Rutgers vs. Pedd State recruiting class rankings

[Kbee3]

Rivals rankings:
2018....PSU-#5 RU-#58
2019....PSU-#11 RU-#53
2020...PSU-#15 RU-#67
2021....PSU-#25 RU-#32
2022...PSU-#7 RU-#40
Big, big gap in talent recruited. Although something seems to have changed in 2021 to close the gap somewhat.

 

[Yeah Baby]

Yeah Wimsatt reclassified but that also knocked 2022 down around 7 slots.

 

[RU#1fan]

Rivals rankings:
2018....PSU-#5 RU-#58
2019....PSU-#11 RU-#53
2020...PSU-#15 RU-#67
2021....PSU-#25 RU-#32
2022...PSU-#7 RU-#40
Big, big gap in talent recruited. Although something seems to have changed in 2021 to close the gap somewhat.

Tough to overcome that. The 2023 Class has even a bigger disparity between PSU and Rutgers:
PSU currently at #14 and RU at #52 { and no 4 stars}.
Will need to be very fortunate in the Portal to even a chance to move up to a mid level team in the B1G.

 

[Kbee3]

The 2023 class doesn't look anywhere near as impressive as the 2022 and 2021.
What's up with that ?

 

[RUinPinehurst]

The 2023 class doesn't look anywhere near as impressive as the 2022 and 2021.
What's up with that ?

NIL....

 

[mildone]

The 2023 class doesn't look anywhere near as impressive as the 2022 and 2021.
What's up with that ?

The reality of the challenge overcomes the new coach excitement. Put another way, recruits have a record of accomplishment for the team under it’s new leadership to consider and aren’t just going on promises and hype anymore.

That‘s why winning by hook or crook mattered so much these 3 seasons so far. Unfortunately, we haven’t been particularly lucky with injuries or recruiting so now things get harder. And pretty much any coaching staff we hire will face the same challenge.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Some other numbers which I've never mentioned specifically as to ranks but have mentioned just in general.

2018-2022 rankings of FSU
10, 17, 20, 27, 17

2018-2022 rankings of WF
61, 56, 61, 63, 76

WF has beaten FSU 3 straight times and competed for the ACC title last year

2018-2022 rankings of KSU
52, 68, 49, 60, 50

2018-2022 rankings of Baylor
32, 33, 60, 54, 32

2018-2022 rankings of TCU
28, 29, 24, 63, 60

2018-2022 rankings of Ok. St.
35, 40, 43, 30, 22

2018-2022 rankings of Texas
4, 4, 14, 16, 5

Baylor, TCU, Ok St will have played or will play in the B12 title game these last couple years, KSU is closing in on it this year. Texas nowhere.

2018-2022 rankings of Utah
37, 60, 31, 37, 37

2018-2022 rankings of Oregon
13, 7, 9, 3, 24

2018-2022 rankings of USC
3, 18, 71 (Helton job security I think), 3, 56 (heavy on the portal)

Utah has competed in the PAC just fine, been ranked multiple times and went to the Rose Bowl and took it to OSU last year.

 

[RU#1fan]

NIL....

BS
Programs like Duke, Northwestern, Cincinnati, Boston College are currently ranked way above us in 2023 CFB Recruits rankings. NIL ? BS.
Coach is not finishing as of now.

 

[mildone]

Some other numbers which I've never mentioned specifically as to ranks but have mentioned just in general.

2018-2022 rankings of FSU
10, 17, 20, 27, 17

2018-2022 rankings of WF
61, 56, 61, 63, 76

WF has beaten FSU 3 straight times and competed for the ACC title last year

2018-2022 rankings of KSU
52, 68, 49, 60, 50

2018-2022 rankings of Baylor
32, 33, 60, 54, 32

2018-2022 rankings of TCU
28, 29, 24, 63, 60

2018-2022 rankings of Ok. St.
35, 40, 43, 30, 22

2018-2022 rankings of Texas
4, 4, 14, 16, 5

Baylor, TCU, Ok St will have played or will play in the B12 title game these last couple years, KSU is closing in on it this year. Texas nowhere.

2018-2022 rankings of Utah
37, 60, 31, 37, 37

2018-2022 rankings of Oregon
13, 7, 9, 3, 24

2018-2022 rankings of USC
3, 18, 71 (Helton job security I think), 3, 56 (heavy on the portal)

Utah has competed in the PAC just fine, been ranked multiple times and went to the Rose Bowl and took it to OSU last year.

Proving that recruiting rankings aren’t everything.

But, just like an IQ isn’t everything but can be a decent predictor for someone‘s ability to learn new and possibly complex stuff, recruiting rankings are a decent predictor for a team’s ability to succeed among its peers. In both cases, they're imperfect tools. But there is a strong enough correlation with consistently great programs and strong recruiting to be meaningful.

