ND's Current Class Ranking

[Green Mountains]

I tried to look at the class rankings a different way. I ranked each player at their position, using 247 Comp. Then I re-ranked the classes in the top 10 using the average position rank. Here is what that looks like:

.........................................Aver at........# of.........247 Comp
Rank........... School...........Position.......Recruits......Ranking

1.................USC...............5.7................15.............2
2.................Texas...........12.1................13...........10
3.................LSU..............12.4................25.............8
4.................Bama............14.8...............21.............1
5.................ND................16.7...............23.............3
6.................OSU..............20.1...............20.............4
7.................U of M...........21.5..............24..............5
8.................U of F............22.6..............23..............6
9.................U of GA..........22.8..............30.............9
10...............Tx A&M..........28.5..............34.............7


Obviously, this methodology favors small classes (lots of high end talent but no depth, and that should be factored in). Additionally, when a class included a few kids who are not as highly regarded by the services, it hurts the class using this methodology (ND is an example).

Clearly this methodology has some glitches, but it helps put the classes is perspective (at least to me).

I don't understand why LSU's class isn't regarded higher.

McGlinchey at 20, Kinlaw at 21, Deeb at 28, Butler at 28, Onwuala at 40, Fuller at 45, and Robinson at 58 are what are driving ND's average position ranking down. Without those 7, ND's average position rank is 9 (with a class size of 16). I think this just points to a problem with the methodology.....and to the fact that many think Onwuala, Fuller and Robinson are under appreciated by the services.

Thoughts?

(Can anyone help me format a table?)

 

[rikkitikki08]

I think we can all agree, will filled alot of position needs with blue chip studs. No matter the ranking we finish in recruiting this class is ****ing beautiful

 

[Green Mountains]

I think we can all agree, will filled alot of position needs with blue chip studs. No matter the ranking we finish in recruiting this class is ****ing beautiful

Ohhhh yes. We can certainly agree - Great class no matter how we look at it. BK and team can recruit.

 

[ThePiombino]

I tried to look at the class rankings a different way. I ranked each player at their position, using 247 Comp. Then I re-ranked the classes in the top 10 using the average position rank. Here is what that looks like:

.........................................Aver at........# of.........247 Comp
Rank........... School...........Position.......Recruits......Ranking

1.................USC...............5.7................15.............2
2.................Texas...........12.1................13...........10
3.................LSU..............12.4................25.............8
4.................Bama............14.8...............21.............1
5.................ND................16.7...............23.............3
6.................OSU..............20.1...............20.............4
7.................U of M...........21.5..............24..............5
8.................U of F............22.6..............23..............6
9.................U of GA..........22.8..............30.............9
10...............Tx A&M..........28.5..............34.............7


Obviously, this methodology favors small classes (lots of high end talent but no depth, and that should be factored in). Additionally, when a class included a few kids who are not as highly regarded by the services, it hurts the class using this methodology (ND is an example).

Clearly this methodology has some glitches, but it helps put the classes is perspective (at least to me).

I don't understand why LSU's class isn't regarded higher.

McGlinchey at 20, Kinlaw at 21, Deeb at 28, Butler at 28, Onwuala at 40, Fuller at 45, and Robinson at 58 are what are driving ND's average position ranking down. Without those 7, ND's average position rank is 9 (with a class size of 16). I think this just points to a problem with the methodology.....and to the fact that many think Onwuala, Fuller and Robinson are under appreciated by the services.

Thoughts?

(Can anyone help me format a table?)

I think you did a great job here. Just one thought:

Since everyone who has more recruits than USC is basically being punished for adding depth, I think a better way to do it would be to just take the top 10 or 15 averages per school. This way we see how the top compares against the top (i.e. the kids who are more than likely going to see the field regularly and be the actual differences).

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Can't just really take rank at position though because there might be more depth at one position over another. For example, the top 5 CBs might all be ranked higher than the #1 WR.

 

[ThePiombino]

Can't just really take rank at position though because there might be more depth at one position over another. For example, the top 5 CBs might all be ranked higher than the #1 WR.

You're absolutely right, but I think Green Mountains' method could just be considered a different way of evaluating a class. But I would certainly default to the...err..default.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

You're absolutely right, but I think Green Mountains' method could just be considered a different way of evaluating a class. But I would certainly default to the...err..default.

