1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Recruiting rankings do matter!!

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by BlackNGold, Jul 12, 2010.

  1. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,502
    Likes Received:
    609
    Although I am not a big follower of recruiting on a player by player basis I do pay attention to the recruiting rankings of the classes overall. I always laugh at the reaction of some of the fan base to these rankings - when CU has a bad class there are always examples given of 2 star players who are top draft choices or of the non-BCS team that does good. The fact is for a BCS team like CU they have to have good recruiting classes in order to succeed.

    This article hits on the reasons that rankings are important. IMO, you certainly can find Div. 1 football players that are even unranked but it is a statistical exercise - If a recruiting class has 25 - 2 star player you may get 6 who are BCS starting quality players but is your class is 25 - 3 star and above players you will probably get 12 plus who are starting caliber players.

    I certainly believe that CU has some quality players but I also believe that having enough quality players will be an issue. Even teams with good recruiting can have issues with injuries (OU last year) and other defections. CU has had too many reaches to fill out the recruiting classes in the last couple of years, IMO, to have sufficient depth unless they get really lucky with some of those players.

    What are your toughts?
     
  2. SINKRATZ

    SINKRATZ Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,176
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    We need to recruit way better.
     
  3. DBT

    DBT Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    58,558
    Likes Received:
    4,707
    No arguement from me. But I think the problem is rating individual players on a case by case basis. But, yeah, if your class is consistently in the top 20 in recruiting, odds are you will be a very good program. Also, the higher ranked programs are going to generate higher ranked recruiting classes. Kind of a "chicken and egg" thing.
     
  4. dply

    dply Doble hoja Club Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    20,383
    Likes Received:
    2,472
    My biggest problem with the recruiting ranking is how they can change just because certain teams are interested. A class full of 4-5 stars will pretty much always beat a class of 2-3 stars though.

    One team, I think it was Miami, started not really recruiting on their own and just followed the recruiting sites and that was when they started to stink.

    It think you really need to look at your teams setup and then recruit the best you can. If you have a option type team, then getting a 5 star pocket passer will not help you as much as a 3 star running qb. The buffs haven't had a set offensive identitiy and have just recruited what they can. I think this is why the buffs have to find an offense this year. Then recruit to that offense.
     
  5. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,737
    Likes Received:
    16,440
    They absolutely matter.

    The rankings aren't the final word, by any means, but they are indicative of how strong a recruiting class is and how well that team will do when that class reaches its senior year.

    It's kind of like NFL draft picks. Sure, the higher the pick the more likely he will succeed. But there are also 1st round busts and 5th round steals.
     
  6. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,522
    Likes Received:
    4,518
    I think average star ratings mean more than class rankings. Class ranks are influenced by class size. I'd rather have 5 5* players and 10 4* players than have 25 3* players. A lot of times, the rankings for certain schools get overly inflated by the size of the class they're taking. Wasn't it Mississippi a few years ago that had something like 30 commitments?
    I don't have a problem with over-commiting, either. You have to figure you're going to lose 2-3 players out of every class due to grades, injury, legal issues, whatever.
     
  7. leftybuff

    leftybuff Iconoclast Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    24,990
    Likes Received:
    2,712
    Recruiting rankings show trends. There will always be statistical outliers, but the better your average reruiting ranking over three or more years, the more likely your team won't suck.....
     
  8. 4DemBuffs

    4DemBuffs Most admired poster Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    21,706
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    its a balancing act, imo. teams with more 4 and 5 star recruits up and down the roster are going to be better. just the way it is. there is no way that BSU beats OU in a best of 5 series despite BSU's upset of OU in the FB, for example. BSU will not go undefeated in a league like the Big 10, Pac 10, SEC or the Big XII. just not going to happen.

    so, what happens is when you get the 5 star who becomes a bust, you have a 4 star guy filling his spot in the starting lineup rather than a 2 star guy.

    the teams that fill the rosters with 2 and 3 star kids need them to all reach and exceed thier potential to be competitive on a BCS level.

    but, stars are not everything. if they were, USC should be winning MNC's every year. or OU. or Texas. or FSU. or Florida. they dont because of key injuries at key times or bad coaching decisions or a team just does not get in that "groove" that gives them the oppertunity to reach that level. its all kinds of things.

    but, just look around. those 2-3 star teams beat those 4 and 5 star teams from time to time. they call those upsets. they dont happen nearly as often as when the 4 and 5 star teams take the 2 and 3 star teams to the woodshed.

    projects are great when the majority of your kids are 4 and 5 star kids. you can choose to roll those dice. for some teams, those are the only dice they have.

    yeah, rankings matter. they are not the end all be all though. CU has talent but they have one star coaching. look no further than how well CU has recruited along the OL since hawk arrived. are not the majority of those guys 4 and 5 star recruits?

    to be a MNC contender, you need a whole confluence of events to come together. a team meshing, good coaching, other teams stepping on thier collective dicks, a break here and there and great talent. pretty simple if you ask me. :smile2:

    i would say that CU has definitly recruited some talent over the last few years. the problem lies with the depth and on balance, this staffs complete inability to get these players to either reach or exceed thier potential and be put in a position to be successful with some of the coaching decisions that have been made on several roster spots.
     
