Stars and Recruiting Ranking discussion

[Danl]

Depending on the year you’re looking at over 400 undrafted feee agents on active rosters. No there’s not enough drafted nor 4/5 * guys to fill every roster.

Ok. I see that by one site there are 486 UFA currently on 53 man rosters. Let's take 486 undrafted free agents out of the total of 1696 players. That leaves about 1210 active players. That's about 160% of the 750 you calculated to have been drafted. Where did those extra 450+ players come from?

 

[Vol8188]

Ok. I see that by one site there are 486 UFA currently on 53 man rosters. Let's take 486 undrafted free agents out of the total of 1696 players. That leaves about 1210 active players. That's about 160% of the 750 you calculated to have been drafted. Where did those extra 450+ players come from?

Some guys play longer than average, sure.

 

[Danl]

Some guys play longer than average, sure.

Sure, but some play shorter than average.

Not aimed at you, 8188, but the numbers (not yours) seem wonky. There are 1696 players. There are 486 UFAs. I'm not sure I buy the published number for average NFL career. I suspect that the average length of NFL careers is skewed to the low side by the large number of rookies that never make a roster. I wonder if the average career for players that play at least one season might be much higher than 3.3 years.

 

[Vol8188]

Sure, but some play shorter than average.

Not aimed at you, 8188, but the numbers (not yours) seem wonky. There are 1696 players. There are 486 UFAs. I'm not sure I buy the published number for average NFL career. I suspect that the average length of NFL careers is skewed to the low side by the large number of rookies that never make a roster. I wonder if the average career for players that play at least one season might be much higher than 3.3 years.

Perhaps the average career is closer to 4 years if you include all players (kickers, punters, long snappers)? I’m not sure but I get what you’re saying.

3.3x259 (or how many ever picks total) should be roughly equal to the total number of drafted players in the league.

But for some reason there’s a difference of roughly 500 drafted players.

Another idea is that 3.3 is more of a historic average and careers today are longer (QBs seem to be for sure).

 

[allvolrecruiting]

Can’t wait for there to be another thread arguing this in a month! There’s a middle ground to all of it but everyone has to be right these days and won’t accept that

 

[LittleVol]

Can’t wait for there to be another thread arguing this in a month! There’s a middle ground to all of it but everyone has to be right these days and won’t accept that

It's impossible to be right about this.
That includes the recruiting guys.

That's the whole point of this argument.

 

[VolsdeepVFL]

This argument will never end until both sides admit they're only partially right...

To win championships you must convert 3 stars into starters via development, but you also must sign a portion of blue chip talent too. History shows that your roster being top 12 or better in talent means you have a shot, so it's not like we need top 5 classes (although it would be nice).

 

[Orange_Crush]

Can’t wait for there to be another thread arguing this in a month! There’s a middle ground to all of it but everyone has to be right these days and won’t accept that

What's the middle ground? That high star classes are great, but there is also under-or-non-ranked talent out there that could skew a team's talent ranking lower than its actual talent level?

 

[Woodlawn VOL]

Can’t wait for there to be another thread arguing this in a month! There’s a middle ground to all of it but everyone has to be right these days and won’t accept that

Yes it get’s old hearing the same redundant things. Like you said there is a middle ground to this that most of us don’t see, but sone think they have it all figured out. Me, I am just ready for football season. And winning! GBO!

 

[Dansky]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How quick they forget

We will see how it goes going forward. Keep telling yourself high level recruiting isn’t extremely important in high level results. Yep we had a great year last season. Hopefully we can build on that with a top 10 recruiting class With another very good year.

 

[swampfoxfan]

We will see how it goes going forward. Keep telling yourself high level recruiting isn’t extremely important in high level results. Yep we had a great year last season. Hopefully we can build on that with a top 10 recruiting class With another very good year.

High level coaching is more a factor, ask Butch Jones

 

[LittleVol]

Let's get some things straight.

Every person on here understands you need good players to win. Great players to win big.

What people need to understand is that these kids are individuals that can fit in at a certain capacity depending on their own ability. And that changes from team to team.

You don't buy 4 star and 5 star guys off the shelf so to speak.

Example:
Jordan Addison 4 star
Jalin Hyatt 4 star.
Both won the Biletnikoff Award. Yet entirely different players. Who's better?? It depends on largely how a team chooses to use them. This means "actually playing" and using their specific skillset to make an impact.

