PonyFans.com

Sports 247 recruiting team rankings has us #29. Ahead of TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati and Houston! What!

Simple...we want quality over quantity...

We have the most commits of anyone in the country. Should be interesting to see where we stand once everyone has similar amounts of commits.

AusTxPony wrote:Sports 247 recruiting team rankings has us #29. Ahead of TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati and Houston! What!

You're missing that those team rankings are tilted towards quantity, you'll see how poor the class is when you review the quality metrics (offers and average ranking). If June takes us all the way to signing day we'll end up in the 80s.

I think you should look at them before you comment, sbs. #25 Arizona =16 recruits, #26 Nebraska = 11 recruits, #27 Colorado = 11 recruits, #29 SMU = 13 recruits. I don't see a huge discrepancy in the numbers of recruits, so that may NOT be it. I can't figure it out.

AusTxPony wrote:I think you should look at them before you comment, sbs. #25 Arizona =16 recruits, #26 Nebraska = 11 recruits, #27 Colorado = 11 recruits, #29 SMU = 13 recruits. I don't see a huge discrepancy in the numbers of recruits, so that may NOT be it. I can't figure it out.

How many commits does TCU, Louisville, Cincy, and Houston have since that is who you referred to in your original post as SMU being ahead of?

AusTxPony wrote:I think you should look at them before you comment, sbs. #25 Arizona =16 recruits, #26 Nebraska = 11 recruits, #27 Colorado = 11 recruits, #29 SMU = 13 recruits. I don't see a huge discrepancy in the numbers of recruits, so that may NOT be it. I can't figure it out.

The rankings are obviously tilted towards quantity, that explains why we're as high as we are with a Average recruit rating of 79.62. Several schools behind us are in the 80s but have fewer recruits. Once they start to fill up they'll rise and we'll fall. Order it by average recruit ranking and we're down at 67. When you really examine all those classes around us we really don't compare in terms of recruit quality. I can show you just how badly they're beating us if you want to see it.

We are presently about 86th in Average Per Recruit

Stallion wrote:We are presently about 86th in Average Per Recruit

I was using 247s rankings (the OP mentioned them). Though you're right we are ranked 86th in Average Star Rating by Rivals (2.36).

Havent we in the past seen many of our recruits upgraded during thier senior year? - dont know if thats becasue our staff picks up and comers, or if that is because the ones doing the rating increase their score due to the SMU offer..or maybe that happens with every school - but i recall that has been the trend.

i would rather see us stacking up 3's and 4's also of course. I know its competitive - but the disappointment is that it just doesnt feel like we have enough "rabid dog" recuriters on the road - i would guess two - and we need 6 or 7. there apprears to be no bump in the fact we will be in a BCS conference in one year.

June relies almost 100% on his network. That just isnt enough for us to get where we want to go.

Seems like we are filling up with mostly Bert Hill recruits with Mason's coming in second. I do not know how many scholarships we have left but I hope JP gets a few more. I guess JP might be going after harder to get players so his might come later.

There is something very important missing, in my opinion, regarding all of these rating services and their rankings. For example, in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and mid-west the various state high school sports governing associations have very different rules and regulation regarding football, the high school season and the involvement of coaches. All of the states in these regions do NOT allow spring training and any form and 7 on 7 is not permitted. Coaches can only run weight training on a restricted basis and kids can attend private speed camps. I think this is an important issue because rating services are totally limited to reviewing high school games/tapes to assess all ratings. In states that allow spring training and 7 on 7 college coaching staffs and rating services get a much better view of a kid's speed, footwork, quickness....etc. This also leads to a huge disparity in the actual training and experience of a kid. Just think about a kid in Texas who is afforded three years of 15 days of spring training plus a full scrimage and then plays in 15 games of 7 on 7 for three years which adds up to 45 days of additional practice under his HS coach further learning a system then 45 games of real time play against top position players perfecting individual skills. This allows southern kids to come into a HS season exponentially better trainined and experienced than any kid from the north. The question is whether or not any northern kid can ever catch up even through college with the training an experience missed?