  9. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,502
    Likes Received:
    609
    I agree with a lot of what you have eloquently stated - I would be happy at the moment if we could just be competitive in the conference. I think CU at the moment is the antithesis of those attributes - team meshing (no), good coaching (no), a break here and there (no), great talent (no). The one thing the Buffs have going for them this year is a more experienced team, will that be enough to overcome some of the other problems - I do not know.
     
  10. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,737
    Likes Received:
    16,440
    Absolutely. But you can look at a program like Iowa. Their 2009 team made a national title run and ended up in a BCS game after a couple down years. Their 2005 recruiting class was ranked #11 by Rivals. Coincidence? I don't think so.

    For CU, look to the 2012 season. Our #15 2008 class will be 5th year seniors. Maybe we arrive a year early with that #32 class from 2007 thrown into the mix. That's going to be very strong upper classes next season.

    The question in 2010 for us is whether that #48 class from 2006 has enough guys that over-performed their initial ranking. Not a single guy was a 4* or 5*. In fact, no one was even at the upper end of the 3* rankings (unlike 2010, when we got 5 of those upper three star types). I just looked back, and of the 22 guys we signed that year only 7 are left (Beatty 3*, J Brown 2*, C Hawkins 3*, Herrod 3*, Sipili 3*, Smith 3*, and Solder 3*). We've then added McKnight 2*, Nabors 2* and Stevens (unranked) as scholarship walk ons, Simmons as a 4* JUCO transfer and Goodman as a 2* D1 transfer. Drescher 2* and Chap 2* had been in that class, but did not redshirt and graduated last year.
     
  11. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,737
    Likes Received:
    16,440
    Definitely true, but not to the extent I had thought. Rivals, for instance, only uses a maximum of 20 recruits for each program when evaluating a class. Obviously if you've only signed 16 guys it's going to hurt your ranking. Also, if you've signed 25 or more guys it's going to help you because Rivals is going to count the 20 highest-ranked guys in its team class rankings. So you only get credit for 20, but it's your best 20.
     
  12. Hank

    Hank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,511
    Likes Received:
    152
    Really? I would say that our recruiting is on par with our record on the field.
     
  13. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    Meh... recruiting "rankings" are influenced by a plethora of things.

    Did Texas offer? (If yes, add another star)
    Did he commit to Texas? (If yes, add another star)
    None of the "big boys" recruiting? (Take a star away)
    Plays football in a "non-football-hotbed"? (Take a star away)


    Obviously, at the end of the day I'd like it if kids passed up Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, USC, Oregon, etc. to play with the Buffs - but for every 5-star athlete who never pans out, there is probably a 2-star who does.

    Also notice the teams who consistently have the highest ranked recruiting classes, generally have the highest ranked teams at the end of the year. Which is the cause and which is the effect? High recruiting ranking because of what they have done on the field the past few years? Or high ranking because of the recruits they've brought in? If rankings were all that mattered, Colorado State would never beat Colorado, Boise State would never beat Oklahoma, etc.
     
  14. NashBuff

    NashBuff CSU Knob-Slobberer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    57
    I stopped paying for Rivals because recruiting is an inexact science and any kid's loyalty can change from one day to the next day. The day that the kids can sign their LOIs is when I give some attention to those things. Other than that, there's always Madden on the Wii or NCAA FB on the PSP. I tried my hand at this and it was a huge waste of my time and money.

    On another note, one poster said something about having an idenity on offense...I think that is part of the reason why CU's recruiting classes have stunk of late. Not only does Cody Hawkins get the starting nod but also it seems like CU's offense is changing every year. It's time for CU to decide on an offense and move with it...I'm getting tired of this Hawkins crap where we change the offense, defense, or whatever more often than necessary. I think it's time to have an actual system in place and that is what I miss about GB's teams but I don't miss Shawn Watson's playcalling (notice Nebraska was last in the Big 12 on total offense during conference play?).
     
