Recruiting Rankings
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 10:01 amRivals:
2004 class (currently):
SMU #56, TCU #59
2003 class: SMU #62, TCU #69
2002 class: SMU #69, TCU #79
Note: This rank does not include our transfers (Foy, a starter at Tech, Akenemi, a starter at AFA)
(TTech was #48 in 02, #44 in 03, and #13 in 04)
I don't mean to have both sides of the coin, but I believe these rivals rankings include JUCOs and signed transfers. That being said our 'total' rank should increase with our transfers included.
Here's the other side...while we were only ranked #62 in 2003, that was an all high school class compared to many programs that had JUCOs signed.
That being said, there is some inflection point to where if you say signed 4 straight classes ranked, for instance, #25, but with 8 or so JUCOs every year VS. 4 straight classes with no JUCOs every year, but it was ranked say #45 on average, the better team overall would be the non-Juco team (on average). I don't know where this inflection point is, and it certainly depends on 'play-makers' (i.e., if you signed 2 JUCO Michael Bishops, then you are going to be really good, but we can only look at 'averages').
This is just an example, I do not have any scientific proof, but a JUCO only gives you 2 years and he may be more hightly ranked because he is 20 years old vs being 18 at the time. They also only get 2 years in your system.
My only point is that many of these rankings are slightly biased. I believe that is where our #45 class ranking was made "excluding JUCO's".
Having said all that, I do wish we could sign a few JUCOs every year to fill some gaps where need be. But, redshirting many players gives us that "BYU-effect" with added age.
2004 class (currently):
SMU #56, TCU #59
2003 class: SMU #62, TCU #69
2002 class: SMU #69, TCU #79
Note: This rank does not include our transfers (Foy, a starter at Tech, Akenemi, a starter at AFA)
(TTech was #48 in 02, #44 in 03, and #13 in 04)
I don't mean to have both sides of the coin, but I believe these rivals rankings include JUCOs and signed transfers. That being said our 'total' rank should increase with our transfers included.
Here's the other side...while we were only ranked #62 in 2003, that was an all high school class compared to many programs that had JUCOs signed.
That being said, there is some inflection point to where if you say signed 4 straight classes ranked, for instance, #25, but with 8 or so JUCOs every year VS. 4 straight classes with no JUCOs every year, but it was ranked say #45 on average, the better team overall would be the non-Juco team (on average). I don't know where this inflection point is, and it certainly depends on 'play-makers' (i.e., if you signed 2 JUCO Michael Bishops, then you are going to be really good, but we can only look at 'averages').
This is just an example, I do not have any scientific proof, but a JUCO only gives you 2 years and he may be more hightly ranked because he is 20 years old vs being 18 at the time. They also only get 2 years in your system.
My only point is that many of these rankings are slightly biased. I believe that is where our #45 class ranking was made "excluding JUCO's".
Having said all that, I do wish we could sign a few JUCOs every year to fill some gaps where need be. But, redshirting many players gives us that "BYU-effect" with added age.