Recruiting is SO MUCH deeper than many make it out to be. Each program has a vision, and it's entirely possible Tennessee 2023 class will be better than Texas A&M 2023 class-that was ranked higher - because of what Tennessee needed for their game plan.

 

[sjt18]

You have to have top 5 classes if you want to win a NC. There is just way too much data that backs that up. The Clemson exception is rare. A complete outlier. You. Ring up the portal. Portal players don’t guarantee anything. They can be program changing or just decent.

Well once again... you are proven 100% wrong. Michigan with the #14 composite roster according to 247 (two spots higher than UT) was the better team vs the supposed #1 most talented team. Bama did well to make it close. Texas with the supposed #6 most talented roster was beaten by Washington... #26 in a game where Texas was playing catch up all night.

Coaching plays a factor but Bama and Texas are both well coached. Bama unquestionably. Development is a significant factor though both of those teams are known for great development. With other factors being roughly equal, the remaining and principle reason... is that the recruiting sites simply aren't as accurate as you think. They're fairly accurate when they give guys 4/5* but they miss A LOT of 3* guys who have 4/5* talent and potential. Staffs that can evaluate talent and put the right roster together... can (and will) win championships.

Now do I think we can win NY6 bowls without top 5 recruiting classes? Yes. Can we make the playoffs without top 5 classes? Yes. Win a NC? Highly unlikely.

Maybe now... you'll learn.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Well once again... you are proven 100% wrong. Michigan with the #14 composite roster according to 247 (two spots higher than UT) was the better team vs the supposed #1 most talented team. Bama did well to make it close. Texas with the supposed #6 most talented roster was beaten by Washington... #26 in a game where Texas was playing catch up all night.

Coaching plays a factor but Bama and Texas are both well coached. Bama unquestionably. Development is a significant factor though both of those teams are known for great development. With other factors being roughly equal, the remaining and principle reason... is that the recruiting sites simply aren't as accurate as you think. They're fairly accurate when they give guys 4/5* but they miss A LOT of 3* guys who have 4/5* talent and potential. Staffs that can evaluate talent and put the right roster together... can (and will) win championships.



Maybe now... you'll learn.

Outliers exist

 

[sjt18]

Outliers exist

Except... that's not what you said and they aren't outliers.

A&M supposedly had the 4th most talented roster in the country. OK State was 55th. Ohio State #3... Mizzou #25. Clemson #5 was evenly matched with UK #31. OU ranked 9th... beaten by Arizona #43. Miami #12 lost to #61 Rutgers.

When the outliers are that numerous... then your "rule" is incorrect. Yours is... and has been for as long as we've been having this argument. You need talent to win. You don't need the blessing of recruiting site journalists to have talent.

 

[LouderVol]

bump: let the debate!

2024 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

ok all you "stars don't matter", or blue chip ratio fans, 247 has updated their composite ranking of all team's talent level.

We are ranked #17 this year for the 2024 season. this DOES include transfers.
We were ranked #16 last year.

go ahead and freak out everyone. we are ranked lower than last in overall talent, freak out, run to the hills, take to twitter, we are DOOMMMMMEEEED.

meanwhile back in the results, you can actually see a marked step in improvement of talent. we are so much more talented in '24 than in '23 we would have been ranked #13, last year.

our overall score increased from 821.07 to 858.67.

we went from:

(2) 5 stars
(33) 4 stars
(50) 3 stars

to
(4) 5 stars
(37) 4 stars
(41) 3 stars.

any of the math wizards would have noticed something there. we are at the vaunted 50% BCR "required" to win a national championship. dead on 50% 41 blue chip, 41 scrubs.

and despite Bama remaining the most talented team in the nation, and actually increasing their score too, we have closed the gap with them. We have gone from 194.36 points behind them, to 159.61 points behind them. fwiw when we beat them in 2022 we were 250pts behind them.

our average score went up from 89.32 to 89.54.