  15. Unleash Hell

    Unleash Hell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    22,245
    Likes Received:
    648
    I agree to a degree, but like others have said, rankins are REALLY skewed by who offers and where the kid is from, and what High school he's from IMO. Plus, look at our track record with 4 and 5 stars, not very good. We have not had the best production out of them.
     
  16. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,449
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    It is very true that the rankings for each kid are pretty much based on who is recruiting him. A school with a big fan base that buys a lot of subscriptions recruiting a kid means that he gets a bunch of stars. A kid that commits solidly to a mid-major before anyone else offers him gets a low number of stars. With this in mind the number of stars or ranking of an individual kid is pretty suspect.

    At the same time the schools that win and win big don't do it because they are recruiting marginal players. Generally speaking if U$C, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, LSU, and a couple of others are after a kid it's because they think he can play. If a kids offers are SDSU, San Jose, and Nevada-Reno and he is playing on a HS team with guys getting recruited by a bunch of PAC 10 and Big XII schools chances are the coaches have seen something that leads them to question his potential as a player.

    The NFL draft each year shows us that evaluating HS players in an inexact science with the number of small school players, walk-ons, etc. who end up getting drafted and the number of highly touted HS players who are nowhere to be seen 4-5 years later. That said in general if you have a bunch of guys that the schools that win a lot wanted you are much more likely to win than if you have a roster full of leftovers and overachievers.

    I also agree completely with NashBuff in that Hawkins has completely failed in terms of establishing an identity with this team. One year we are supposively a spread team, the next no huddle, the next we are going to be a running team (at least until the second quarter of the first game) same on defense. The coaches have no clear idea of what or who this team is so of course the players have no clear idea either. Recruiting is all based around who we can get, not who we can get that fits what we want to do.
     
  17. Duff Man

    Duff Man Moderator Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    39,727
    Likes Received:
    4,731
    We all know there are major issues with that 2008 class though. For one, take Darrell Scott and Lynn Kotoa out of the equation (two of the top 100 prospects in the class) and that class ranking slides. Then you have to take into account that Shaun Mohler, a 4* in that class, has graduated. Finally, MTM is another 4* that may never may much of an impact due to injury issues. That class does not look nearly as good two years later for a myriad of reasons.

    The rankings do matter, and not just the national rankings. Failing to sign a single top 10 CO prep player in the 2010 class is as bad a sign as any in the Hawkins era. So is the fact that we have only signed 3-4 Texas top 100 in the Hawkins era. You have to be winning some recruiting battles against top teams.
     
  18. rodrigo

    rodrigo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    96
    Is this like the 8 billionth time we've had this debate?
     
  19. 96 Buff

    96 Buff Resident Commie Bastard Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,161
    Likes Received:
    1,170
    7,032,920,063rd time. Close, though.
     
  20. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,502
    Likes Received:
    609
    Bingo...The vaunted classes seem to lose more at the top end than at the bottom end. I still think that CU's lack of quality depth is going to come back to bite them.
     
  21. Razorbuff

    Razorbuff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    11
    Recruiting rankings do matter to an extent, but as other posters have said too, Rivals is a business that wants to sell subscriptions. Programs like CU (and Arkansas) definitely aren't going to be buying tons of rivals subscriptions, so what's the purpose of trying to generate excitement? Not much of one. I personally like to look at a guy's offer sheet if he commits later on in the process, or if you have a proven HC and he offers the guy early and he is a Plan A type player, I'm fine with getting him, even if he doesn't have a huge offer list. I'd say honestly, after identifying the 5 star guys, which most would say are typically no brainers, then ranking guys gets much trickier. All the time we see guys who are 3* players who you look back on and go "WTF Rivals, this guy is clearly 4 or 5* material." Rankings do have some correlation with success, but they are by no means the be all end all of a program.
     
  22. DBT

    DBT Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    58,558
    Likes Received:
    4,707
    I think you missed a couple.
     
  23. 77buff

    77buff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    57
    Our coaching has alot to do with our poor production from 4 and 5 star players. Other schools get 4 and 5 star guys and they contribute big time. Just my opinion, but Talkins doesn't coach up players or put them in a position where their talents can contribute. If you have any confidence in Steele's recruiting rankings - look at the best rankings over the last 5 years and those teams finish with very successful seasons.
    Razorbuff, your boy Mallett is rated QB PS#1, I'd say this is right. He's a freakin nightmare.
    public_enemy..jpg
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2010
  24. 4DemBuffs

