Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1066

TOP 15 G5 Recruiting Classes from 247

Recommended Posts

I picked this up from BBSCUSA by Tru Blu. It indicates some good things are coming to the AAC and to CSU, Boise and SDSU next year. We need to do a better job next recruiting year in order to keep up. I am surprised to see SMU in the top 10 and Colorado State in the top 3. We need to distance ourselves from CUSA. The overall quality of that league is below the MWC they should not be as close as they are.

By Tru Blu on bbscusa

Top15 G5 recruiting classes: 247

Per 247 Sports
The brands players are buying.

1. Memphis (AAC) 160.96
2. UCF (AAC) 154.88
3. Colorado St (MWC) 152.88
4. Houston (AAC) 147.89
5. Boise St (MWC) 142.14
6. Toledo (MAC) 136.13
7. ECU (AAC) 135.87
8. USF (AAC) 133.69
9. UTSA (CUSA) 132.51
10. SMU (AAC) 129.53
11. Navy (AAC) 128.55
12. MT (CUSA) 125.01
13. SDSU (MWC) 124.51
14. Bowling Green (MAC) 123.49
15. FIU (CUSA) 123.19


The AAC has 7 schools in the top 11 recruiting classes

The MWC has 3 schools in the top 13 recruiting classes

The CUSA has 3 schools in the top 15 recruiting classes

The MAC has 2 schools in the top 15 recruiting classes

The SBC has no schools in the top 15 recruiting classes

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RamSack said:

I'm not surprised by CSU's recruiting class.  Having a new kick-ass stadium helps.

The impending Big 12 invite doesn't hurt either. 

CSU AD Jack Graham - “If you get outside our borders, no one knows who we are. I was in Phoenix (last week) for the Mountain West meetings and there was a reception with all of the athletic directors. The bartender said to me, ‘Colorado State, where are you guys, Boulder?’ I’ve gotten that all my career. No one knows us outside our own boundaries."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't fully buy the recruiting rating systems. A lot of kids that G5 schools pickup just aren't fairly rated due to lack of exposure. Stars matter at the higher end but at 2, 3 and unrated, I don't know how accurate it is. 

There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Rocky frequently mentions the kids west of the Mississippi are frequently rated lower due to lack of exposure.  Any recruiting junky have any thoughts on that?

I agree, except for the DFW area. Also recruits will knocked down a notch if they commit to a G5 school or FCS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the amount of higher end recruits that don't qualify this is only a fraction of the picture. I would want to see last years class adjusted for drop outs, non-qualifiers, transfers, quit, etc. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

Considering the amount of higher end recruits that don't qualify this are only a fraction of the picture. I would want to see last years class adjusted for drop outs, non-qualifiers, transfers, quit, etc. 

And also late qualifiers who were not rated and brought a schools average down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They really need to have the number of recruits next to the total points (like the 247 site does). It makes a big difference. For example, Houston has 15 and Memphis has 23. Having 50%+ more recruits helps your total tremendously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Rocky frequently mentions the kids west of the Mississippi are frequently rated lower due to lack of exposure.  Any recruiting junky have any thoughts on that?

That's been the case for a long time.

Like anything, when you look at recruiting coverage, you just follow the money. Recruiting sites are businesses that want a profit, and they make money selling subscriptions to team sites. The more subscribers, the more they invest in growing the base and keeping the current customers happy. 

How do they do that? Good coverage is one, but bumping player ratings are another. Say Utah St. and CSU has a couple of 2 star players that LSU ends up flipping. Subscribers who are in a tough ratings competition with rivals, and if they see a couple of 2 stars added, they won't be happy. The P5 and east coast bias can also be in play. The subscribers and recruiting sites can say "If LSU really thinks they're that good, the initial 2 rating was wrong and they make it a 3. A lot of times, a 2 gets slapped on a player without even being looked at closely, and that happens out west all day long. Also, players graded back east do typically get a bit of an overhyped rating because of the bias of being from Ohio vs. a kid from Utah. 

It's a bunch of dysfunctional shiit based on making the most money, and to hell with a product that is genuinely good. 

 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lobo Amor said:

Let's se how it shakes out after NSD, teams like UNM still have more than half of their recruits to fill out.

You guys might not end up in the basement, but with all those 2-star JUCOs already signed, the math really doesn't work in your guys' favor. Regardless, UNM recruits a specific kind of athlete on the offensive side of the ball and will usually get dinged in the recruiting rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Rocky frequently mentions the kids west of the Mississippi are frequently rated lower due to lack of exposure.  Any recruiting junky have any thoughts on that?

Makes sense Bobo at CSU is bringing in more players from east and Georgia. Thus the higher ranking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Fort Fun said:

 

The Big 12 announced that they weren't expanding.

That can't be true....

CSU AD Jack Graham - “If you get outside our borders, no one knows who we are. I was in Phoenix (last week) for the Mountain West meetings and there was a reception with all of the athletic directors. The bartender said to me, ‘Colorado State, where are you guys, Boulder?’ I’ve gotten that all my career. No one knows us outside our own boundaries."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Rocky frequently mentions the kids west of the Mississippi are frequently rated lower due to lack of exposure.  Any recruiting junky have any thoughts on that?

Not really a recruiting junky but I watched Western teams like Boise State and Utah and TCU get mostly 2 star recruits with a 3 star considered a coup walk east and just trash a team with 3 stars as the minimum, 4 stars as the best players in their position for over a decade. At some point either the kids west of the Mississippi are rated lower or the coaches west of the Mississippi are, just, WAY better at coaching and developing players and have schemes light years ahead of anyone else to make up the talent disparity. 

The fact that the coaching pool, while somewhat regional, tends to be one big pool that coaches pull coordinators from that have worked, hypothetically, as a GA at Fresno and then the WR coach at Kent State and then an OC there for a year before becoming the RB coach at Oregon State and then leaving to become the full time OC at Maryland and then becomes the WR coach at Auburn after the HC at Maryland was fired, is hired as the OC at Mississippi state based on the work at Auburn, and finally is hired as the head coach at CSU based on the relationship with the AD there who was originally the assistant AD at OSU makes me think it is underrating western recruits instead of western coaches being magic.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Rocky frequently mentions the kids west of the Mississippi are frequently rated lower due to lack of exposure.  Any recruiting junky have any thoughts on that?

We can nitpick those sites all day, and it's pretty much impossible for them to accurately rank and monitor thousands of high school football players, and it is in their best interest to deliver good news to their subscribers... but... more often than not they get the big picture right.

For example, BSU and SDSU usually have the best classes in the MWC and they're usually the best teams in the MWC. Most of the MWC teams have recruiting classes ranked towards the bottom of the country and most MWC teams suck at football. So people can cry about their rankings all they want and they certainly and legitimate beefs in specific cases, but the results on the field speak for themselves.

My biggest annoyances with those sites:

  • Large classes of 25 are valued more than smaller classes
  • Some kid can get a PWO offer or a grayshirt offer from a school like Michigan State and all he has to do is tweet: "Blessed to receive a scholarship offer from Michigan State! #gobigblue #ball4dat$$ #bitchesbethristy" and every recruiting site will report that he has an offer like gospel.
  • They don't remove kids who didn't qualify. Anyone can go out and recruit a bunch of studs who have no chance of qualifying (Steve Fairchild)
  • They automatically give kids 2 stars if they sign with an FBS school. What's the point of five stars if no one ever gets a one?
  • Teams with active sites are more likely to have higher rankings because the writers are more diligent about getting an unranked commit's film in front of the site's "scouting and ranking team".
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...