Very true, and when comparing players across positions it is always just a sites preference. I mean, how do you really determine if the #15 OL is better than the #15 DB overall? Some are obvious, like I think this year is a strong RB and DB class but very weak WR class.

 

[irishog77]

I tried to look at the class rankings a different way. I ranked each player at their position, using 247 Comp. Then I re-ranked the classes in the top 10 using the average position rank. Here is what that looks like:

.........................................Aver at........# of.........247 Comp
Rank........... School...........Position.......Recruits......Ranking

1.................USC...............5.7................15.............2
2.................Texas...........12.1................13...........10
3.................LSU..............12.4................25.............8
4.................Bama............14.8...............21.............1
5.................ND................16.7...............23.............3
6.................OSU..............20.1...............20.............4
7.................U of M...........21.5..............24..............5
8.................U of F............22.6..............23..............6
9.................U of GA..........22.8..............30.............9
10...............Tx A&M..........28.5..............34.............7


Obviously, this methodology favors small classes (lots of high end talent but no depth, and that should be factored in). Additionally, when a class included a few kids who are not as highly regarded by the services, it hurts the class using this methodology (ND is an example).

Clearly this methodology has some glitches, but it helps put the classes is perspective (at least to me).

I don't understand why LSU's class isn't regarded higher.

McGlinchey at 20, Kinlaw at 21, Deeb at 28, Butler at 28, Onwuala at 40, Fuller at 45, and Robinson at 58 are what are driving ND's average position ranking down. Without those 7, ND's average position rank is 9 (with a class size of 16). I think this just points to a problem with the methodology.....and to the fact that many think Onwuala, Fuller and Robinson are under appreciated by the services.

Thoughts?

(Can anyone help me format a table?)

Can't just really take rank at position though because there might be more depth at one position over another. For example, the top 5 CBs might all be ranked higher than the #1 WR.

Very true, and when comparing players across positions it is always just a sites preference. I mean, how do you really determine if the #15 OL is better than the #15 DB overall? Some are obvious, like I think this year is a strong RB and DB class but very weak WR class.

Reps Green Mountain for putting that together. I like that way of looking at a class. There are, obviously, flaws with basing it solely on this methodology (as GITF showed), but it's still a cool way of looking at classes. Food for thought for sure.

 

[arrowryan]

Just so I can get this cleared up. The players enrolling in two weeks are...

Alex Anzalone
Malik Zaire
Steve Elmer
Corey Robinson
James Onwualu

Correct?

 

[koonja]

How is Michigan holding on to that class? Someone please start poaching from those ****s.

 

[IrishLax]

How is Michigan holding on to that class? Someone please start poaching from those ****s.

It's pretty simple...

1. Mostly midwest/Michigan guys that Notre Dame and Ohio State didn't want... some players with other options already left or tried to (Dawson). So they really don't have any competition.

2. Sheer dumb luck. A lot of really good prospects, like Derrick Green, somehow don't really have other options and are falling into Michigan's lap. It's important to realize they lost out on Treadwell, McQuay, etc. and the class has not improved from where it was pre-season at all.

 

[Buster Bluth]

How is Michigan holding on to that class? Someone please start poaching from those ****s.

I think the selling point was that they can be the class that rebuilds Michigan, which hasnt changed. We still have yet to see the real Michigan that Hoke and Co want; they're stuck with Robinson and Garner.

 

[Riddickulous]

How is Michigan holding on to that class? Someone please start poaching from those ****s.

"Well, uh...uh....uh....well, you know....uh....ah.....er.....uh.....THIS IS MICHIGAN! and uh....um...uh....MANBALL"

 

[Ironman8]

Just so I can get this cleared up. The players enrolling in two weeks are...

Alex Anzalone
Malik Zaire
Steve Elmer
Corey Robinson
James Onwualu

Correct?

And Heuerman. There are 6

 

[NDdomer2]

Too bad some of the other, or all, of the o line aren't EE.

 

[Ironman8]

24/7 has changed policy starting this cycle and will now have a set number of 32 5 prospects in each class. I believe that neither ESPN nor Rivals has a set number, but Scout does at 50 prospects. The blurb of explanation from JC:

247Sports will release its final Top247 for the Class of 2013 in the coming days and I wanted to take the time to point out some specifics in our philosophy for the final rankings.

