Off-topic posts formerly found in recruiting profiles

[Luckylucci]

Add Matt Bauer of Erie to that immediate list. I'd guess he gets an offer during II at the latest, hopefully it will come any day so they have a month to recruit him hard so he feels that II's the time to pull the trigger on continuing the WPa movement.

As far as potential commits at II, add PJ Mustipher and Houston Griffith as strong possibilities with Stepp. Dotson would be great too but I have no idea of his temperature.

Who I hope Phil can influence is Jalen Hall and Brian Hightower at WR and Jaelen Gill at RB who Markese Stepp has been on already.

2018 is setting up nicely.

We tend to say or see this quite a bit without it coming to fruition, nor do I really care about team recruiting rankings as I don't believe they are all that accurate, but building around a 5 star QB makes a Top 5 recruiting class much easier to envision.

 

[ACamp1900]

We tend to say or see this quite a bit without it coming to fruition, nor do I really care about team recruiting rankings as I don't believe they are all that accurate, but building around a 5 star QB makes a Top 5 recruiting class much easier to envision.

Notre Dame football of the 21st Century... the new age moto might as well be:

"Irish Football, where championships are forever won two years from now."

 

[woolybug25]

We tend to say or see this quite a bit without it coming to fruition, nor do I really care about team recruiting rankings as I don't believe they are all that accurate, but building around a 5 star QB makes a Top 5 recruiting class much easier to envision.

I understand how you could feel that individual player rankings are innacurate, but I don't know how anyone can discredit overall team recruiting ranking. I mean, when was the last time a team won a title without at least one top 5 recruiting class?

 

[Irish#1]

Add Matt Bauer of Erie to that immediate list. I'd guess he gets an offer during II at the latest, hopefully it will come any day so they have a month to recruit him hard so he feels that II's the time to pull the trigger on continuing the WPa movement.

As far as potential commits at II, add PJ Mustipher and Houston Griffith as strong possibilities with Stepp. Dotson would be great too but I have no idea of his temperature.

Who I hope Phil can influence is Jalen Hall and Brian Hightower at WR and Jaelen Gill at RB who Markese Stepp has been on already.

2018 is setting up nicely.

That's a lot of guys to commit at the same time. Just don't see more than 1, possibly 2. Hope I'm wrong and you're right.

We tend to say or see this quite a bit without it coming to fruition, nor do I really care about team recruiting rankings as I don't believe they are all that accurate, but building around a 5 star QB makes a Top 5 recruiting class much easier to envision.

I don't care much about rankings either, but I have to believe the kids do, so if we land a 5 star for the center piece and have an o-line littered with 5 star kids, you have to think it can't do anything but help in recruiting others, at least on the offensive side. Now if I'm a defensive player, I still like that my team is being led by a QB with all of the tools.

 

[Luckylucci]

I understand how you could feel that individual player rankings are innacurate, but I don't know how anyone can discredit overall team recruiting ranking. I mean, when was the last time a team won a title without at least one top 5 recruiting class?

The way they figure out the team rankings its more about quantity than it is quality. They add up to the top 24 or 25 players, I believe, in each class for the overall ranking. Well, If Nd signs 23 players we don't have 1-2 players that will add to our final score or rankings, if you will. So, IMO, the most accurate way to look at respective class isn't based upon whether they signed a max class but is by looking at the average ranking of each player. That's where you can see the quality versus quantity.

To your question, teams like Bama, OSU, etc. not only recruit a lot of players but also high caliber players so it doesn't relate as much. But for example we're usually quite a few spots lower than our average player rating because we don't add 25 players each and every cycle.

Again, its more quantity than quality. The good news is 247 easily displays the ratings average so we can see, at least where I think, we truly stand.

There are so many examples but you can see this currently at work. On 247 Miami is ahead of us sitting #4 in the country, we are at #7. They have 14 players and we have 10 committed. We have an average player rating of 90.66, they have a average rating of 87.69. FSU is at #14 with an average rating of 92.72. What class would you rather have right now?

 

[woolybug25]

The way they figure out the team rankings its more about quantity than it is quality. They add up to the top 24 or 25 players, I believe, in each class for the overall ranking. Well, If Nd signs 23 players we don't have 1-2 players that will add to our final score or rankings, if you will. So, IMO, the most accurate way to look at respective class isn't based upon whether they signed a max class but is by looking at the average ranking of each player. That's where you can see the quality versus quantity.