 

[LouderVol]

looking at the teams and how we stack up to them compared year to year.

passed us:
FSU

expanded their lead:
Florida
Oregon

decreased their lead:
Michigan
USCw
Miami
Ped State
Notre Dame
LSU
Oklahoma
TAMU
Clemson
Texas
Ohio State
UGA
Bama

Imo thats pretty good. we closed the gap on 13 of the teams ahead of us. only lost ground to 3.

what it looks like is field got more competitive overall. pretty much every top team took a step forward. but we took a bigger step forward than 13 of those teams. Only 3, USC, TAMU, and Miami, took steps back.

and so far our 2025 class is better than our 2024 class, so it doesn't look like we will take a step back next year either.

 

[85SugarVol]

bump: let the debate!

2024 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

ok all you "stars don't matter", or blue chip ratio fans, 247 has updated their composite ranking of all team's talent level.

We are ranked #17 this year for the 2024 season. this DOES include transfers.
We were ranked #16 last year.

go ahead and freak out everyone. we are ranked lower than last in overall talent, freak out, run to the hills, take to twitter, we are DOOMMMMMEEEED.

meanwhile back in the results, you can actually see a marked step in improvement of talent. we are so much more talented in '24 than in '23 we would have been ranked #13, last year.

our overall score increased from 821.07 to 858.67.

we went from:

(2) 5 stars
(33) 4 stars
(50) 3 stars

to
(4) 5 stars
(37) 4 stars
(41) 3 stars.

any of the math wizards would have noticed something there. we are at the vaunted 50% BCR "required" to win a national championship. dead on 50% 41 blue chip, 41 scrubs.

and despite Bama remaining the most talented team in the nation, and actually increasing their score too, we have closed the gap with them. We have gone from 194.36 points behind them, to 159.61 points behind them. fwiw when we beat them in 2022 we were 250pts behind them.

our average score went up from 89.32 to 89.54.

Are you even approved to post in this forum

 

[ntxVOL]

looking at the teams and how we stack up to them compared year to year.

passed us:
FSU

expanded their lead:
Florida
Oregon

decreased their lead:
Michigan
USCw
Miami
Ped State
Notre Dame
LSU
Oklahoma
TAMU
Clemson
Texas
Ohio State
UGA
Bama

Imo thats pretty good. we closed the gap on 13 of the teams ahead of us. only lost ground to 3.

what it looks like is field got more competitive overall. pretty much every top team took a step forward. but we took a bigger step forward than 13 of those teams. Only 3, USC, TAMU, and Miami, took steps back.

and so far our 2025 class is better than our 2024 class, so it doesn't look like we will take a step back next year either.

Something has changed, it's impossible for all those teams to have increased their point totals if the scoring system is consistent.

You can see that the system has changed over time by counting the number of teams who's avg player rating is above 90.0 year over year. In 2010 there were 6 teams, in 2024 there were 19.

So, I'm not sure if year over year comparisons like this have any value.

 

[LouderVol]

Something has changed, it's impossible for all those teams to have increased their point totals if the scoring system is consistent.

You can see that the system has changed over time by counting the number of teams who's avg player rating is above 90.0 year over year. In 2010 there were 6 teams, in 2024 there were 19.

So, I'm not sure if year over year comparisons like this have any value.

I think its possible just based on the concentration of talent.

and I am not sure where you are getting 2010 data, 247 composite only goes back to 2015 that I see.

it could be their methodology has changed.

 

[ntxVOL]

I think its possible just based on the concentration of talent.

and I am not sure where you are getting 2010 data, 247 composite only goes back to 2015 that I see.

it could be their methodology has changed.

Ok, team rankings go back to 2010 and the composite ranking starting in 2015 are based off those.

Methodology has absolutely changed. It's not hard to see when comparing 2015 to 2024 that there a a lot more 4* players now than before.

Also looking at the 50th ranked team, Vanderbilt has a point total of 695.96, that would have been good enough for a ranking of 25th in 2015.

247 is playing games here I think, they are handing out more points per class each year, you can see that by comparing point totals year over year. I'm not sure why they are doing that but using any of the statistical values (avg player rating, total points, blue chip %) to make any kind of year over year comparison seems to be a fool's errand IMO.

 

[overseasorange2]

There are a lot of players who grow up in areas like that. Some of the best.

I was surprised the other day while looking at the top 20 high schools in football in the country, that half (10) were located in TX. A&M and Texas have a distinct advantage in recruiting.


Before you ask. It was on ON3. Ratings by Massey.