People like to single out this or that factor as being the thing that drives success. Or that most drives success. But I'm pretty sure it’s never any one or two things. I think it’s always the combination of many things, including: recruiting, player development, system design, scheme design, position coaching, game day coaching by the entire staff including the HC, good luck with injuries, good luck with competition going through down phases, institutional support, community support, financial support, etc.

It all matters. There’s no one-size fits all rule for success. Different combinations of strengths and weaknesses with the above stuff can work well at different times for different schools where it might work poorly at other times with the same or other schools.

Presumably, most coaches do their very best to facilitate strength in all those areas (and others I failed to mention). But I think it's very difficult, even at schools where there's a long tradition of excellence. They build on their earlier successes for sure. But they still have to perform or stuff can go sour pretty fast.

 

[Kbee3]

Proving that recruiting rankings aren’t everything.

But, just like an IQ isn’t everything but can be a decent predictor for someone‘s ability to learn new and possibly complex stuff, recruiting rankings are a decent predictor for a team’s ability to succeed among its peers. In both cases, they're imperfect tools. But there is a strong enough correlation with consistently great programs and strong recruiting to be meaningful.

People like to single out this or that factor as being the thing that drives success. Or that most drives success. But I'm pretty sure it’s never any one or two things. I think it’s always the combination of many things, including: recruiting, player development, system design, scheme design, position coaching, game day coaching by the entire staff including the HC, good luck with injuries, good luck with competition going through down phases, institutional support, community support, financial support, etc.

It all matters. There’s no one-size fits all rule for success. Different combinations of strengths and weaknesses with the above stuff can work well at different times for different schools where it might work poorly at other times with the same or other schools.

Presumably, most coaches do their very best to facilitate strength in all those areas (and others I failed to mention). But I think it's very difficult, even at schools where there's a long tradition of excellence. They build on their earlier successes for sure. But they still have to perform or stuff can go sour pretty fast.

Who was it that once said "The race doesn't always go to the biggest, fastest, strongest....but that's the way to bet".

 

[Shelby65]

The reality of the challenge overcomes the new coach excitement. Put another way, recruits have a record of accomplishment for the team under it’s new leadership to consider and aren’t just going on promises and hype anymore.

That‘s why winning by hook or crook mattered so much these 3 seasons so far. Unfortunately, we haven’t been particularly lucky with injuries or recruiting so now things get harder. And pretty much any coaching staff we hire will face the same challenge.

Right. Once results didn’t match the hype, recruiting success waned. It also doesn’t help that GS is known to stifle offense. Players want to be productive, score, have highlights, etc and not be decoys on wildcat plays, 3rd and long handoffs, and watch the first half clock run out rather than try to score ‘because Schiano’.

GS can’t see that scoring matters for winning and recruiting.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Proving that recruiting rankings aren’t everything.

But, just like an IQ isn’t everything but can be a decent predictor for someone‘s ability to learn new and possibly complex stuff, recruiting rankings are a decent predictor for a team’s ability to succeed among its peers. In both cases, they're imperfect tools. But there is a strong enough correlation with consistently great programs and strong recruiting to be meaningful.

People like to single out this or that factor as being the thing that drives success. Or that most drives success. But I'm pretty sure it’s never any one or two things. I think it’s always the combination of many things, including: recruiting, player development, system design, scheme design, position coaching, game day coaching by the entire staff including the HC, good luck with injuries, good luck with competition going through down phases, institutional support, community support, financial support, etc.

It all matters. There’s no one-size fits all rule for success. Different combinations of strengths and weaknesses with the above stuff can work well at different times for different schools where it might work poorly at other times with the same or other schools.

Presumably, most coaches do their very best to facilitate strength in all those areas (and others I failed to mention). But I think it's very difficult, even at schools where there's a long tradition of excellence. They build on their earlier successes for sure. But they still have to perform or stuff can go sour pretty fast.

The point is recruiting isn't the end all be all especially as you go down the college status totem pole. If you’re never going to be up at the very top so you need to figure out ways to make it work with what you have.

I've said this many times before, I see recruiting as tiered pyramid with the tiers of similar talent widening as you go down.

So if you want to compete at the very very top of the sport consistently, yea you likely need to be near that upper tier of the pyramid with the most talent. But that talent alone isn't enough, you need good coaching too. Saban isn't winning all time just because he has talent but because he's a damn good coach too. Other schools who have the talent but not the coach, don't get near the results if any at all.

The farther down the status totem pole you go, the more important the coach is to try and achieve respectable or better results. Because you're down that recruiting pyramid and as you go down the talent rankings/evaluation are more cloudy and probably a lot more similar....so the differentiator is coaching which can possibly push you up above that pack that's farther down the status totem pole.

 

[mildone]

Right. Once results didn’t match the hype, recruiting success waned. It also doesn’t help that GS is known to stifle offense. Players want to be productive, score, have highlights, etc and not be decoys on wildcat plays, 3rd and long handoffs, and watch the first half clock run out rather than try to score ‘because Schiano’.

GS can’t see that scoring matters for winning and recruiting.

