ND's Current Class Ranking

[Wild Bill]

Success like Bama's is a byproduct of coaching and players. When great coaching meets great players, you get great results. Why has Texas not produced at the level of Bama even with great classes? What about UGA? Clemson? The fact is, you need both to produce great results on a consistent basis. It isn't just the players tho.

It's certainly not just the players but they are the key ingredient. An elite coach can not win without elite talent. Elite talent can win without an elite coach.

 

[aubeirish]

I don't talent think is our problem anymore. The last 3 classes have been top10. There is a lot of talent on that team. It's about building consistent depth. We are almost there guys.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It's certainly not just the players but they are the key ingredient. An elite coach can not win without elite talent. Elite talent can win without an elite coach.

No, they had elite coaching......

To the point, I believe it is less likely that elite talent with average coaching to beat very good talent with elite coaching. It does happen though. I just believe that it is too simplistic to say that top 5 classes annually = elite results.

 

[DillonHall]

I don't talent think is our problem anymore. The last 3 classes have been top10. There is a lot of talent on that team. It's about building consistent depth. We are almost there guys.

I could be wrong, but I don't think 2012 was a top 10 class

 

[woolybug25]

Interesting note... Looking at 247's class rankings. The '10 Auburn team is the only national title winner that didn't have at least one #1 recruiting class on their team as far back as they did full rankings.

They had the biggest juco transfer of all time though...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I could be wrong, but I don't think 2012 was a top 10 class

It was, just barely. We were flirting with Top 3 before the high profile defections. Even after that, we held onto the top 10 due to Kiel, Neal, Shumate, Day, etc.

Now, if you were to retroactively account for transfers, the 2012 class is definitely not top 10.

 

[tussin]

I wouldn't say Jimbo is an elite coach.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I don't talent think is our problem anymore. The last 3 classes have been top10. There is a lot of talent on that team. It's about building consistent depth. We are almost there guys.

Maybe... it depends on how those three top 10 classes develop. Depth is great but if they aren't progressing, then all the stars and top 10 recruit rankings means nothing.

When evaluating a recruiting class, I try to first look at current needs, then two year needs so as to not get caught without adequate players, and then finish with adding depth and athleticism in the most important areas. I have read some of the comments about this Irish class that I don't understand. It appears BK has done what he needed to do in those areas he needed. I think this class will go a long way in getting the Irish back to where they need to be... and that should mean more than how many stars are after a players name.

 

[Wild Bill]

No, they had elite coaching......

To the point, I believe it is less likely that elite talent with average coaching to beat very good talent with elite coaching. It does happen though. I just believe that it is too simplistic to say that top 5 classes annually = elite results.

Yeah, he's good.

It is a simplistic approach but it works. The easiest, or simplest, way to predict success in college football is to look at team recruiting rankings.

 

[Luckylucci]

Interesting note... Looking at 247's class rankings. The '10 Auburn team is the only national title winner that didn't have at least one #1 recruiting class on their team as far back as they did full rankings.

They had the biggest juco transfer of all time though...

Exactly. There is no way Auburn comes back to beat Bama in the second half, after getting utterly destroyed, without Cam. They probably also don't beat Oregon in the NCG without Cam. The margin for error that game was too small. However, that is a very interesting stat.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

If you combine the best of all of our posts, I believe you are flirting with something brilliant.

When you are talking "elite talent," what is it? Is it five stars per rating service. Mike Frank on his audio shows made the point when talking about who did the ratings ten or more years ago, versus now. (Tom Luginbill versus any yahoo today.

So, now that everyone admits that recruiting today is a media show, adjust the evaluation of these media sources.

Wasn't it Frank Leahy that said it wasn't about putting out the eleven best, but the best eleven?

Brian Kelly talked a lot about a couple of the "big swings" he took lately. It was a long and idea packed soliloquy. To paraphrase. He knows the profile he needs. To build a program he needed to pack a class with them. He did. He likes going after the sexy talent but has found it incredibly resource intensive. It has not paid dividends, because with ND's restrictions he will never be able to pack a team with them.

So he has to do it another way. It is called building up an individual, empowering them to compete successfully, and building a great teammate. So you get this unit that works better as a team, with interchangeable parts for different competition. ND could not do that, change the parts in the Natty against Saban. And that was that game.