Question is whether or not ranking services can really make accurate assessments on northern kids with such a limited review? I think not. As for SMU recruiting it will be very interesting to see if they can compete in the Big East immediately in football. My answer is yes because the preponderance of Big East school are limited to regional recruiting and these kids have a huge deficit in the training and experience that the SMU, Houston, UCF and Louisville kids will have. If you do not have a Florida or Texas pipeline for recruiting, odds are that you will be at the bottom of the Big East. In summary, I do not believe the rating of kids who do not have spring training and 7 on 7 is comprobable to those who do and the northern schools are facing a crisis in recruiting and maintaining top programs because their regions simply do not have the numbers and experienced kids. This a big reason for the shift in power in college football to the SEC, Big 12 and away from the Big 10, ACC and Big East as formerly structured. California kids holds the PAC 12 together, but barely.

PoconoPony wrote:There is something very important missing, in my opinion, regarding all of these rating services and their rankings. For example, in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and mid-west the various state high school sports governing associations have very different rules and regulation regarding football, the high school season and the involvement of coaches. All of the states in these regions do NOT allow spring training and any form and 7 on 7 is not permitted. Coaches can only run weight training on a restricted basis and kids can attend private speed camps. I think this is an important issue because rating services are totally limited to reviewing high school games/tapes to assess all ratings. In states that allow spring training and 7 on 7 college coaching staffs and rating services get a much better view of a kid's speed, footwork, quickness....etc. This also leads to a huge disparity in the actual training and experience of a kid. Just think about a kid in Texas who is afforded three years of 15 days of spring training plus a full scrimage and then plays in 15 games of 7 on 7 for three years which adds up to 45 days of additional practice under his HS coach further learning a system then 45 games of real time play against top position players perfecting individual skills. This allows southern kids to come into a HS season exponentially better trainined and experienced than any kid from the north. The question is whether or not any northern kid can ever catch up even through college with the training an experience missed?

Question is whether or not ranking services can really make accurate assessments on northern kids with such a limited review? I think not. As for SMU recruiting it will be very interesting to see if they can compete in the Big East immediately in football. My answer is yes because the preponderance of Big East school are limited to regional recruiting and these kids have a huge deficit in the training and experience that the SMU, Houston, UCF and Louisville kids will have. If you do not have a Florida or Texas pipeline for recruiting, odds are that you will be at the bottom of the Big East. In summary, I do not believe the rating of kids who do not have spring training and 7 on 7 is comprobable to those who do and the northern schools are facing a crisis in recruiting and maintaining top programs because their regions simply do not have the numbers and experienced kids. This a big reason for the shift in power in college football to the SEC, Big 12 and away from the Big 10, ACC and Big East as formerly structured. California kids holds the PAC 12 together, but barely.

Rating services also go to the combines which have kids from all over the country go to. Also, they may have other ways to evaluate in which you and I are not aware of since we do not work for them. By the way, I don't know if your information is correct on the 7 on 7 in the midwest. And Ohio State, Iowa, and Wisconsin seem to be doing pretty good in the midwest. Texas kids also have been known to peak out earlier because a lot of them have reached their potential by the time the get to college unlike say Florida kids. The BE schools do go after a good amount of Florida, Georgia, Carolina kids. Again, most are complaining about offers not the rating services. If we do not compete against in the BE immediately then Jones should be fired IMO because he will have had 5 years to recruit his players. In fact we should win CUSA this year IMO.

These rating services are worthless.

Topper wrote:These rating services are worthless.

We should be looking at offers. At least some should be getting multiple middle tier BCS offers. As most of our commits are going to well known high schools. But I guess we will all find out if your statement is true or if you are just being a flat out jerk once SMU hits the Big East.