1- We will have 32 five star prospects. There are 32 first round picks in the NFL Draft and because we project to the highest upside, that number makes sense to us.

2- The position representation within those 32 will fit with NFL Draft data during the past 3-5 years. For example, there will likely be more defensive ends, offensive tackles, defensive tackles, quarterbacks and cornerbacks than safeties, centers, guards, inside linebackers and other spots. I will say that some outside linebackers that are elite pass rusher types and great athletes will be valued like defensive ends. This is due to the 3-4 defenses, etc.

3- We are not concerned with where we had a prospect ranked previously. After the final Top247 is released, there is no turning back. Our goal is to get it right in the end. If a prospect has to go from three stars to No. 2 in the country, hey we missed it up until this point.

4- We are not concerned with where any other recruiting media outlet has a prospect ranked, what they reported from an event, what their stance is on a player, who they like, etc. In football evaluation, you are going to have differences of opinion. Talk to 10 different pro scouts and 10 different college coaches and they are going to say different things. We respect where other networks have prospects ranked, which is why we have the 247Composite. Keep in mind that 247Composite rankings and ratings are what we use exclusively to calculate our team rankings formula.

5- We understand that fans are fans and you all want your commits to be ranked high. We also understand you have opinions about players and want you to express it. That being said, we would not be doing our jobs if we pandered to you if you whine, post things like “what a joke”, act like we are being bullies to a high school kid, etc. It’s our job to do this and you wouldn’t have very much fun here if we didn’t have rankings. That being said, we appreciate that what we do stirs so much passion.

Thanks! One of our guys has the flu, so we are trying to nail down the day of the release.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

3- We are not concerned with where we had a prospect ranked previously. After the final Top247 is released, there is no turning back. Our goal is to get it right in the end. If a prospect has to go from three stars to No. 2 in the country, hey we missed it up until this point.

Well this should get interesting.

 

[Ndaccountant]

24/7 has changed policy starting this cycle and will now have a set number of 32 5 prospects in each class. I believe that neither ESPN nor Rivals has a set number, but Scout does at 50 prospects. The blurb of explanation from JC:

Not sure I like that part about matching positions to the NFL.

 

[IrishLax]

Interesting, don't really like how they're saying that they're going to intentionally overvalue OL (because that is the single hardest position to project to the next level from HS to college) or QB, CB, etc.

I'm a much bigger fan of assigning someone a rating as they compare to the ideal recruit for that position (i.e. defensive ends rate on a scale of 0 to Clowney) and then the "overall" ranks simply being in order of highest rating.

Why? Because it kinda seems ***-backwards that you might have a top tier player at S or WR who grades out extremely high for the position ranked behind the #8 OT or QB who very well might be a bust at the next level.

 

[IrishLax]

Not sure I like that part about matching positions to the NFL.

Ditto. Seems really stupid, actually.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Interesting, don't really like how they're saying that they're going to intentionally overvalue OL (because that is the single hardest position to project to the next level from HS to college) or QB, CB, etc.

I'm a much bigger fan of assigning someone a rating as they compare to the ideal recruit for that position (i.e. defensive ends rate on a scale of 0 to Clowney) and then the "overall" ranks simply being in order of highest rating.

Why? Because it kinda seems ***-backwards that you might have a top tier player at S or WR who grades out extremely high for the position ranked behind the #8 OT or QB who very well might be a bust at the next level.

That is a good point. On the other hand, it does make sense to say that a high-level safety of OG does not separate one team's recruiting class from others the way a top flight DE or QB does. So if we are talking about ranking the value a team is bringing in with a particular prospect, it makes sense to weight it this way.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Ditto. Seems really stupid, actually.

Plus, to your post before this, there is a reason why the NFL puts a premium on these players. !st round players are boom and busts just like how some 5 stars can be. But, it seems people can mine talent at the lower rounds of the draft for positions like WR and RB, which is due to multiple factors that do not apply to college football. To me, this reeks of a system designed to say "look how good we were to projecting the NFL draft when these kids came out of high school".

 

[Ironman8]

Interesting, don't really like how they're saying that they're going to intentionally overvalue OL (because that is the single hardest position to project to the next level from HS to college) or QB, CB, etc.