But with a deep team that can "look different" with different players engaged, you need selflessness, intelligence and a nasty attitude.

This is one reason it is so important for Kelly to get a commitment for four years and a degree from his players. This is the same process (different goals and results) that Mother Green uses. If Grahambo and a few others think on it, I bet they agree! It is why our Marine Corps is such a successful military outfit. It is why ND will be playing for championships.

 

[IrishLax]

It was, just barely. We were flirting with Top 3 before the high profile defections. Even after that, we held onto the top 10 due to Kiel, Neal, Shumate, Day, etc.

Now, if you were to retroactively account for transfers, the 2012 class is definitely not top 10.

Yeah, when you adjust for transfers I think it ends up somewhere in the 30s. IMO, if we could have kept all of the top tier talent from '11 and '12 productive/happy/enrolled that was at one time committed, we're looking at probably a BCS run at minimum last season. And a borderline dominant team coming into this year.

But we didn't so.... woulda coulda shoulda... Bang Bang Notre Dame Gang really left a gaping hole in our depth chart all things considered.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

It was, just barely. We were flirting with Top 3 before the high profile defections. Even after that, we held onto the top 10 due to Kiel, Neal, Shumate, Day, etc.

Now, if you were to retroactively account for transfers, the 2012 class is definitely not top 10.

If you include the transfers, the 2012 class was a disaster. Loosing Kiel, Neal, Tee, and Ferguson (with Neil the only one to take any snaps) left that class at 13 players. Granted a lot of the remainder have played well, but this team is going to suffer until the 2013 class comes into its own.

 

[DillonHall]

It was, just barely. We were flirting with Top 3 before the high profile defections. Even after that, we held onto the top 10 due to Kiel, Neal, Shumate, Day, etc.

Now, if you were to retroactively account for transfers, the 2012 class is definitely not top 10.

According to the composite rankings, we were 18-19, and this includes Kiel, Neal, and Ferguson.

 

[alohagoirish]

To be totally fair though--you can't take the 2012 class , deduct all the transfers or guys that are gone and then put that GROUP back into the rankings clean. You would have to deduct from the REST of the top 30 schools any & all of their commits that for any reason are gone and then RETALLY the entire list. That's a big job and I would expect it would bring us BACK much close to the top 10 again.

 

[IrishLax]

To be totally fair though--you can't take the 2012 class , deduct all the transfers or guys that are gone and then put that GROUP back into the rankings clean. You would have to deduct from the REST of the top 30 schools any & all of their commits that for any reason are gone and then RETALLY the entire list. That's a big job and I would expect it would bring us BACK much close to the top 10 again.

Except not though. The quantity becomes too few in that class to even be close to top 10. You're not wrong, but the class still isn't top 25 if you do the transfer math for everyone. No one else lost basically all of their top 5 signees.

 

[tdbaum1]

Per composite, we signed a better class than all future opponents not named Florida State. That has to make you feel good and is some solid perspective.

Yeah...makes me feel good, but every team is a potential opponent if we're looking to win championships.

 

[ACamp1900]

Except not though. The quantity becomes too few in that class to even be close to top 10. You're not wrong, but the class still isn't top 25 if you do the transfer math for everyone. No one else lost basically all of their top 5 signees.

5 top signees?? I didn't know it was that many... I'm almost scared to ask..

 

[woolybug25]

5 top signees?? I didn't know it was that many... I'm almost scared to ask..

Gunner Kiel [/frown]
Davonte Neal
Tee Shephard


Not sure who the other two "signees" are, but we were suppose to sign Greenberry and Darby to this class as well.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

5 top signees?? I didn't know it was that many... I'm almost scared to ask..

Darby, Greenberry, Shepard, Kiel and Neal. Decker was one of our better recruits, too.

 

[IrishLion]

Except not though. The quantity becomes too few in that class to even be close to top 10. You're not wrong, but the class still isn't top 25 if you do the transfer math for everyone. No one else lost basically all of their top 5 signees.

Kiel, Neal and Shepard... who am I missing?

EDIT: Question answered, but Greenberry and Darby were never part of the final rankings, so I wouldn't count them as losing signees when arguing revised class rankings.

