Sounds about right...no team in the B1G should drop much below fifty......at least eight should be in top thirty seven or so. Above sixty should only fall the smaller P5 privates and less populated more isolated state schools of which i won't name out of courtesy.
The B1G is killing it recruiting
- Thread starter Caliknight
- Start date
Right now, to me, Avg stars is a better barometer until the class is filled in. Click on Avg. Stars and OHio state is still No. 1 We are No. 54 in avg stars.
Last edited:
More like the 40-45 range with potential to make it to mid to high 30s. Only scenario we land outside of top 45 is if we get the decommitment bug..
Is odd. Uconn is a decent school and a major brand name. How can they not out recruit or at least stay on the level of other AAC and MAC teams.
Texas played for a national title twice in the past decade I think. Saying high recruiting rankings hasnt helped them is a little short sighted.
Wisconsins are rare.
Regardless of the details - this is clearly Flood's best class, building on what was a strong finish last year.
Whats odd. They are in an area with no recruits. They are a brand name in BB, not FB. MAC temas are mostly in Ohio, which has tons of recruits. AAC temas are largely in the South - again - areas with alot of recruits.
Here are Texas Class National Rankings for the last 6 years, which stocked most of their teams over the last 4 seasons:
2009: #5
2010: #3
2011: #3
2012: #2
Texas' records/rankings when most saw the field:
2010: 5-7, unranked
2011: 8-5, unranked
2012: 9-4 (#18 and #19 in final polls)
2013: 8-5, unranked
2014: 6-7, unranked
Those results with Top 5 recruiting classes are all epic failures..
We have only been a Power 5 school for 2 years. I think you need to give it a little time.
I apologize for this, but I just can't resist.
The anticipation is killing me. Will the new mantra of the critics be:
The most important way to judge a recruiting class is the number of guys ranked at their position?
or
The most important way to judge a recruiting class is by the average stars of the class?.:boxing:
I am ribbing a little bit, but I am not going to complain that much about people coming up with different ideas on how such things should be judged. After all, that is what these discussions are for - I think?:confused::popcorn:
The anticipation is killing me. Will the new mantra of the critics be:
The most important way to judge a recruiting class is the number of guys ranked at their position?
or
The most important way to judge a recruiting class is by the average stars of the class?.:boxing:
I am ribbing a little bit, but I am not going to complain that much about people coming up with different ideas on how such things should be judged. After all, that is what these discussions are for - I think?:confused::popcorn:
I know your post was tongue in cheek. But for everyone else out there:
You can only play 11 guys on the field at once and 22 starters on both sides of the ball (plus rotating guys I get it) . Would you rather have 22/23 players with an average Rating of 5.4/5.5 or 18/19 players with an average ratio of 5.7/5.8?
Even in this marginal example is it really up for debate?
I could debate that. Once you get below the Rivals 100 type of players, its a huge crapshoot. From the wide world of 3 stars, you have a bunch of kids that will make the NFL, and a handful who will be 1st round picks. Most will not only never play professionally, but will never start for a P5 college team. As you aid, you only start your best 22 guys. So given the very slight difference between a 5.4 and 5.7 from the ranking system, I think a coaching staff, that is trusting its own evaluations and getting the best kids they can, might prefer a few extra bites at the apple to a few kids rated marginally higher by Rivals.
Even if you applied it to the staff's own recruiting board, I would bet if you told Flood he could either take his #4 and #5 choices at DLine, or he could take his #6 thorugh #10 choices, he would take 6-10, simply because it gives you more chances to land a starter. As has been said a lot lately, the 85 schollie limit is there for a reason.
If a 3 star beats out a 2 star it doesn't move the needle. If a 3 star beats out a 4 star than it's likely that the player is going to be pretty good.
Similar threads