To your question, teams like Bama, OSU, etc. not only recruit a lot of players but also high caliber players so it doesn't relate as much. But for example we're usually quite a few spots lower than our average player rating because we don't add 25 players each and every cycle.

Again, its more quantity than quality. The good news is 247 easily displays the ratings average so we can see, at least where I think, we truly stand.

There are so many examples but you can see this currently at work. On 247 Miami is ahead of us sitting #4 in the country, we are at #7. They have 14 players and we have 10 committed. We have an average player rating of 90.66, they have a average rating of 87.69. FSU is at #14 with an average rating of 92.72. What class would you rather have right now?

Again, I get how one could dislike how they do it, etc. But if we look at "accuracy" as how well a class projects, then whether you like their method or not, they are pretty accurate. The best teams in the country every single year have one thing in common, they have at least one class that's highly ranked.

Them's the facts.

 

[Luckylucci]

Again, I get how one could dislike how they do it, etc. But if we look at "accuracy" as how well a class projects, then whether you like their method or not, they are pretty accurate. The best teams in the country every single year have one thing in common, they have at least one class that's highly ranked.
Them's the facts.

Not at all or even close. When has MSU, Oregon, Baylor, TCU, Stanford or Oklahoma had those types of classes? The answer is virtually never. Yet they still win a lot of games, Rose Bowls, get to the playoffs, etc. I realize the top 5 class and national championship stat but that doesn't blanket the whole process as being accurate.

 

[woolybug25]

Not at all or even close. When has MSU, Oregon, Baylor, TCU, Stanford or Oklahoma had those types of classes? The answer is virtually never. Yet they still win a lot of games, Rose Bowls, get to the playoffs, etc. I realize the top 5 class and national championship stat but that doesn't blanket the whole process as being accurate.

Because you were able to pick out a few big outliers? My original comments were regarding titles, which none of the team's you listed have any recent ones, and when OU got their last one, they had a big recruiting class with Bradford/Murray/etc leading the way.

As far back as they have been ranking classes, the majority of BCS/playoff teams and all title winners have had at least one top class. Just because you can name 5 teams that won some games without one doesn't change the facts.

 

[Luckylucci]

Because you were able to pick out a few big outliers? My original comments were regarding titles, which none of the team's you listed have any recent ones, and when OU got their last one, they had a big recruiting class with Bradford/Murray/etc leading the way.

As far back as they have been ranking classes, the majority of BCS/playoff teams and all title winners have had at least one top class. Just because you can name 5 teams that won some games without one doesn't change the facts.

Haha, some games. Oregon and Stanford have dominated the Pac12 for a decade and never finished in the top 5. Oregon has made it to 2 national title games in that span, again never a top 5 finish.

You are basically saying they are accurate because 1 team each of the last, however many years, that won a national title had a top 5 finish. How about the other 100 teams that were also ranked, you just completely disregard those ranking because they didn't win it all, that sounds stupid. Not saying that you are as I don't believe that to be true.

At the end of last season, Stanford finished #3 (that class certainly wasn't a top 3 class or even remotely close). Oklahoma was #5, no top 5 classes, MSU at 6 has never ever had a top 6 class or even close. TCU at #7 same applies here. Houston at 8, same. Iowa at 9, same here. So 60% of the top 10 last year, didn't have classes in the respective range they finished and some not even close, yet that is accurate.

 

[NDdomer2]

so what i've learned is that you can be reallllly good with below elite recruiting classes as long as theres a solid program/coache in place, but to win it all you still need elite class(es).

As they say, almost only counts in horse shoes, and hand grenades.

#Elite class(es) matter.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Because you were able to pick out a few big outliers? My original comments were regarding titles, which none of the team's you listed have any recent ones, and when OU got their last one, they had a big recruiting class with Bradford/Murray/etc leading the way.

As far back as they have been ranking classes, the majority of BCS/playoff teams and all title winners have had at least one top class. Just because you can name 5 teams that won some games without one doesn't change the facts.

Perhaps a different way of viewing it. Over the last 5 years or so, what teams have produced the most consistently good teams, meaning playoffs / BCS bowls? Off the top of my head, I would list out Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Stanford, Sparty, FSU, Clemson and Oklahoma. In that list, I would say Alabama, Ohio State FSU and maybe Clemson fit your narrative while Oregon, Stanford, Sparty and OU fit Lucci's.

