Five-year college football recruiting averages
Synopsis of:
Each team's 5 year recruiting average,
Their best/worst recruiting year over that time frame,
Where they rank in their division and conference,
A comparison between conferences
The graphs are not amenable to copying and pasting... but good article for a quick run down.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/02/03/conference-breakd…
Hot Take:
The Big Ten, lead by the East division needs to continue its SEC type recruiting if we are going to match that conference!! When their WORST team- Vanderbilt at 47, is better than half of our conference that says a lot about their depth! AND they have 8 teams that have averaged glasses in the top 20 vs. the B1Gs 2.
We need Penn State (ducks), Michigan State (ducks), Maryland, Wisconsin and Nebraska to take it up another notch
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:03 PM ^
Dunking in in basketball, ducking is what you mean.
Also, I want state to have 3-9 bad years in a row.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^
Indeed.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:29 PM ^
I'd like for them to have their typical spread of mediocrity to suckitude. 23-32 bad years in a row.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:16 PM ^
Why do we need the bottom of the conference to be good? In fact I would argue last year was an ideal situation for the big ten. Enough highly rated teams that the teams at the top had the resumes to be playoff contenders but the bottom was crap making upsets less likely to dilute the resumes of the top. Nothing would have been worse for Michigan's resume last year than Wisconsin dropping a game to a better than expected Minnesota. Michigan's should be worried about getting to the playoffs not caring about whether people think we play in the hardest conference.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:31 PM ^
However, to be competitive once the B1G gets in the championship games... it's my opinion, it needs to have faced a little bit more a challenge from the middle of the B1G in general and a couple of the teams at the top (outside of OSU and Michigan) need to continue to step it up a bit... ie: Nebraska, Wisconsin etc.
February 3rd, 2017 at 8:58 PM ^
You have to be tested. Plowing through Purdue and Rutgers does not make you any better. Plus, even if you drop a close game, your season is not doomed. In fact, a lot of teams play better after a loss, like Clemson, PSU, and OSU last year. If you are too weak at the bottom you get a situation like the Big 12 where the worst teams don't make the best teams better, they are more or less cupcakes. Alabama gets the best from every SEC team they face because they all want to knock them off.
We are going to measure Harbaugh by games like OSU, Florida, Wisconsin, and MSU. Beating the absolute piss out of some teams has to happen as a natural order of things where coaches are fired and replaced by new blood which will hopefully be innovative and bring the conference along, making coaches think and adapt. Remember when Northwestern started running a spread in 99/2000? They didn't win any titles with it but they upset a lot of teams.
That is where I disagree with OP - MSU is outperforming expectations and so is PSU, and Purdue, Rutgers, and Minnesota need to step it up. As fun as 78-0 was, beating MSU and Wisconsin was so much better.
February 4th, 2017 at 3:08 PM ^
whatever competitive benefits might be gained by playing a slightly tougher schedule (negligible), are far outweighed by the decrease in likelihood of making the playoff.
Michigan winning championships is what matters. With four teams making it and a near guarantee of making it if you're a P5 team that gets through the regular season of a P5 with one or fewer losses, that's all that matters.
The ACC is the model for the B1G ten here. Two dominant teams in recruiting, the rest of the conference has been mostly terrible over this time period. This allows Clemson and FSU to fairly easily get to the playoff every year, and then anything can happen in two games - that's how the ACC has won 2 of the last four titles despite being not a deep conference at all.
And look at Washington last year. They weren't as talented as us, but played an easy schedule and ended up in the playoff with an infinitely greater chance of winning the title than us at that point.
Bama has had the top recruting class in five of the last six years (!!!). Their talent and coaching is the best in the game (top three in coaching at least), which is the reason for the success - not that they play slightly better competition all year. In fact, it's possible that competition leaves them beat up by the time they get the playoff because they've certainly underperformed their talent the last four years.
