ND's Current Class Ranking

[BostonND]

Army and Navy both signed 42 players.

Bobby D signed 18 players, for the 118th ranked class. Ouch. He might never stand a chance, ala Jeff Quinn at Buffalo.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

ND's Current Class Ranking

and Darius was a 3 star right?? He actually overperformed according to his recruiting rankings.

Yeah basically back then all you had was rivals, Tom Lemming and Bill Hodges. You are correct Darius walker was a 3 star on rivals, but lemming had him some where around 70-90 nationally.

If you remember Tom Lemming was the only recruiting geru at ESPN at that time, just him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RyCo1983]

So I checked this golden helmet out.

They still have the 2012 schedule posted on the front page?!?!

 

[irishff1014]

Also the 2014 schedule for us all but 3 teams were in the top 50 for recruiting according to 247.

 

[TheChosen1]

Rivals:10th, Scout: 6th, 247:10th, and ESPN:11th.

Average: 9th.

USC jumped us on Rivals they are number 10. ND is 11

 

[ThePiombino]

USC jumped us on Rivals they are number 10. ND is 11

Salt meet wound.

 

[aubeirish]

Rankings officially doesn't mean jack shit starting today.

 

[IrishLax]

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.

 

[Wild Bill]

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.

Fire Kelly if we're not 11-1.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

USC jumped us on Rivals they are number 10. ND is 11

Salt meet wound.

The thing about rakings, are they ranking one team against another, or do they provide any empirical information about team or program building by a staff?

Why has Stanford historically had classes that rate far beneath rival USC's?

How has that worked out for USC lately? Yeah, just what I thought. An oh shiit moment as the incandescent fired up!

So when you look at this years USC class, they finally got some offensive linemen. What did they get on the defensive side, particularly at linebacker, where they weren't deep enough to finish a game last year?

How did Michigan do with that porous interior offensive line, and two tackles they needed to replace? How did they do at QB? Etc.

And so on and so forth.

 

[Wild Bill]

The thing about rakings, are they ranking one team against another, or do they provide any empirical information about team or program building by a staff?

Why has Stanford historically had classes that rate far beneath rival USC's?

How has that worked out for USC lately? Yeah, just what I thought. An oh shiit moment as the incandescent fired up!

So when you look at this years USC class, they finally got some offensive linemen. What did they get on the defensive side, particularly at linebacker, where they weren't deep enough to finish a game last year?

How did Michigan do with that porous interior offensive line, and two tackles they needed to replace? How did they do at QB? Etc.

And so on and so forth.

Don't kid yourself, the rankings matter. You think it's a coincidence that bama, unarguably the most dominant team in the country the past five years, has enjoyed a top five class each year since 2008?

 

[Buster Bluth]

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.

This is probably the best way to view recruiting classes.

 

[Domina Nostra]

But the rankings also follow success. UF had the best class ever, and it marked the beginning of fits demise.

Alabama's success is multi-faceted. They won championships before their roster was overflowing..

 

[tussin]

Ha, the ESPN boards were hell... ND constantly got trolled by Vols, tOSu or Michigan fans... like 2/3 threads were troll threads by other fan bases... When Ty was fired the race stuff was brutal.

I joined IE when it was a newish site in 06 I think it was... IE was a great site from the start... it was much more 'family ' back then as most of the regs knew each other fairly well. Most of those guys followed the old owner of IE over to Gold helmet when he sold IE and started GH... most are still there. I go over to keep up but I'm also a creature of habit... IE is great now too, but different... it was closer knit in the beginning… but there was a bit less traffic over all also… less insider stuff.

In terms of how different the tone was... it seemed like much more of a 'realist haven' in those days.... at least to me.

So I just went over there to check it out... and it looks like our boy IrishPat has found a new home!!!!

 

[NCND]

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.

This is how I've viewed the classes over the years.

 

[tussin]

This is probably the best way to view recruiting classes.

Not if the goal is to win National Championships.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I've never heard of Gold Helmet until 6 seconds ago.

Anyway, now that all the dust has settled, I just want to say how much I like this class. Hell....'love' this class. It isn't our highest rated class ever, but I'm going on the record as believing that this class will be a great class in ND football history. I have a great feeling about it.

