ND's Current Class Ranking

[Sherm Sticky]

To soon

 

[BGIF]

To soon

The question did ask about targets.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'll allow it. Or him.

 

[Ironman8]

Just noticed Greer Martini is rated higher than Matt Elam on ESPN.

I love Greer, but wow.

 

[KPENN]

Wasn't sure where to put this
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Good news coming for <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NotreDame&src=hash">#NotreDame</a> on Friday on the recruiting front: <a href="http://t.co/UVBQb6olIZ">http://t.co/UVBQb6olIZ</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/247Sports">@247Sports</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ND&src=hash">#ND</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Irish&src=hash">#Irish</a></p>— Steve Wiltfong (@SWiltfong247) <a href="https://twitter.com/SWiltfong247/statuses/396096734998196224">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


You're going to want to stay tuned tomorrow

 

[NDdomer2]

anyone care to pm details if worth it

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

anyone care to pm details if worth it

just go to the who's likely next thread. commitment coming tomorrow

 

[NDdomer2]

just go to the who's likely next thread. commitment coming tomorrow

haha you beat me back here just read other threads

 

[NDWorld247]

Moved to #8 in the 247 composite with Watkins' commitment. Since rankings have a lot to do with the quantity of a class, one could argue ND currently has a top 5 class in terms of quality considering three of the schools ahead of us have 28 (Tennessee), 25 (Miami) and 27 (Florida State) commits to our 17.

 

[NDhoosier]

Agreed, I would much rather have quality than quantity. As long as the quantity does not dip off completely.

 

[HoosierIrish]

I was just thinking about recruiting and everything today and I have a question for you all, and didn't feel like making a new thread. I have my own opinion, but would like to hear from greater more experienced minds.

With all the recruiting sites and 5,4,3,2 stars. what positions are hardest/easiest to evaluate, which are hardest/easiest to develop. If you have a class with so many 5 stars so many 4 stars and so many 3 stars, at what positions would you want the 5 stars/4 stars/3 stars or even 2 stars.

I have mainly been thinking about this because the strength of our classes (stars wise) have been our offensive lines. In my opinion, offensive line is probably the easiest to turn a 3 star player into a first round draft pick. If this is the case, does a 4/5star OL not hold as much weight as a 4/5 star rb/wr commit. Is our team ranking inflated because our strong point is our offensive line?

I'd be very interested in any answers or debate on this topic, and feel free to move it if this is the wrong thread, thanks.

 

[IrishLax]

I was just thinking about recruiting and everything today and I have a question for you all, and didn't feel like making a new thread. I have my own opinion, but would like to hear from greater more experienced minds.

With all the recruiting sites and 5,4,3,2 stars. what positions are hardest/easiest to evaluate, which are hardest/easiest to develop. If you have a class with so many 5 stars so many 4 stars and so many 3 stars, at what positions would you want the 5 stars/4 stars/3 stars or even 2 stars.

I have mainly been thinking about this because the strength of our classes (stars wise) have been our offensive lines. In my opinion, offensive line is probably the easiest to turn a 3 star player into a first round draft pick. If this is the case, does a 4/5star OL not hold as much weight as a 4/5 star rb/wr commit. Is our team ranking inflated because our strong point is our offensive line?

I'd be very interested in any answers or debate on this topic, and feel free to move it if this is the wrong thread, thanks.

This is a really interesting question. It's probably too big of a discussion to have with 5 vs 4 vs 3 so let's just look at true 5 players for a second.

Typically, I think it is most important to land true 5 talent at QB followed by DL. After that it gets nitpicky and depends on the identity of your team.

The positions where you can best get by with depth over 5 HS talent is OL, because if you recruit enough big, athletic, project players with the right coaches for player development they can turn out very elite. It's also hardest to project from HS how someone will do when asked to block 280+ athletic freaks versus 250 pound slow fat kids. With that being said, consistent elite OL recruiting leads to dominant OLs that allow you to run the ball on anyone. A dominant OL coupled with a competent QB is the surest way to build a team. So signing highly rated OLs should not be scoffed at by any measure.

I've always thought DB is another position where it is very easy to get high production from recruiting a lot of very athletic raw players and then molding them into DBs. Outside of the top couple corners each year, it's very hard to project how someone will do covering people that can actually run by them, so if you recruit enough athletic bodies you can usually mine a couple studs... and relying on high players to get the job done can actually lead to issues if any are busts or you have injuries.

Linebacker, WR, RB, TE and the like I believe have some of the most accurate translation from HS to college... but are also positions where you can typically scheme around the strengths of your players and not having a 5 isn't the end of the world. It's also obvious that a 100 rating QB is more valuable than a 100 rating WR who is more valuable than a 100 rating TE (in most schemes) because of how much influence each has on any given play.

 

[Irish#1]

I was just thinking about recruiting and everything today and I have a question for you all, and didn't feel like making a new thread. I have my own opinion, but would like to hear from greater more experienced minds.

With all the recruiting sites and 5,4,3,2 stars. what positions are hardest/easiest to evaluate, which are hardest/easiest to develop. If you have a class with so many 5 stars so many 4 stars and so many 3 stars, at what positions would you want the 5 stars/4 stars/3 stars or even 2 stars.

I have mainly been thinking about this because the strength of our classes (stars wise) have been our offensive lines. In my opinion, offensive line is probably the easiest to turn a 3 star player into a first round draft pick. If this is the case, does a 4/5star OL not hold as much weight as a 4/5 star rb/wr commit. Is our team ranking inflated because our strong point is our offensive line?

I'd be very interested in any answers or debate on this topic, and feel free to move it if this is the wrong thread, thanks.

5 stars I want the QB, WR and DE. Maybe one at CB to shut down the best WR on the other team.

