can COACH, than you are with a bunch of 5 stars with a mediocre or sorry coach! And when you get the 4 & 5 stars with that great coach is when you separate yourself from the also rans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
real orange said:
I once heard a coach say there was no difference in the number one class and the number 20 class. Was he right or just full of it.
Click to expand...

If that coach sucks then he is probably right. Whether his recruiting class is one or twenty, the team is going to suck.

If a coach had said the same thing about the one through five classes, I might be more inclined to agree. There is enough fudge factor and intangibles involved to accept 1-5.
 
#38
#38
volboy81 said:
You've got to have talent, but I'm convinced more & more that you are better off with 2, 3 & 4 star kids with a coach who can COACH, than you are with a bunch of 5 stars with a mediocre or sorry coach! And when you get the 4 & 5 stars with that great coach is when you separate yourself from the also rans.
Click to expand...

You mentioned 4* twice and with being said getting 4* equals highly ranked class's, witch you need to succeed. I don't mean you have to have the #1 class every year. You do need to be in the top 5 to 10 year in and year out to compete for NC's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what we all strive for. A #20 ranked class every year gets you some wins, but does not push you to the top. TENNESSEE wants to be on top. #RiseToTheTop!!! I think CBJ would agree.
 
#39
#39
SmokeyFTW said:
K state has 1 good year out of the past 10.
I dont like the odds.
Oregon has ...... Oregon has been.....
IDK how Oregon has done it, TOO FN cold up there.
Click to expand...

Oregon recruits to a system. That system has been successful so higher caliber recruits are looking at them.
 
#41
#41
SmokeyFTW said:
I know ... I just don't want to give any credit to Oregon. They can suck it :)
Click to expand...

They have struggled against big physical defenses(USC excluded) and whatever Wilcox cooked up at Boise. I wish they were playing tonight instead of Bama.
 
#42
#42
All you people saying that rankings do not matter need to go back and look at what the hell our great teams of the 90's and early 2000's were made of. Here's a hint. It wasn't all three star players. We recruited elite players and we played at an elite level. You recruit mediocrity and you'll be mediocre. A rank #20 class will not get it done in the SEC.

Butch deserves a chance to get his own recruiting class in here, but I hope he picks it up for next year. Taking early commitments from average prospects does not excite me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#44
#44
Definitely some validity to that statement I think. If you look at past recruiting classes, I don't think Oregon is ranked that highly yet no one can argue they are yearly national championship contenders. I think there's alot more to it than class ranking and even prospects' stars for that matter. But this is probably the best means of quantitatively comparing teams and where they *should* stack up against each other in years to come, so it is what it is.
 
#45
#45
The rankings are subjective, not objective. Like someone else mentioned, send me $19.95 per month for my recruiting service and I'll happily make UT the #1 class. Big whoop!

They don't hand out hardware in Feb. Yes, recruiting is important. More for need than total stars. The services are in business to make money. At the end of the day they will have very little to do when the players start practicing next Aug.
 
#46
#46
i just don't understand where people miss this.

typically.....

oklahoma and texas dominate recruiting in the big 12
ohio state, michigan and penn state dominate big 10 recruiting
usc dominates pac 12 recruiting
florida state and clemson dominate acc recruiting

the sec is different having several schools that have high recruiting rankings year after year.....lsu, bama, georgia, florida, etc.

now the list of other schools that consistently put out good teams are extremely few.

they are virginia tech, wisconsin, oregon.

by my count, that's it. stanford and cal have had some good teams, especially stanford recently. iowa and michigan state have had some good teams. kansas state and oklahoma state have had some good teams, again recently. west virginia has had some pretty good teams. nebraska may be on its way back

i am willing to hear other examples of other programs that win consistently that get out-recruited relative to their competition, but i just don't see them.

to quote the great pat summit, "you don't win the kentucky derby with a donkey"
 
Last edited:
#47
#47
In terms of intra-conference competition for recruits, I agree with your assessment. If you want to talk about programs that achieved high rankings in the polls with recruiting classes that are typically rated well below Top 10 programs, you would have to throw Boise State and, until this year, TCU into the equation. Of course, their strength of schedule is historically weaker than the programs that you cited. Furthermore, Boise State and TCU probably dominated recruiting rankings vis-à-vis members in their respective conferences, but that is a relative concept compared to rankings of recruiting classes amassed by the perennial powers.
 
#49
#49
bigoleorange said:
Was looking at the 247 site and Vandy has 14 commits with an 87+ rating.

We have 7 commits that are at least 87+.

What gives?
Click to expand...

Who cares? Hopefully the coaching staff is filling needs. If a "5*" fills the need, great. If it's a "2*", great.

When a team takes the field next Sept. the "*" recruiting rankings don't mean squat.
 
#50
#50
Boca Vol said:
Who cares? Hopefully the coaching staff is filling needs. If a "5*" fills the need, great. If it's a "2*", great.

When a team takes the field next Sept. the "*" recruiting rankings don't mean squat.
Click to expand...

I think Bama is disproving your theory as I'm posting this. Stars matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top