I'm a much bigger fan of assigning someone a rating as they compare to the ideal recruit for that position (i.e. defensive ends rate on a scale of 0 to Clowney) and then the "overall" ranks simply being in order of highest rating.

Why? Because it kinda seems ***-backwards that you might have a top tier player at S or WR who grades out extremely high for the position ranked behind the #8 OT or QB who very well might be a bust at the next level.

Yeah I agree. It seems that OT and RBs are the positions that bust most often, so by intentionally skewing your rankings to overvalue a position that does that if sabotaging your own accuracy and credibility ultimately.

I get what they are trying to do but rankings should reflect where prospects are coming out of high school, not solely how they project into the NFL. There are way too many variables in between to make it even close to accurate (player development, weight training, program situation, depth charts, etc)

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Plus, to your post before this, there is a reason why the NFL puts a premium on these players. !st round players are boom and busts just like how some 5 stars can be. But, it seems people can mine talent at the lower rounds of the draft for positions like WR and RB, which is due to multiple factors that do not apply to college football. To me, this reeks of a system designed to say "look how good we were to projecting the NFL draft when these kids came out of high school".

Bingo. This is all about 247 needing an "objective" metric against which to grade the accuracy of their final ratings. Draft position is the best they can do in that regard, thoough as others have mentioned, it has its problems.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Haven't been following recruiting for too long (last 3 or 4 years).

Someone shoot me straight...how much can tonight negatively effect our class? Do we think anyone leaves/doesn't commit?

 

[johnnykillz]

We just played for the Natty!

Really?

How's that negative?

 

[Mr. McGibblets]

Haven't been following recruiting for too long (last 3 or 4 years).

Someone shoot me straight...how much can tonight negatively effect our class? Do we think anyone leaves/doesn't commit?

I posed this same question via PM to a few members before halftime. I said if it isnt 21-7 at the half then I think this game is over, and if we lost by 4 + scores, could it impact the current class? It was mostly a similar answer: Kids are young and impressionable. Latest results linger in their mind. IMO, we dont lose any current verbals, but I think Eddie V could be gone (assuming what was reported is true about this game being a deciding factor).

 

[STLDomer]

Haven't been following recruiting for too long (last 3 or 4 years).

Someone shoot me straight...how much can tonight negatively effect our class? Do we think anyone leaves/doesn't commit?

“@HunterBivin: But damn I love Notre Dame #GOIRISH”

“@Steve_Elmer: Alabama is a great team, but Notre Dame will be back. #GoIrish”

“@moosey2taasty: Just that much more motivation to work even harder and achieve greatness I know me and the '13 guys are working hard to do it #irishmob13”

“@DevinButler_7: I'm determined to never let anything like this happen while I wear the gold helmet.. Preparation starts now #GoIrish #NDFB”


“@big_john_74: #IrishMob13”

“@colin_mcgov60: still proud to be Irish #motivation #IrishMob13”

“@Mheuerman9: Go Irish”

“@J_Walls: Still beyond proud to be Irish! #wewillbeback #work”

“@DougRandolph7: Rough day for us irish. But we gonna work even harder to make sure it doesn't happen again.”

“@JaeeSmiff9ENT: I'm still ND all the way, it was a horrible day, but at least we had the opportunity, We'll bounce back. #IrishMob13”

“@_Lucky_Lefty6: I promise that we will rise up from and we WILL BE CHAMPIONS! #Irish”

 

[IrishLax]

USC just capped off a 7-6 season where they scored less points against GEORGIA TECH than we did against the #1 defense in Alabama... and they just landed a new 5

Don't think for a second that this is going to have any sort of drastic effect. I would be completely and utterly shocked if it affected any of verbals. The only guy it could really affect is EV as he's also considering 'Bama.

 

[Ndaccountant]

USC just capped off a 7-6 season where they scored less points against GEORGIA TECH than we did against the #1 defense in Alabama... and they just landed a new 5

Don't think for a second that this is going to have any sort of drastic effect. I would be completely and utterly shocked if it affected any of verbals. The only guy it could really affect is EV as he's also considering 'Bama.

It's strange tho. These types of games can impact recruiting for you or against you. I haven't gotten a good read of EV, does he seek immediate playing time? If the answer is yes, tonight showed ND has that opportunity for him.