Paul Johnson time frame.

[bobongo]

I think success is about 60% recruiting and 40% coaching.

There's some truth to that, but you can still look at the top ten teams at the end of the year and if you check out their recruiting ranking they'll be up in that category as well. And good coaches get good recruits. Generally speaking.

 

[COJacket]

There's some truth to that, but you can still look at the top ten teams at the end of the year and if you check out their recruiting ranking they'll be up in that category as well. And good coaches get good recruits. Generally speaking.

Totally agree AND, there are plenty of top 25 recruiting teams with plenty of resources that do not end up even close to the top 10 or top 25, i.e. at times teams like Miami, FSU, USC, UCLA, Texas ..... Some good coaches can "coach up" lower recruiting teams into the top 25 and some good recruiting coaches actually "coach down" their highly recruited team right out of the rankings. One reason why I love college football.

 

[RonJohn]

By correlation, I mean the top teams in recruiting rankings, generally speaking, are the top teams in the final polls, the best teams in the nation. Of course it's difficult to ferret out who's #1 vs. who's #4, or #4 and #8, but the general drift is strong. Top ten teams get the best players. They aren't highly ranked just because top ten teams want them, the top ten teams want them because they are the best. And exceptions abound, but in general the correlation holds strong. If the top ranked players were only ranked because the top teams wanted them, the top teams wouldn't be top teams. C'mon, just look at the top ten at the end of the season. Almost all have high recruiting rankings over the last four years. As I said there's some bias, but not as much as some would like to believe. The proof is in the results.

If Notre Dame wants a recruit, he suddenly changes from a 2 star to a 3 star. If Nick Saban wants a player, his star number will increase. There is indeed a direct correlation between who is recruiting a player and what his rating is. The explanation for C'Bo last year was that the interest from ND caused them to "re-look" at him and they noticed that they had mistakenly ranked him lower. If that is indeed what happened, then what would happen if they "re-looked" at every two-star?

Alabama is probably going to do well and end up in the top 10. If you rank their valued recruits highly, then your rankings will probably look good. The mutts are probably going to do well and end up in the top 10. If you rank their valued recruits highly, then your rankings will probably look good. LSU is probably going to do well and end up in the top 10. If you rank their valued recruits highly, then your rankings will probably look good. Ohio State, USC, Penn State, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame are all probably going to have good seasons and are likely to be in the top 10. If I ran a recruiting analysis service and ranked their valued recruits high, at the end of the season my top recruiting rankings teams would probably closely match the top 10.

Look at the other side. Over the last few years, USC, Miami, Oregon, and Florida State have recruited very well according to the services. Are they in the top 10?

My point is that if you pick the factory schools and rank their recruits high, then you will get the same result that you are saying is "proof" that the rankings are correct. Those teams in the top 10-15 recruiting rankings have probably recruited better talent. However, the recruiting rankings aren't a verification of that, they are simply leeching off of the factory schools to make money.

 

[bobongo]

As I said, there's some bias. I'm not denying that.

But generally speaking the recruiting rankings reflect the quality of the recruits. In general. That's why Alabama ranks at or near the top in recruiting rankings and at or near the top in results on the field. And the recruiting rankings come before the results, not after. As for Miami and FSU (and Texas and Tennessee), those are the teams that have made poor use of their recruits by poor coaching. But those exceptions do not invalidate the overall rule. Just look at the four-year recruiting rankings and the Top Ten. Remember that those rankings have been compiled in advance of the end-of-year Top Ten. You'll note a strong, if imperfect, correlation. There are some mild exceptions and some big ones, but the general correlation is clear and strong. And those rankings are compiled before the fact. Perennial powerhouses are perennially ranked high in recruiting, before the fact.

 

[MidtownJacket]

But the whole issue I have with ranking services is that there is NO universal equivalent for these guys.. Think about it, Tim Tebow would have looked like a chump in an air raid offense, and guys like Big Ben Rothlieberger would look foolish in a RPO Spread.. The rankings (at best) try to force fit a score based on a kid's athletic measurables and (at worst) pander to a fanbase's ego

 

[ibeattetris]

But the whole issue I have with ranking services is that there is NO universal equivalent for these guys.. Think about it, Tim Tebow would have looked like a chump in an air raid offense, and guys like Big Ben Rothlieberger would look foolish in a RPO Spread.. The rankings (at best) try to force fit a score based on a kid's athletic measurables and (at worst) pander to a fanbase's ego

Aren't the rankings meant to be an indicator for NFL success and have nothing to do with NCAA? In that regard it is generally pretty good. Over 50% of 5 stars are drafted and then 75% of those are retained on rosters. That's pretty amazing considering they are projecting 3-5 years out.

There are certainly more 2-3-4 star guys in the NFL, but that is a numbers deal due to only having a set 50 5 stars out of all the high school players.