 

[stlnd01]

I've never heard of Gold Helmet until 6 seconds ago.

Anyway, now that all the dust has settled, I just want to say how much I like this class. Hell....'love' this class. It isn't our highest rated class ever, but I'm going on the record as believing that this class will be a great class in ND football history. I have a great feeling about it.

I think the combination of last year's class and this year's class is pretty exceptional. Last year's was higher on star power. This year has tons of depth and upside. They fit together quite well in terms of positional needs and both appear to be full of high-character guys who want to be here (of course, who doesn't on Signing Day?). Looking forward already to 2016.

 

[Pachuco]

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.

I'm sorry. What is composite? An evaluation site?

Not being snarky. Just would like to know. Thanks.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm sorry. What is composite? An evaluation site?

247's Composite Ranking. As the name suggests, it's a composite rating system that gives equal weight to all four major recruiting services. In my opinion, it's the most reliable objective measure out there.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Don't kid yourself, the rankings matter. You think it's a coincidence that bama, unarguably the most dominant team in the country the past five years, has enjoyed a top five class each year since 2008?

And of course, following my logic the Crimson Tide, fill their needs at an increasingly higher level in a more accurate process every year. Coach Kelly is at building depth. Then there is building sold depth. Saban is smiling because he knows he is driving the quality of his athletes up by packing the over signed recruits, so when the bottom fifteen or so finally fail and are dispatched, they will have pushed the remaining 85 or so beyond their original ratings. And that is part deux of Saban's success.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

I love this class, like many have said there is tremendous upside. More importantly, I want these top 10 recruiting classes to start finishing in the top 10 rankings each year. The development of these kids is so much more important to me than just how many stars they have as a ranking coming out of high school. I feel we are turning that corner with this staff, where parts are interchangeable and we have the depth to dictate how we play no matter who's in the game. I'm excited about the future.

 

[woolybug25]

This is probably the best way to view recruiting classes.

I don't necessarily agree. I would if we were all playing the same recruiting game, but we're not. Many of our opponents have the ability to sign jucos, oversign and simply cut players. We do not, so to stay competitive, we have to recruit better than them.

Also, simple rankings don't paint the entire picture. For instance, we have a signficantly better class than USC and MSU. But USC is under scholarship restrictions and still signed a #14 class (per espn). I would guess that their overall star rating is better than ours. We have more depth on our team, but let's not act like USC doesn't have 4-5 star talent in every position group. MSU also signed one of their best classes in a long time. They can also sign jucos and simply coach like a boss. An MSU team with actual talent scares the hell out of me.

 

[Ironman8]

I don't necessarily agree. I would if we were all playing the same recruiting game, but we're not. Many of our opponents have the ability to sign jucos, oversign and simply cut players. We do not, so to stay competitive, we have to recruit better than them.

Also, simple rankings don't paint the entire picture. For instance, we have a signficantly better class than USC and MSU. But USC is under scholarship restrictions and still signed a #14 class (per espn). I would guess that their overall star rating is better than ours. We have more depth on our team, but let's not act like USC doesn't have 4-5 star talent in every position group. MSU also signed one of their best classes in a long time. They can also sign jucos and simply coach like a boss. An MSU team with actual talent scares the hell out of me.

USC is always going to have talent. They are always going to get 75% of the best kids in California, specifically the skill position guys. When we beat USC it is because we beat them up in the trenches. The way we are both recruiting the lines, I like our chances to keep that trend going more years than not.

They are also going to be at 61 or something scholarship players GOING INTO spring ball. That is an alarming lack of depth. You talk about us not being at the full 85 (think we are at 84 now), but these sanctions will cripple their chances to be good this year IMO.

On the other side, Michigan State had the 25th ranked class in the country per the Composite, with 1 5 (still hasn't signed) and only 3 4.

We had 16 4.

Wooly, I think you know I respect your opinion more than most, but what is the fun of being a ND fan and following recruiting if you are always seeing the negative in any situation, especially when we have had back to back very good national classes, especially on the line.

I don't even understand the logic in this argument. On one hand, you are citing USC's high star power on their signees, and lamenting the fact that we don't have the same # of high profile signees. Then you cite MSU having a decent class (much lower than ours), but note that they are good at development (so a 25th ranked class in reality will probably play out higher).