I think context is important here b/c I believe Lucci is right in saying that the recruiting isn't 100% needed to be a consistent playoff contender. However, I do believe you are correct in pointing out the championship winners clearly had a good run in recruiting. To be, the issue is that to beat Bama and OSU and win a Natty, you are going to need a superior game plan, some good luck and a once in generational QB. I mean, Auburn had talent as did FSU, but clearly Winston and Newton is what made the difference. That is why PJ is such an important recruit. If he becomes that generational QB, ND doesn't need to have a top 5 or top 3 class, but the better the recruiting is, the better the chances at the Natty become.

 

[ACamp1900]

Look at it this way...

-Who has won a title without having at least one top five class (usually multiple)??
-What teams, if any have had top five classes with any kind of consistency and not competed for or won a title in recent history??

 

[woolybug25]

Haha, some games. Oregon and Stanford have dominated the Pac12 for a decade and never finished in the top 5. Oregon has made it to 2 national title games in that span, again never a top 5 finish.

You are basically saying they are accurate because 1 team each of the last, however many years, that won a national title had a top 5 finish. How about the other 100 teams that were also ranked, you just completely disregard those ranking because they didn't win it all, that sounds stupid.

At the end of last season, Stanford finished #3 (that class certainly wasn't a top 3 class or even remotely close). Oklahoma was #5, no top 5 classes, MSU at 6 has never ever had a top 6 class or even close. TCU at #7 same applies here. Houston at 8, same. Iowa at 9, same here. So 60% of the top 10 last year, didn't have classes in the respective range they finished and some not even close, yet that is accurate.

Again, ZERO NATIONAL TITLES. You are trying to use every outlier to prove you're right while ignoring the majority of teams. Let me give you some examples.

2010 Team Recruiting Rankings
Florida - 5 Straight bowl games, including one BCS Game victory (Sugar Bowl). Meyer leaves.
Texas - Outlier. Another top five class coming from a school with 9 straight 10-win seasons and coming off a Title game appearance. This class may be an outlier, but all of their prior success was led by top 5 recruiting classes.
USC - Also coming off prior years of success. This class finished #6 in the country in '11, won the PAC12 and had two double digit win seasons.
Oklahoma - Went to 4 straight bowl games, including two BCS victories. Two top 10 finishes.
Alabama - Two national titles. Nuff said.

2011 Team Recruiting Rankings
Bama - Three national titles. Nuff said.
FSU - Two BCS games and one BCS National Title
USC - 1 PAC12 championship, one top ten finish
Texas - Outlier
Auburn - One #2 finish and a BCS Title Game loss

2012 Team Recruiting Rankings
Bama - Three national titles. Nuff said.
Texas - Def a weird outlier
FSU - Four straight 10 win seasons, two BCS games and a National Title
Florida - One BCS game loss
OSU - National Title, two undefeated seasons, four straight 12+ win seasons

I was going to go all the way to this class, but it'll take too long, the '13 class is current and well... you should get the picture. If not, lets look at the last ten title winners.

Bama - Several top five recruiting classes
OSU - Several top five recruiting classes
FSU - Several top five recruiting classes
Bama - Several top five recruiting classes
Bama - Several top five recruiting classes
Florida - Several top five recruiting classes
LSU - Several top five recruiting classes
Florida - Several top five recruiting classes
Texas - Several top five recruiting classes
USC - Several top five recruiting classes

See a trend?

 

[woolybug25]

Perhaps a different way of viewing it. Over the last 5 years or so, what teams have produced the most consistently good teams, meaning playoffs / BCS bowls? Off the top of my head, I would list out Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Stanford, Sparty, FSU, Clemson and Oklahoma. In that list, I would say Alabama, Ohio State FSU and maybe Clemson fit your narrative while Oregon, Stanford, Sparty and OU fit Lucci's.

I think context is important here b/c I believe Lucci is right in saying that the recruiting isn't 100% needed to be a consistent playoff contender. However, I do believe you are correct in pointing out the championship winners clearly had a good run in recruiting. To be, the issue is that to beat Bama and OSU and win a Natty, you are going to need a superior game plan, some good luck and a once in generational QB. I mean, Auburn had talent as did FSU, but clearly Winston and Newton is what made the difference. That is why PJ is such an important recruit. If he becomes that generational QB, ND doesn't need to have a top 5 or top 3 class, but the better the recruiting is, the better the chances at the Natty become.