 

[irishog77]

My 5 star rank:
-DT (simply because that size/skill combination is rare in teenagers/young men)
-DE (for a little bit mentioned above...but also because you can never have enough guys that can get to the QB)
-S (I know a little strange choice here. But having a physical/fast/play-maker on the field literally can change everything else your team does, scheme-wise. I think it's rarer also, in college over the pros, to have that type of guy back there. There just aren't many big, fast, and/or possessing the mental nuances of the game in college. I think having a truly great safety can be a great equalizer.)
-QB (So much easier to win when you have a legit guy back there. I'd put this position #1 if we were talking pro, but in college, many teams can win, even Natty's, without a true stud. In the NFL these days, it's basically impossible.)

I think every other position, a coach can sort of "make do." Lesser ranked OL can develop for 3, 4 years, RB's tend to be a dime a dozen, LB's and WR's (and CB's to an extent) often times are recruited to fit a specific scheme, etc.

 

[gkIrish]

I'd say QB, CB, and DE.


With that being said, a crazy good linebacker is invaluable and rare. So give me Manti or Jaylon over a 5 star DE every day of the week.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Tranquill commitment will elevate Irish class two spots to No. 9 overall on <a href="http://t.co/eChBJgDjAc">http://t.co/eChBJgDjAc</a>, jumping Texas and Clemson.</p>— Irish Illustrated (@NDatRivals) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDatRivals/statuses/402947209563369472">November 19, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishLax]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Tranquill commitment will elevate Irish class two spots to No. 9 overall on <a href="http://t.co/eChBJgDjAc">http://t.co/eChBJgDjAc</a>, jumping Texas and Clemson.</p>— Irish Illustrated (@NDatRivals) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDatRivals/statuses/402947209563369472">November 19, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I miss Hood

 

[ACamp1900]

I miss Hood

Yep...

also, sometimes I just dont get the rankings... tOSU has the same average star per players we do AND has the same total commits... yet they are two spots higher, and A&M had the same average, now it's slightly higher with less total commits and they are four spots higher... ???

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

O/U on Tennessee commits by signing day? I'm thinking 34. What a joke.

 

[ACamp1900]

O/U on Tennessee commits by signing day? I'm thinking 34. What a joke.

Playing catch up to Bama in every way...

 

[ResLife Hero]

I'm a bit confused by 247. They have Tranquill as a 4-star, but on their team rankings they count him as a 3-star (reflects his composite score). They also show his composite score on the commit tracker. Do they pay any credence to their own evaluations?

 

[DillonHall]

I'm a bit confused by 247. They have Tranquill as a 4-star, but on their team rankings they count him as a 3-star (reflects his composite score). They also show his composite score on the commit tracker. Do they pay any credence to their own evaluations?

I think they just use their composite rankings in order to rank schools

 

[ResLife Hero]

I think they just use their composite rankings in order to rank schools

Just seems weird to me that they would rate a player and then defer to the industry, but I get and appreciate the macro view.

 

[NDWorld247]

Just seems weird to me that they would rate a player and then defer to the industry, but I get and appreciate the macro view.

247 has their own team rankings according to their player rankings, and then they have the composite rankings, which they choose to display on their front page.

The 247 team rankings are harder to find, but they are there (2014 Football Recruiting Team Rankings). We are actually one spot lower (#9) in the 247 team rankings than we are in the 247 composite team rankings (#8).

I personally like that they display the composite rankings, but I wish they would make their team rankings more visible.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Was just looking over the Rivals rankings. Long way to signing day, but something that jumped out at me was:

-SEC has 9 schools out of the top 15 classes, and their worst class is Arkansas at 40th

-B1G is a giant turd burger (other than OSU's class) with only 3 in top 20, and worst is Minny at 74th

The large gap will be a fricking canyon soon between the two conferences. I've always been a B1G apologist, but am starting to realize why the ACC was a far better choice. I see the light, and it burns!!!

 

[NDhoosier]

everything is a cycle. SEC is on top now, but the other conferences will eventually come around and become the dominant ones. The good thing in all this is that ND does not have to follow those trends, they make their own.

 

[Buster Bluth]

everything is a cycle.

False.

 

[PerthDomer]

Program by program everything is a cycle. However, what conference has the programs to challenge the SEC? Demographics aren't changing. The midwest is shrinking and the South is growing. SEC cares way more about football than the ACC, so while the ACC has the demographics to support better programs I don't know if their cultures will ever change.

I do think individual programs like OSU, UM, ND, USC, Texas, Oklahoma etc. can win titles though.

 

[NDhoosier]

10 years ago, the SEC was not the king of the football field, 10 years from now, they probably wont be again. It's a cycle. The demographics have not/will not change, but coaches do and so do programs.

btw: quality response Buster Bluth, way to bring something to the discussion.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

10 years ago, the SEC was not the king of the football field, 10 years from now, they probably wont be again. It's a cycle. The demographics have not/will not change, but coaches do and so do programs.

btw: quality response Buster Bluth, way to bring something to the discussion.

I personally think parity is killing conferences outside of the SEC. Back in the day, every good recruit essentially went to one of about 10 schools. The Midwest could field dominate teams because every good recruit from that region was either ND, scUM, or OSU.

With a thinning herd of talent in the Rust Belt, and recruiting becoming a competitive business between MANY programs in each region, the South is the only area that can rely on fielding a decent team without reaching over too many state lines due to a smorgasbord of homegrown talent.

Basically, bottom feeder SEC schools (Vandy, Kentucky, etc.) are having an easier time putting together decent classes than second tier B1G schools (Iowa, Wisconsin, etc.) due to proximity and population, nothing more. I fully expect this cycle to be a long one, but feel it is more than cyclical, it is permanent.

*I hope you are right though. It gets very annoying to hear the SEC drum being beaten all year every year.