Michigan just needs to have the best talent possible, because the coaching will get the most out of it, regardless of how difficult the schedule is. And recruiting talent is a zero sum game. If PSU and MSU and others are getting better players, who do you think is having a harder time getting the best? We are. Our success is inversely correlated to our rivals success, especially MSU. You should never want them to recruit better.
February 4th, 2017 at 6:16 PM ^
I think the ACC was better than the SEC last year, especially at the top and despite Louisville's struggles down the stretch. The B1G was probably 1 or 2 with the ACC with the SEC and Alabama's 3rd and their closest games were against Ole Miss and LSU - a combined 12-11.
We are talking about National Championships, not bowl games. It's a completely different animal because you have to be able to defend and attack many different things very quickly. If you just dance through to those games with no real challenge then you end up with the B1G of most of 2001-2010 where one or two teams are good but only because they beat some MAC teams, Indiana, and Minnesota.
Everyone knew MSU was a fraud in 2015 but enough luck bounced their way to get into the playoffs. Similar thing happened to OSU last year. Michigan will have to win despite that stuff to have a real shot at a title. Hell, they still had a shot at one last year after losing to Iowa.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:21 PM ^
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:23 PM ^
February 3rd, 2017 at 5:22 PM ^
He has the potential to be a tremendous difference maker going forward. He's an underclassman.
February 3rd, 2017 at 5:51 PM ^
I have not seen any of this. What sources/individuals are alluding to this?
February 3rd, 2017 at 5:58 PM ^
It would be a shock if he doesn't start next year.
February 3rd, 2017 at 6:00 PM ^
Or are the wheels already in motion?
February 3rd, 2017 at 6:06 PM ^
My source is plugged in. "Might" is the operative word at this point.
February 3rd, 2017 at 6:08 PM ^
Unhappy with the program? Situation at home? Homesick? Too many recruits coming in at the same position?
February 3rd, 2017 at 6:32 PM ^
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:24 PM ^
Please, for the love of spelling and typos, fix the numerous grammar errors in your post.
TIA for your attention to this matter.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:27 PM ^
hear nor their.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:32 PM ^
Eye sea what ewe did they're.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:39 PM ^
Sorry.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:30 PM ^
Alabama
Highest rank: 1st
Lowest rank: N/A
Christ.
February 3rd, 2017 at 5:06 PM ^
Admittedly, I was thinking that it should be that by the time you get down to schools like Purdue, the appropriate ranking for their class might be "N/A", but that would involve upending their current breakdown and it is Friday and I am pooed (but not in a cooler).
February 3rd, 2017 at 5:52 PM ^
...and I get shit for saying Saban is overrated (as a coach, not a recruiter). A monkey could lead a team like that to a one loss season.
February 3rd, 2017 at 7:46 PM ^
February 4th, 2017 at 3:00 PM ^
RR's best classes (won a BCS game), he did nothing with RR's worst classes, and he wasn't kept around long enough to see his two top 10 classes become uppperclassmen which is when college football players usually become, you know, good at football.
We're about to send pretty much our entire starting defense to the NFL and they were all Hoke players. Recruiting classes don't impact (positively or negatively) the team's performance until 3-4 years later, unless you're bringing in a ton of five stars, which we don't do. This is the reason next year we'll take a step back: poor late Hoke era recruiting/retention.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:37 PM ^
We need enough elite teams to be recognized as a good league, and not a bunch of 8-4 Iowa-type teams that are a dumb loss waiting to happen
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:39 PM ^
February 4th, 2017 at 3:04 PM ^
our top 5 classes of the past two years were volume driven because those 2014 and 2015 classes were so small. We still aren't recruiting at a high enough level (i.e. not getting enough five and high four stars) to have top five classes with only 20-22 players. Need a few more of those blue chip guys. We'd still be top 10 probably if you assume we'd get the best 20 of our last two classes, but not top 5.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:45 PM ^
I must say, it is not surprising that Sparty's average class ranking fell in the 3-9 range in the Big Ten.
February 3rd, 2017 at 5:33 PM ^
Your Mama's so fat, when she passes in front of the TV, I miss between 3 & 9 episodes.