The bolded was never my or his original point. He said that team recruiting rankings are over rated. That's verbatim. My point, was that most of the top teams and all title winners have had top five classes. That is fact. Plain and simple.

 

[pkt77242]

Perhaps a different way of viewing it. Over the last 5 years or so, what teams have produced the most consistently good teams, meaning playoffs / BCS bowls? Off the top of my head, I would list out Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Stanford, Sparty, FSU, Clemson and Oklahoma. In that list, I would say Alabama, Ohio State FSU and maybe Clemson fit your narrative while Oregon, Stanford, Sparty and OU fit Lucci's.

I think context is important here b/c I believe Lucci is right in saying that the recruiting isn't 100% needed to be a consistent playoff contender. However, I do believe you are correct in pointing out the championship winners clearly had a good run in recruiting. To be, the issue is that to beat Bama and OSU and win a Natty, you are going to need a superior game plan, some good luck and a once in generational QB. I mean, Auburn had talent as did FSU, but clearly Winston and Newton is what made the difference. That is why PJ is such an important recruit. If he becomes that generational QB, ND doesn't need to have a top 5 or top 3 class, but the better the recruiting is, the better the chances at the Natty become.

Here are the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 classes for Oregon, Stanford, Sparty and Oklahoma according to 247.
Oregon
12, 13, 19, 21
Stanford
22, 7, 51*, 13
Sparty
32, 33, 35, 25
Oklahoma
13, 12, 16, 14

Sparty is definitely the outlier (well besides one bad year from Stanford but they only took 13 players in that class), while the other teams hung around right outside the top 10 many years.

Here is what I would say, you probably need a top 5 class to win a championship (or possibly lots of top 10 classes) but you can be very good as long as you consistently recruit (Oklahoma is a good example of pulling in lots of very good classes) or you have an amazing coach (Sparty).


ETA: I think that Wooly is right. Now lucci is also right but he is arguing something different than Wooly.

 

[koonja]

There's only 1 true correlation that's translatable to being a legitimate playoff contender.



Total team abs.

 

[BobbyMac]

2010 Auburn did it without a Top 5 class. It's mathematically possible but that's about it. I'll take my chances with a Top 5 class.

 

[koonja]

2010 Auburn did it without a Top 5 class. It's mathematically possible but that's about it. I'll take my chances with a Top 5 class.

But that's not counting JUCOs is it? And you're dealing with a once every 5 years QB there too. There's 129 teams in CFB, there will always be an outlier every single year. But again, abs win champs.

 

[RDU Irish]

Perhaps a different way of viewing it. Over the last 5 years or so, what teams have produced the most consistently good teams, meaning playoffs / BCS bowls? Off the top of my head, I would list out Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Stanford, Sparty, FSU, Clemson and Oklahoma. In that list, I would say Alabama, Ohio State FSU and maybe Clemson fit your narrative while Oregon, Stanford, Sparty and OU fit Lucci's.

I think context is important here b/c I believe Lucci is right in saying that the recruiting isn't 100% needed to be a consistent playoff contender. However, I do believe you are correct in pointing out the championship winners clearly had a good run in recruiting. To be, the issue is that to beat Bama and OSU and win a Natty, you are going to need a superior game plan, some good luck and a once in generational QB. I mean, Auburn had talent as did FSU, but clearly Winston and Newton is what made the difference. That is why PJ is such an important recruit. If he becomes that generational QB, ND doesn't need to have a top 5 or top 3 class, but the better the recruiting is, the better the chances at the Natty become.

Wait, they can't both be right? What are they supposed to fight about?!?!?

Five star recruits that change the game are important, five star QBs that define the game are more so.

Bama since 2016 team ranking has been 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5 - YOU SHOULD WIN when you stock pile that kind of talent - and they needed the talent b/c they have not had elite QBs - good not elite.

OSU since 2016 has been 3, 9, 3, 2, 4, 13, 27

Notre Dame 12, 11, 11, 3, 21, 11, 14

(rivals for team rankings)

Elite recruiting gives coaches more margin for error, which is essential for consistent dominance in college football. The fact we have done as well as we have should be commended and I would love to see what BK could if he strung a couple of top 5 classes together - excited to see 17/18 come together and test that out.

 

[woolybug25]

2010 Auburn did it without a Top 5 class. It's mathematically possible but that's about it. I'll take my chances with a Top 5 class.