    4DemBuffs Most admired poster Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    21,706
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    well, i dont know what to tell you. lets look at last years losses....
    csu - i think CU has better talent. worse coaching
    toledo - same
    wvu - they have better talent and coaching
    texas - same
    ksu - same talent worse coaching
    mizzou - they have better talent and coaching
    isu - CU has better talent but worse coaching
    osu - they have better talent and coaching
    knu - they have better talent and coaching

    so, you have csu, toledo, ksu and isu where CU is at least as good talent wise but has worse coaching. with a decent coach, those are most likely flipped from L's to W's and you have a 7 win season. plus, with good coaching you might win a game or two that you should have lost on paper. say OSU or knu. 8 wins. i dont think that is unreasonable.

    seems to me that with some good coaching, game planning and development of talent, 7 to 9 wins should be attainable with the talent that CU has. that is just the way i see it though.....
     
  25. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,502
    Likes Received:
    609
    Eight wins should of been easy last year - CSU, Toledo, KSU, ISU - should of all been wins. Missouri was set up to be a win - a young team playing on our home field with an injured QB...but for some reason CU folds against the tigers (remember Missouri lost at home to Baylor). OSU could of been a win - OSU had numerous injuries and started a backup QB who could not complete a pass. Many here were predicting 8 wins.
     
  26. Buff_since76

    Buff_since76 Still a fan... Club Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,212
    Likes Received:
    293
    Recruiting services can miss, and miss big, on individual players. In each class you can find a Solder, Dizon, or even a Ryan Clady. I would estimate that there are 10-20 true diamonds in the rough in every recruiting cycle. Those are the guys who for 2-3 years everyone says "rivals and scout really screwed up when evaluating him", and "He grew up wanting to go to Ohio State, and you know the Buckeyes wish they wouldn't have over looked him now". There are probably 50-75 guys who play above their level, or at a position people weren't expecting them to play, i.e Hypolite. These are the guys who are on the 2nd and 3rd teams in the conference at the end of the year, and might get selected in the 6-7 round of the draft. The rest of the lower ranked players are all guys with potential, who never quite make it for any number of reasons. You can get an unexpected boost by finding one of the 10-20, but you can’t expect to find 1 in every class, let alone multiple within a class. The players who outplay their initial ability are also tough to find, and it is a poor strategy to try and get multiple players in that category in each class. I would say a successful recruiting strategy would be to limit the 2* but has huge ‘potential’ to 20% or less of a class.

    I don’t put much weight in the total “points” that each site uses to rank classes. I would much rather have 19 guys with a 3.5 star average than 25 guys with a 3 star average. The one true anomaly to the whole class ranking is Notre Dame. According to their rivals and scout ranking they should have 10-11 wins each season and a lock for a BCS game. Instead they are in the same category as CU in terms of on the field performance.
     
  27. UrbanaBuff

    UrbanaBuff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    13
    One variable factor is the bias of rating services. For example, everyone knows that Tom Lemming strokes ND's ****. If ND starts sniffing around after a kid, BOOM... that recruit gains at least 1-2 stars. This same phenomenon occurs for Duke in NCAA hoops. It serves to create artificial expectations for the fanbase... i.e. Weis supposedly landed like three straight Top 5 classes, yet he struggled to get to .500 each year and his superstar recruits have underwhelmed.
     
  28. Razorbuff

    Razorbuff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    11
    Mallett is the most talented QB in CFB right now. ESPN is spinning Locker and Luck, but neither of them can read a defense or throw a FB like Mallett does (in fact I'd wager there are very few guys in the NFL with his level of arm strength). ESPN is saying Mallett's big problem is the INT's, but he only threw 7 last year. He isn't mobile, but he isn't unathletic either. His biggest problem is going for the HR throw instead of taking the underneath pass. Once he learns to do that, we will be alright.
     
  29. rodrigo

    rodrigo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    96
    On a somewhat related note... can't remember where I saw it but in Aggieland there is some suggestion that Mister Jones will be moved to linebacker because of existing talent/depth at RB.

    That dude shoulda been a Buff. No bigger indictment of how far CU has tumbled in recruiting.
     
  30. Denver_sc

    Denver_sc Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,646
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    This X 1000.

    I've never done it, but I would have to imagine that if you have a highly thought of recruit comes into CU and Hawk says, "We will find some ways to get you on the field and you will help us be successful," that's a far less compelling pitch than the kid going down to Florida where Urban Meyer can show the kid film from his entire FLA tenure, and probably even some stuff from Bowling Green and Utah, and say, "That position right there that I've employed for 10 years is where we see you fitting. We see your speed and specific skills fitting in with the responsibilities and roles of that position, and heres how:" and continues on.
     

Share This Page