phillyirish
................
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 884
FWIW, we're#9 on Rivals based on average rating per recruit. Which is crazy because we went 3-star bananas early in the cycle.
I think the #3 team overall ranking is more important. I used to focus on the average rating, thinking it was important getting the elite players, now I care more about the numbers. Depth wins games. Especially when you cant avoid transfers and your team suffers a number of casualties comparable to the result of a small natural disaster.
Look at the difference between us and SC (from rivals)
ND
Year Commits Average Rating
2012 17 3.53
2013 24 3.92
USC
Year Commits Average Rating
2012 15 4.07
2013 12 4.42
I chose these years because these players would be the juniors and senior classes today. As you can see, both years USC's average recruit was better than a four star, and at least a half a star rated higher than us. However, we signed 14 more prospects. This lead to more overall depth, competition, and the chance to find those late developer/hidden gems and ultimately being the better and especially more physical team on the field this year. Granted, SC was limited to their numbers due to sanctions but it still supports the argument that quantity beats quality when it comes to recruiting-- at least in a relative comparable sense (obviousness 15 3-4 stars would be better than 25 1 stars, or comparing a smaller power 5 class to a large sun belt class).