February 3rd, 2017 at 6:00 PM ^
Alabama - BEST CLASS (1st) WORST CLASS (N/A)
Fuckers.
February 3rd, 2017 at 6:12 PM ^
February 3rd, 2017 at 9:01 PM ^
PSU might get all 3 but what I've seen is that by time NSD comes around at least one will go someplace else. Here's hoping it's all 3.
February 3rd, 2017 at 9:35 PM ^
In two years our score will go up to around 5 and Harbaugh should be competing for playoff spots. Yes, it could happen next season or in 2018 but realistically Harbaugh will not have the talented depth until 2019-2020.
February 3rd, 2017 at 11:58 PM ^
February 4th, 2017 at 9:13 AM ^
I keep repeating myself, but this is key to winning being elite.
Look at BCS Championship Game and Playoff Championship Game teams and look at their 4 year recruiting average.
Have an average in the top 5 over a 4 year span and you'll definitely be in the mix.
We've put together 2 great classes, Harbaugh's first class during the transition was rough (timing and numbers).
We have to do it 2 more years and we'll be right there in 2019. We also get MSU, Notre Dame and OSU at HOME in 2019.
FWIW here are some key players projected to be part of that team...
QB: Brandon Peters (RS Jr.) or Dylan McCaffrey (RS So.)
RB: Chris Evans (Sr.) and Kareem Walker (RS Jr.)
WR: ...you know the names because they're all freshman or sophomores this year...#LOADED
TE: Asiasi and Wheatley will both be seniors. McKeon and Eubanks will be behind them
OT: Filiaga, Stueber, Ulizio...and NEWSOME(!) could all be in the mix
OG: Onwenu, Hall, Spanellis and Runyan Jr. if around for 5th year
C: Ruiz
-----------------------------
WDE: Kemp, Vilain, Malone-Hatcher
SDE: Probably not Gary, Irving-Bey...one of the guys above probably gets bigger and moves here.
DT: Solomon, Dwumfour, Hudson, Jeter
OLB: Boat load of options
ILB: Devn Bush Jr. (Sr.) / Josh Ross (Jr.) / Jordan Anthony (Jr.)
VIPER: Metellus or Hudson
CB: Hill, Long, Thomas, St.-Juste
S: Kelly-Powell, Woods and Metellus or Hudson will all be upperclassmen
...that's without natual attrition and guys from the '18 OR '19 classes. That's insane...we're basically going to see that 2019 team this year and they'll be in their 3rd year together.
It's a ways away, but if we stay at this pace, that's a championship team.
February 4th, 2017 at 3:12 PM ^
I wouldn't under-estimate how good they'll be in 2018 though. I have a feeling than a handful of True Juniors will go to the NFL after that. They'll still be relatively young in 2018 but they'll be experienced.
In 2018, either Speight will have improved to the point that he's projected as a 1st round pick or it'll be Peters starting after 2 years developing under Harbaugh.
The offensive line should be really good in 2018 also. By then, they may be returning 4 out of 5 starters. Continuity is a huge benefit to the offensive line's performance.
They'll also return:
- Their entire secondary
- All their wide recievers
- All their running backs
All those above groups are loaded with talent and athletic ability.
They'll lose more than half their starters in the front 7 but all the returning starters will still have experience because of how Don Brown rotates players. They'll also return 2 potential 1st round picks Gary and Solomon.
Point is don't underestimate the experience playing together factor. What is this year's greatest challenge due to that poor recruiting year when Michigan was transitioning will be an unusual benefit to them in 2018. They should be contenders by then and I'd put them ahead of Ohio State even though Ohio State will have had a better cumulative recruiting average.
Here's to hoping that 2019 is about defending a Championship.
February 4th, 2017 at 3:14 PM ^
Deleted Post
February 4th, 2017 at 12:17 PM ^
Vanderbilt is higher at 47 than Minnesota or NW. I'd take both of the B1G teams over Vandy.