 

[woolybug25]

Darby, Greenberry, Shepard, Kiel and Neal. Decker was one of our better recruits, too.

I think Lax meant "recruits", not "signees"

 

[IrishLax]

Yeah...makes me feel good, but every team is a potential opponent if we're looking to win championships.

But you play your schedule to get to the playoffs. I get what you're saying, but it has to be slightly reassuring to know that... per the #s... you're comparable or better than everyone on your schedule in prep school "talent." That means you should expected to win/be competitive in every game (if you're pulling that kind of recruiting class consistently). And if you're winning all your games, then you're going to the playoffs.

Compare this to Texas A&M, who had the 4th/5th best class nationally, and simultaneously the 3rd best class in the SEC West. Kind of a harsh reality check for the Aggies.

 

[IrishLax]

I think Lax meant "recruits", not "signees"

This.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Darby, Greenberry, Shepard, Kiel and Neal. Decker was one of our better recruits, too.

Not one of the top rated recruits but Ferguson is gone too.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Since they weren't all "signees", let's put it this way--

At various points throughout the late 2012 cycle, our top 13 commits were, in order:

Darby - 5, 0.9872
Kiel - 5, 0.9869
Greenberry - 4, 0.9785
Shepard - 4, 0.9748
Neal - 4, 0.9731
Shumate - 4, 0.9567
Day - 4, 0.9485
Stanley - 4, 0.9431
Russell - 4, 0.9373
Jones - 4, 0.9364
Decker - 4, 0.929
Mahone - 4, 0.9113
Ferguson - 4, 0.8918

The entirety of the top 5, 6 of the top 11, and 7 of the top 13 contributed virtually nothing to the program. Disasterous.

Lucky for us 2011 and 2013 were big star-studded classes from which we've gotten lots of production. If the 2014 class pans out as expected, we'll be fine.

 

[PerthDomer]

I wish we'd gotten Decker, if only to destroy OSU's o line depth. He's the only starter they bring back on the line...

 

[Bogtrotter07]

But you play your schedule to get to the playoffs. I get what you're saying, but it has to be slightly reassuring to know that... per the #s... you're comparable or better than everyone on your schedule in prep school "talent." That means you should expected to win/be competitive in every game (if you're pulling that kind of recruiting class consistently). And if you're winning all your games, then you're going to the playoffs.
Compare this to Texas A&M, who had the 4th/5th best class nationally, and simultaneously the 3rd best class in the SEC West. Kind of a harsh reality check for the Aggies.

Here is what I cannot seem to find an answer. How will the new playoff system treat strength of schedule? I look at the NCAA Men's Hoops Selection, and it is reasonable and built in. That is with 348 teams competing for 68 positions (or 19.5 per cent). In D1 football, there are 120 teams competing for 4 positions or 0.03 per cent. Even when you take it down there are only 25 (top 25) with a reasonable chance of making it there is still only a 16 percent chance of any team making it. So wins and losses come into it. Therefore, strength of schedule has to be a component. How? I know the who, the selection committee, two of whom are Ty Willingham and Condoleezza Rice. Trees anyone? But still . . .

 

[Rhode Irish]

Since they weren't all "signees", let's put it this way--

At various points throughout the late 2012 cycle, our top 13 commits were, in order:


The entirety of the top 5, 6 of the top 11, and 7 of the top 13 contributed virtually nothing to the program. Disasterous.

Lucky for us 2011 and 2013 were big star-studded classes from which we've gotten lots of production. If the 2014 class pans out as expected, we'll be fine.

Also luckily for us, those on your list who did stick (with the exception of Will Mahone to this point) all are or seem like they will be key contributors. If a few of those guys had busted out, the disaster that was the 2012 class could have actually been significantly worse.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Since they weren't all "signees", let's put it this way--

At various points throughout the late 2012 cycle, our top 13 commits were, in order:


The entirety of the top 5, 6 of the top 11, and 7 of the top 13 contributed virtually nothing to the program. Disasterous.

Lucky for us 2011 and 2013 were big star-studded classes from which we've gotten lots of production. If the 2014 class pans out as expected, we'll be fine.

When you think of that, and the particularly bad situation at quarterback at ND in the Kelly era, it is amazing to think of how well the program has done!