I'm not beating up on GS. It's a very difficult job and I'm not convinced, until I actually see it accomplished, that any other coach would do much better or do so more quickly.

For sure GS has his flaws. And I don't agree w/those who label him a "great coach". But I don't think he's a crappy coach, either. So I'll wait and see what happens.

If he doesn't work out, then we'll get someone else and then it all starts over again. Getting a new coach is a gamble every time. Including when the new coach was GS.

 

[Shelby65]

I'm not beating up on GS. It's a very difficult job and I'm not convinced, until I actually see it accomplished, that any other coach would do much better or do so more quickly.

For sure GS has his flaws. And I don't agree w/those who label him a "great coach". But I don't think he's a crappy coach, either. So I'll wait and see what happens.

If he doesn't work out, then we'll get someone else and then it all starts over again. Getting a new coach is a gamble every time. Including when the new coach was GS.

I do agree with some of that. It's a hard job and no hire is a guarantee. For every Leipold there's a Frost. For every Heupel there's a Schiano.

What can't be disputed though, is the undeserved long-term contract which will prevent us from replacing him with our next gamble when it's universally clear he's failed. Especially here, where money is hard to come by.

Terrible job by the university. Acquiescing to the fans' unwise preference is one thing, going all in for 8 years on a guy who's failed at each stop since he left the first time is indefensible.

I remember he said early on that he's changed, he's learned a lot, etc, and fans believed him. Now we see that he's the same guy. Sure fooled you, huh ?

 

[batts]

2023 recruiting is all about the NIL. Recruits are looking for the best monetary package.

 

[rutgersguy1]

If he doesn't work out, then we'll get someone else and then it all starts over again. Getting a new coach is a gamble every time. Including when the new coach was GS.

Agree with this, it's never a guarantee. But that's more reason ADs make bad decisions with all these crazy long term and some times very high value contracts. Why give out a long term guaranteed deal to a something that's not guaranteed. There should be an escape hatch. Coaches move from location to location so easily when they're good but schools are stuck with bloated contracts when they're bad. Heads I win tails you lose. Too much OPM syndrome from ADs and they're just patsies for these agents.

You know a thought that's crossed my mind, which seems kind of unusual, but part of me thinks ADs should hire agents to negotiate on the behalf of the schools. It would probably cost the schools less to hire an agent on their behalf to negotiate a "2 way street contract" vs the crazy bloated contracts these ADs give out on their own that schools end up eating more times than not.

 

[mildone]

Agree with this, it's never a guarantee. But that's more reason ADs make bad decisions with all these crazy long term and some times very high value contracts. Why give out a long term guaranteed deal to a something that's not guaranteed. There should be an escape hatch. Coaches move from location to location so easily when they're good but schools are stuck with bloated contracts when they're bad. Heads I win tails you lose. Too much OPM syndrome from ADs and they're just patsies for these agents.

You know a thought that's crossed my mind, which seems kind of unusual, but part of me thinks ADs should hire agents to negotiate on the behalf of the schools. It would probably cost the schools less to hire an agent on their behalf to negotiate a "2 way street contract" vs the crazy bloated contracts these ADs give out on their own that schools end up eating more times than not.

I'm not sure AD's have a ton of wiggle room. But then I really don't know what sort of negotiating environment College ADs really have and what all the factors are.

I bet it's harder than it looks, though. 🙂

 

[RutgersSam]

Our ceiling is probably a top 20-25 class every year, at least we get a seminal culture change. The problem is we have a coach that underperforms recruiting rankings. Poor player development and gameday decisions cause that kind of incongruence.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I'm not sure AD's have a ton of wiggle room. But then I really don't know what sort of negotiating environment College ADs really have and what all the factors are.

I bet it's harder than it looks, though. 🙂

I think there's plenty of room before you have to give out 7-10 year deals to coaches who have no proven level of consistency. ADs act like they have no leverage or negotiate against themselves half the time. It's common sense and not that complicated.

You know Colorado extended and upped Karl Dorrell's contract off the 4-2 pandemic year. For what? 1.5 years later and he's out after starting 0-5. Who the hell was coming to hire him? He should be so lucky that he even got a HC job in the P5. Is 6 games, justification to extend and up a contract. Same can be said for Fisher who had a 10 year deal at 75M, reupped to 10 years again at 95M and for what exactly? Who was coming after him also? Orgeron same happened at LSU. That man would've crawled over broken glass for that job and they gave him a bump in salary? Again for what? Just because lol. No one was coming after him either. This kind of stuff happens time and time again. It's so stupid.

I don't blame coaches and agents for fleecing these ADs. I blame ADs for not being smarter with their resources, especially if you're a school that doesn't have much. Other people's money. If it was their own money they had to dole out, I wonder if they would be so spendthrift. If a coach wants to leave let them and do your job as an AD and find another suitable candidate. It's unlikely you have the next Saban in your midst and as the AD you're the one with the purse strings and the multimillion dollar job to give out.