AAC Recruting Classes and Rankings

[blackoutpony]

Per Rivals, here is where the rest of the AAC currently stands in recruiting.

There are two separate ranking, total points and average points. If you have more recruits, in general, you will be ranked high in the total point rankings. Average measures the quality of your prospects regardless of your class size. Both are useful tools for determining the state of a class. That being said, SMU really needs to pick it up.

Current Members
Cincinnati - 16 commits. #57 Total (#6 AAC). #73 Average (#4 AAC).
3* - 5
2* - 8
NR - 3

Houston - 20 commits. #52 Total (#5 AAC). #94 Average (#10 AAC)
3* - 2
2* -15
NR - 3

Louisville - 24 commits. #14 Total (#1 AAC). #35 Average (#1 AAC).
4* - 1
3* - 21
2* - 2

Memphis - 5 commits. # 108 Total (Worst in BCS (#10 AAC)). #78 Average (#6 AAC).
3* -1
2* - 2
NR - 2

Rutgers - 20 commits. #21 Total (#2 AAC). #46 Average (#2 AAC).
4* - 3
3* - 10
2* - 7

South Florida - 14 commits. #44 Total (#4 AAC). #49 Average (#3 AAC).
4* - 1
3* - 8
2* - 5

SMU - 14 commits. #66 Total (#7 AAC). #89 Average (#9 AAC)
3* - 2
2* - 12

Temple - 17 commits. #39 Total (#3 AAC). #77 Average (#5 AAC).
4* - 1
3* - 5
2* - 11

UCF - 12 commits. #69 Total (#8 AAC). #85 Average (#8 AAC)
3* - 2
2* - 10

UCONN - 10 commits. # 92 Total (2nd worst in BCS (# 9 AAC)). #81 Average (#7 AAC).
3* - 2
2* - 5
NR - 3

Future Members
East Carolina - 6 commits, # 93 Total. Tied Last Average.
2* - 6

Navy - 3 commits, #113 Total. Tied Last Average.
2* - 2
NR - 1

Tulane (yuck) - 8 commits, #93 class. Tied Last Average.
2* - 7
NR - 1

Tulsa - 8 commits, #88 class. #93 Average.
3* - 1
2* - 7

Of Note Class Rankings
Texas #7, #19 Avg
Texas A&M #12, #4 Avg
Baylor #22, #51 Avg
Texas Tech #36, #62 Avg
Pitt #41, #54 Avg
TCU # 48, #30 Avg
Rice #48, #83 Avg
Boise State #59, #51 Avg
Syracuse #64, #57 Avg
SDSU #72, #85 Avg
BYU #75, #75 Avg
Oregon State #85 (3rd worst in BCS as a reference), #65 Avg

[Rebel10]

Looks like SMU is around the middle of the pack.

[Stallion]

Rivals has changed their grading system-which this year seems to especially help teams with more recruits-compare quality not quantity of TCU/Rice classes that are allegedly tied. Heck both of those TCU 2 stars have 10 offers with multiple BCS offers-they will get adjusted upwards. Rivals has less 3+ stars at this time than they have had in about 7 years. I expect at a minimum of 60 new Texas 3 stars in future. Last year they cut back from about 270 to 200 3+ stars. Last time i looked-a few weeks ago-there were only 140 or so 3+ Stars

[blackoutpony]

Rivals has changed their grading system-which this year seems to especially help teams with more recruits-compare quality not quantity of TCU/Rice classes that are allegedly tied. Heck I think a couple of those TCU 2 stars have over 10 offers

TCU has two, 2 stars and you're right, they both actually have 10 offers. They both have a mix of FCS, Low FBS and BCS offers though.

[Stallion]

Nick Orr from Desoto has 7 BCS offers

[Rebel10]

Rivals has changed their grading system-which this year seems to especially help teams with more recruits-compare quality not quantity of TCU/Rice classes that are allegedly tied. Heck I think a couple of those TCU 2 stars have over 10 offers

TCU has 2 stars and you're right, they both actually have 10 offers. They both have a mix of FCS, Low FBS and BCS offers though.

Good job Blackoutpony.

[ojaipony]

Thanks for posting. Not good for us. Although I like Scout's rankings better (bc it shows us higher and Harris as a 4 star). Would be interesting to see how the two services' methodologies are different.

[SMU 86]

If we can put a pounding on USF and Cincy this year when we play them it could demoralize their recruiting efforts so they don't put together 3 or 4 good classes in a row.

[blackoutpony]

Thanks for posting. Not good for us. Although I like Scout's rankings better (bc it shows us higher and Harris as a 4 star). Would be interesting to see how the two services' methodologies are different.

Glad you asked. One of the biggest differences, IMO, is that scout has a set number of 5*, 4*, 3*, etc players, where as rivals has a general guideline they follow. Thus if there is a weak recruiting year, someone may be a 4* on scout when they might only be a 3* in a different year. Rivals tries not to do this, so a 4* would generally be a 4* in any given year. This is why I tend to like rivals better.

Here's an article that sort of explains all the different services if you're curious (just ignore that it's on a Wash St site).

http://www.cougcenter.com/wsu-football- ... igning-day

[Stallion]

To show you how much a difference Total/Avg can be:

Total Points
(48) (tie) TCU
Rice

Avg Points
30. TCU
84. Rice

[Stallion]

SMU's Current Recruiting Rankings

Rivals
Total: 67
Avg: 88

Scout:
Total: 57
Avg: 73

Again I expect wholesale upgrades of many prospects on Rivals

Why not combine all the scores and grade SMU at about No. 71

[ojaipony]

SMU's Current Recruiting Rankings

Rivals
Total: 67
Avg: 88

Scout:
Total: 57
Avg: 73

Again I expect wholesale upgrades of many prospects on Rivals

Why not combine all the scores and grade SMU at about No. 71

Good way to think about it. Bottom line: we have GOT to do better!

[blackoutpony]

SMU's Current Recruiting Rankings

Rivals
Total: 67
Avg: 88

Scout:
Total: 57
Avg: 73

Again I expect wholesale upgrades of many prospects on Rivals

Why not combine all the scores and grade SMU at about No. 71

To your point Stallion, I redid the list above and included the average ranking for everyone. You make a good point. SMU needs to really step it up