 

[Towaliga]

There is no denying the 5 stars are generally the cream of the crop and have a better shot at being successful in college and probably going to the next level, but it's the 0-4's that I have to question. The star rankings are geared toward selling subscriptions to a service. There was a player just a few years ago that GT was recruiting and we were one of the bigger schools doing so (I forget his name because he didn't sign with us) who one morning at 9:00 was a 2-star or 3-star (depending on the service, and had been for quite some time), at 10:00 u(sic)ga offered, and at 11:00 he was an across-the-board 4-star.

 

[Milwaukee]

There is no denying the 5 stars are generally the cream of the crop and have a better shot at being successful in college and probably going to the next level, but it's the 0-4's that I have to question. The star rankings are geared toward selling subscriptions to a service. There was a player just a few years ago that GT was recruiting and we were one of the bigger schools doing so (I forget his name because he didn't sign with us) who one morning at 9:00 was a 2-star or 3-star (depending on the service, and had been for quite some time), at 10:00 u(sic)ga offered, and at 11:00 he was an across-the-board 4-star.

People always claim this and they're extremely vague about it. I'd like to see examples in real time. Rankings matter and are for the most part accurate whether we like it or not. None of us said a damn word about how recruiting rankings were junk back in 07. Just sayin.

 

[ibeattetris]

There is no denying the 5 stars are generally the cream of the crop and have a better shot at being successful in college and probably going to the next level, but it's the 0-4's that I have to question. The star rankings are geared toward selling subscriptions to a service. There was a player just a few years ago that GT was recruiting and we were one of the bigger schools doing so (I forget his name because he didn't sign with us) who one morning at 9:00 was a 2-star or 3-star (depending on the service, and had been for quite some time), at 10:00 u(sic)ga offered, and at 11:00 he was an across-the-board 4-star.

I think they pretty much have said any kid with an offer is a 2 star. Then based on who offers they'll bump people up and down. The players who go to the elite camps will actually have analysts looking at them. For the 2-3 stars that haven't had anyone look at, if they get an Alabama offer, all of a sudden alalysts will begin to actually look at the player and will do more a more in depth look.

So like you said, the actual difference between three stars and low 4 stars probably isn't much to worry about since a lot of the kids aren't really looked at much. A kid that our coaches think fit our scheme is more important than an analysts NFL projection of the player.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Aren't the rankings meant to be an indicator for NFL success and have nothing to do with NCAA? In that regard it is generally pretty good. Over 50% of 5 stars are drafted and then 75% of those are retained on rosters. That's pretty amazing considering they are projecting 3-5 years out.

There are certainly more 2-3-4 star guys in the NFL, but that is a numbers deal due to only having a set 50 5 stars out of all the high school players.

They are, I believe, primarily useful as an indicator of NFL measurables, but my point remains that scheme fit is more important in productivity at the college level (with the exception of the maybe 10 guys a year who are just FREAK athletes. Calvin Johnson for example would be a stud in ANY offense)

 

[ibeattetris]

They are, I believe, primarily useful as an indicator of NFL measurables, but my point remains that scheme fit is more important in productivity at the college level (with the exception of the maybe 10 guys a year who are just FREAK athletes. Calvin Johnson for example would be a stud in ANY offense)

That's what I said too =)

 

[MidtownJacket]

That's what I said too =)

Couldn't have said it better myself then \o/

 

[Towaliga]

People always claim this and they're extremely vague about it. I'd like to see examples in real time. Rankings matter and are for the most part accurate whether we like it or not. None of us said a damn word about how recruiting rankings were junk back in 07. Just sayin.

Like I said, I can’t remember his name. Heck, I have a hard time with my own kids’ names. However, in this case, I remember being aware of it only after CPJ mentioned it in a press conference. Maybe someone else remembers the specifics.

 

[smokey_wasp]

People always claim this and they're extremely vague about it. I'd like to see examples in real time. Rankings matter and are for the most part accurate whether we like it or not. None of us said a damn word about how recruiting rankings were junk back in 07. Just sayin.

Nor do we question them when me manage to land a 4 star now.

 

[RonJohn]

People always claim this and they're extremely vague about it. I'd like to see examples in real time. Rankings matter and are for the most part accurate whether we like it or not. None of us said a damn word about how recruiting rankings were junk back in 07. Just sayin.

C'Bo was a 2 star until ND offered him. That was last year.

I don't claim that rankings are "junk". I just say that they are imperfect. The NFL spends much more money on evaluating much fewer players. They do full medical exams with MRIs. They do psychological evaluations. They interview: high school coaches, friends, acquaintances, college coaches, etc. They still sometimes get it wrong. What is the real difference between the 30th ranked OLB and the 60th ranked OLB? In team rankings, that matters. In the real world, I don't think it does actually matter. Did the ratings services spend enough time evaluating the players? Do they know the difference in skill level between the opponent teams of #30 and #60? Do they know the difference in skill level between the actual players on the opponents teams that #30 and #60 were going up against? Do they actually know how: fast, quick, strong, etc.. #30 and #60 are in an apples to apples comparison? The answer to all of those questions is no. They don't evaluate every single high school player, so they cannot know the skill level of every player that each of the OLBs went up against. They don't do 40 yard dash and 20 yard cone drills with every OLB on the same field or track. They don't get two-ended laser timed 40 yard dashes from every OLB even on different speed fields or tracks. If you get a guy like Trevor Lawrence, you can tell that he is at the top. If you get a guy who is a couple of rungs below him and a guy who is several rungs below him, the recruiting services have absolutely no way of determining which is better.