Why can't ND be a blend of that? Isn't that our only chance at being a very successful national power again? Bringing in annual top 10 classes, and then trusting in player development? All the teams that underachieve with high star power lack player development (USC, Clemson and others historically), and the teams that overachieve do so with great player development (MSU, Boise, TCU lately, etc).

BK has shown at least to be pretty good at player development IMO. As his classes get better, from a potential and upside standpoint, so does the overall status of our program IMO. Getting Daniel Cage's, Kolin Hill's, Jhonny Williams' and Drue Tranquill's as our low rated 5 year program guys over Bruce Heggie's, Anthony Rabasa's, Brad Carrico's and John Turners signify to me a major step forward in our program. Would you not agree?

Idk to me, if you put on the tape, it's hard for me to see how people are not excited about the potential of this class. Is it Bama's class? No, of course not. I don't think we can ever get to that point, and I accept that. But getting a class like this off a 9-4 record with all the turmoil that went on in 2013 is pretty darn good in my eyes. And if this class is the lowest ranked sandwich class between elite 2013 and 2015 classes, which could very well happen, we are set up for the long haul as a potentially elite team.

 

[Jerry]

Rankings matter. But it's also about how you build the program. Charlie Weis was able to recruit 5 star QB's and Wr's (which boosted ND's class rankings) but had trouble landing bigtime OL for the most part. On the defensive side of the ball I don't think he ever landed a top DL that I can remember?

 

[Sherm Sticky]

Rankings matter. But it's also about how you build the program. Charlie Weis was able to recruit 5 star QB's and Wr's (which boosted ND's class rankings) but had trouble landing bigtime OL for the most part. On the defensive side of the ball I don't think he ever landed a top DL that I can remember?

Ethan Johnson was probably the only one who fits the bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Don't kid yourself, the rankings matter. You think it's a coincidence that bama, unarguably the most dominant team in the country the past five years, has enjoyed a top five class each year since 2008?

No I don't. But the overall picture is that is an established program in a conference that plays by different rules than the rest of the country. Everything from over-signing to the most sophisticated bag men in the country helps. The chain-gang method of participation helps. The local high schools that produce the bulk of their talent that under-educate recruits that may not qualify for real colleges helps. The fact that in the last two seasons, Alabama has had a bye week before every tough game helps. (I believe I am correct on this but I may be off by one game.) There are a lot of things. I believe that Nick Saban could build a dominant program anywhere that was willing to pay the price!

 

[woolybug25]

USC is always going to have talent. They are always going to get 75% of the best kids in California, specifically the skill position guys. When we beat USC it is because we beat them up in the trenches. The way we are both recruiting the lines, I like our chances to keep that trend going more years than not.

They are also going to be at 61 or something scholarship players GOING INTO spring ball. That is an alarming lack of depth. You talk about us not being at the full 85 (think we are at 84 now), but these sanctions will cripple their chances to be good this year IMO.

Totally agree and I used that as why we can't simply take the "our recruiting class is better" approach when looking at USC. They are still getting their share of 5* kids and doin it under restrictions. I'm not saying that we can't expect to beat them on the field in future years, but it wont be as simple as having slightly better class in '14.

On the other side, Michigan State had the 25th ranked class in the country per the Composite, with 1 5 (still hasn't signed) and only 3 4.

We had 16 4.

Which scares me. They were the best BIG team in the country with the best defense in cfb. They did that with a ragtag group of 3* talent. I think we can all agree that the player development at MSU is very good. Think of what they could do with better talent?

Wooly, I think you know I respect your opinion more than most, but what is the fun of being a ND fan and following recruiting if you are always seeing the negative in any situation, especially when we have had back to back very good national classes, especially on the line.

You know that I respect you opinion too, and I am trying not to be negative, but rather analytical and realistic about our situation. We play a different recruiting game than every team not residing in Palo Alto. So instead of having a polyanna view of our situation, I am trying to analyze our team regarding what we need to do to win a championship. That's our goal, right?

I don't even understand the logic in this argument. On one hand, you are citing USC's high star power on their signees, and lamenting the fact that we don't have the same # of high profile signees. Then you cite MSU having a decent class (much lower than ours), but note that they are good at development (so a 25th ranked class in reality will probably play out higher).