To be fair, they had a #11, #10, #24, #23 and #6 classes leading up to that year. What that #6 class doesn't tell you, is that they also added a juco player some of you may know... Cam Newton. I think we can all agree that adding Cam Newton to a #6 overall class is at least equal to a #5 overall class. lol

 

[NDdomer2]

But that's not counting JUCOs is it? And you're dealing with a once every 5 years QB there too. There's 129 teams in CFB, there will always be an outlier every single year. But again, abs win champs.

You think a Cam Newton comes around every 5 years?

 

[woolybug25]

You think a Cam Newton comes around every 5 years?

Technically... yes.

Cam Newton
Jamies Winston
Andrew Luck
Sam Bradford
Tim Tebow

etc etc etc

 

[NDdomer2]

Technically... yes.

Cam Newton
Jamies Winston
Andrew Luck
Sam Bradford
Tim Tebow

etc etc etc

I dont put some of these guys on that same level.

Tebow is prolly closest at the college level, but we all know he wasnt made for the league.

Bradford?? dude could sling it in college and maybe his injuries really hampered him at the NFL level but dudes not on the same level as Newton, Winston, Luck, imo.

Regardless, I don't recall too many DE sized guys running around playing QB at an ALL-PRO level before. So maybe I'm missing how that comes around every 5 years.

 

[woolybug25]

I dont put some of these guys on that same level.

Tebow is prolly closest at the college level, but we all know he wasnt made for the league.

Bradford?? dude could sling it in college and maybe his injuries really hampered him at the NFL level but dudes not on the same level as Newton, Winston, Luck, imo.

Regardless, I don't recall too many DE sized guys running around playing QB at an ALL-PRO level before. So maybe I'm missing how that comes around every 5 years.

I suppose I disagree. Cam had one good year in college. That's it.

Bradford won the Heisman, the BIG12 three consecutive years, broke the OU all time passing record, won a National Title and was the #1 overall pick in the draft.

If we are just talking about college success and dominating that level of the game, then I would say all of those guys are on par or better than Cam.

 

[BobbyMac]

To be fair, they had a #11, #10, #24, #23 and #6 classes leading up to that year. What that #6 class doesn't tell you, is that they also added a juco player some of you may know... Cam Newton. I think we can all agree that adding Cam Newton to a #6 overall class is at least equal to a #5 overall class. lol

According to 247, he was counted.

Auburn 2010 Football Commits

 

[pkt77242]

I dont put some of these guys on that same level.

Tebow is prolly closest at the college level, but we all know he wasnt made for the league.

Bradford?? dude could sling it in college and maybe his injuries really hampered him at the NFL level but dudes not on the same level as Newton, Winston, Luck, imo.

Regardless, I don't recall too many DE sized guys running around playing QB at an ALL-PRO level before. So maybe I'm missing how that comes around every 5 years.

In college, which is what is being discussed, Bradford is definitely on Cam's level
Bradford as a rSO, complete 67.9% of his passes, for 4720 yards 50 tds and only 8 ints. He wasn't a great runner but he could sling the ball.

Also of note if you compare Bradford's 2008 season and Newtons 2010 season, Bradford has 55 total TDs vs 51 for Cam.

 

[woolybug25]

According to 247, he was counted.

Auburn 2010 Football Commits

They list him separately as one of the three LOI, he's not listed (nor calculated in their avg ranking number) with the actual class.

 

[NorthDakota]

Player A 68%, 3700 Yards, 28 TD, 4 INT
Player B 61%, 3500 Yards, 25 TD, 10 INT

One of those was a number 1 overall pick, Matthew Stafford. One of those was my boy Jimmy C. Stats across different offenses, conferences, and such are not really all that fair.

 

[Irish#1]

so what i've learned is that you can be reallllly good with below elite recruiting classes as long as theres a solid program/coache in place, but to win it all you still need elite class(es).

As they say, almost only counts in horse shoes, and atom bombs.

#Elite class(es) matter.

FIFY

 

[pkt77242]

Player A 68%, 3700 Yards, 28 TD, 4 INT
Player B 61%, 3500 Yards, 25 TD, 10 INT

One of those was a number 1 overall pick, Matthew Stafford. One of those was my boy Jimmy C. Stats across different offenses, conferences, and such are not really all that fair.

Huh? I don't get your argument at all in comparison to what is being talked about.

We are comparing players that played in similar times (so not comparing 1975 vs 2010) and about their ability to be a generational QB. What does it matter who was picked where by a NFL team?