 

[Lavoisier]

Rankings matter as far as tiers go. The top 150 kids are super elite, kids ranked 500-600 are more project players or non-conventional. If you think you can say one kid is the #23 ranked guard and another is the #36 ranked guard you are full of ****, which is paraphrased from something CPJ once said. Services also rank kids based on camps more than game footage because full game footage is tough to come by and it isn't practical to wade through all that footage. A 5* kid will kill it in camps and in games though, but a 3* kid might not go to camps or might be much better on the field than his measurements show.

 

[RonJohn]

As I said, there's some bias. I'm not denying that.

But generally speaking the recruiting rankings reflect the quality of the recruits. In general. That's why Alabama ranks at or near the top in recruiting rankings and at or near the top in results on the field. And the recruiting rankings come before the results, not after. As for Miami and FSU (and Texas and Tennessee), those are the teams that have made poor use of their recruits by poor coaching. But those exceptions do not invalidate the overall rule. Just look at the four-year recruiting rankings and the Top Ten. Remember that those rankings have been compiled in advance of the end-of-year Top Ten. You'll note a strong, if imperfect, correlation. There are some mild exceptions and some big ones, but the general correlation is clear and strong. And those rankings are compiled before the fact. Perennial powerhouses are perennially ranked high in recruiting, before the fact.

But, as I said before, if I take the top teams of now and rate their top prospects very highly, in four years the teams that those kids sign with will probably roughly correlate to the top 10. Some of those teams will drop out, and others will come in. The top teams don't change that often or that quickly. In 2014, GT was in the top 10 without a top 40 recruiting class. USC has an average recruiting ranking of #5 for the past four years. They aren't even in the top 25. What I am saying is that if I take the final top 10 every year and rank the top prospects they have for the next year as high level prospects, then in four years my recruiting rankings will correlate highly to the final top 10 teams. There will be a few teams that weren't in my top 10 recruiting rankings, but that isn't any different than the way it is now.

 

[Animal02]

Rankings matter as far as tiers go. The top 150 kids are super elite, kids ranked 500-600 are more project players or non-conventional. If you think you can say one kid is the #23 ranked guard and another is the #36 ranked guard you are full of ****, which is paraphrased from something CPJ once said. Services also rank kids based on camps more than game footage because full game footage is tough to come by and it isn't practical to wade through all that footage. A 5* kid will kill it in camps and in games though, but a 3* kid might not go to camps or might be much better on the field than his measurements show.

500-600 are not project kids.
There are 130 FBS teams....at an average of 19 schollys per year....that is 2,470. The first 200 are the elites. The 200-750 are the upper level, the next 1-k are your average D1 players.

 

[Milwaukee]

C'Bo was a 2 star until ND offered him. That was last year.

I don't claim that rankings are "junk". I just say that they are imperfect. The NFL spends much more money on evaluating much fewer players. They do full medical exams with MRIs. They do psychological evaluations. They interview: high school coaches, friends, acquaintances, college coaches, etc. They still sometimes get it wrong. What is the real difference between the 30th ranked OLB and the 60th ranked OLB? In team rankings, that matters. In the real world, I don't think it does actually matter. Did the ratings services spend enough time evaluating the players? Do they know the difference in skill level between the opponent teams of #30 and #60? Do they know the difference in skill level between the actual players on the opponents teams that #30 and #60 were going up against? Do they actually know how: fast, quick, strong, etc.. #30 and #60 are in an apples to apples comparison? The answer to all of those questions is no. They don't evaluate every single high school player, so they cannot know the skill level of every player that each of the OLBs went up against. They don't do 40 yard dash and 20 yard cone drills with every OLB on the same field or track. They don't get two-ended laser timed 40 yard dashes from every OLB even on different speed fields or tracks. If you get a guy like Trevor Lawrence, you can tell that he is at the top. If you get a guy who is a couple of rungs below him and a guy who is several rungs below him, the recruiting services have absolutely no way of determining which is better.

Rankings in general are junk though, right? #2 vs #8 in the country right now...its all speculative. But we only pick on recruiting rankings because we don't recruit well, is what I'm saying.

 

[bobongo]

Rankings in general are junk though, right? #2 vs #8 in the country right now...its all speculative. But we only pick on recruiting rankings because we don't recruit well, is what I'm saying.

If we recruited well, we'd be crowing about our recruiting class ranking.