I'll try to elaborate. My overall point was in reference to the OP stating that since our recruiting class is ranked higher than most of our opponents, we should use that as our metric for its value. Simply put... I disagree with that and USC/MSU are examples. USC because they cant recruit the number of players we can right now. But restrictions are going to go away and they are going to load up. Their class this year was only ranked behind us because of number of players, not quality. I would argue the average quality of player is better in their class. I'm not saying that will help them this year, but having these type of high caliber players is an advantage once they can load up on Jucos and sign a huge class after restrictions.

I reference MSU being different simply because they a) have insanely good player development and b) can sign jucos. So simply comparing our class to theirs vis a vis is unreasonable. If that was the only metric, then why have they been so good as f late? We have routinely outrecruited them, but each year they put out one of the best teams we face.

My entire OP is regarding that the mention that looking at our class ranking vis a vis to our opponents isnt a good metric for an overall evaluation of the class. I stand by that statement.

Why can't ND be a blend of that? Isn't that our only chance at being a very successful national power again? Bringing in annual top 10 classes, and then trusting in player development? All the teams that underachieve with high star power lack player development (USC, Clemson and others historically), and the teams that overachieve do so with great player development (MSU, Boise, TCU lately, etc).

I agree with the premise that we need to blend that. But this entire post is regarding my comment about not using our class ranking as a simple metric of future success. We have clear differences in how our roster evolves compared to almost every competitive team in cfb. So why should we act like we can take MSU's (for example) philosophy and simply get better results?

BK has shown at least to be pretty good at player development IMO. As his classes get better, from a potential and upside standpoint, so does the overall status of our program IMO. Getting Daniel Cage's, Kolin Hill's, Jhonny Williams' and Drue Tranquill's as our low rated 5 year program guys over Bruce Heggie's, Anthony Rabasa's, Brad Carrico's and John Turners signify to me a major step forward in our program. Would you not agree?

Without the ability of hindsight, I guess that I agree. But how do we know that any of those guys are going to outperform their expectations? We all hope they do. But we hoped that Rabasa and other players like him would exceed expectations too. We all look at "upside", but lets be real... we wont know if they are better than past low recruits until they prove it. I seemingly see these guys as having more potential,but that doesn't change my opinion about how we should view this class and certianly not relevant to the OP regarding how we should look at it.

Idk to me, if you put on the tape, it's hard for me to see how people are not excited about the potential of this class. Is it Bama's class? No, of course not. I don't think we can ever get to that point, and I accept that. But getting a class like this off a 9-4 record with all the turmoil that went on in 2013 is pretty darn good in my eyes. And if this class is the lowest ranked sandwich class between elite 2013 and 2015 classes, which could very well happen, we are set up for the long haul as a potentially elite team.

I have higher expectations than 9-4. I'm not sure that we have to recruit to Bama's level to compete for championships, but we can't compete for titles unless we make some changes in how we do business. Having 10-15 ranked classes sounds good on the surface, but we also aren't pairing that with juco's, signing to the limit or getting questionable academic profiles in. So how do we fix that? That's the million dollar question that I think is reasonable for us all to debate.

I think all of our expectations should be to win championships. Right now, the blueprint for winning titles isn't something we can use. So how do we change the blueprint?

 

[Ndaccountant]

Don't kid yourself, the rankings matter. You think it's a coincidence that bama, unarguably the most dominant team in the country the past five years, has enjoyed a top five class each year since 2008?

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.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Totally agree and I used that as why we can't simply take the "our recruiting class is better" approach when looking at USC. They are still getting their share of 5* kids and doin it under restrictions. I'm not saying that we can't expect to beat them on the field in future years, but it wont be as simple as having slightly better class in '14.



Which scares me. They were the best BIG team in the country with the best defense in cfb. They did that with a ragtag group of 3* talent. I think we can all agree that the player development at MSU is very good. Think of what they could do with better talent?

I wouldn't get too worked up. When you look at average stars ranking per player for MSU, this year was the best in recent memory, coming in at 3.26. When looking backwards starting in 2013, they were 3.11, 3.11, 3.0, 3.05. Improved, yes. Huge jump? Not really. I think it is also noteworthy that their only 5 start in the class has yet to sign, even though it factors into the 3.26.