3rd highest rated signing class of the CGP era

[MAcFroggy]

For those that think recruiting does not matter. Here is a list of the top 6 classes this year according to 247 composite:

1) alabama
2) ohio state
3) UGA
4) LSU
5) Clemson
6) Oregon

Do those schools seem familiar? Those are the only 6 teams that have won a CFP semi-final game.

I saw that information on Twitter from (I think ) Bruce Feldman.

 

[LSU Game Attendee]

For those that think recruiting does not matter. Here is a list of the top 6 classes this year according to 247 composite:

1) alabama
2) ohio state
3) UGA
4) LSU
5) Clemson
6) Oregon

Do those schools seem familiar? Those are the only 6 teams that have won a CFP semi-final game.

I saw that information on Twitter from (I think ) Bruce Feldman.

There’s also a bit of a feedback loop where those schools’ offers get a starsies boost. Also, those schools have the luxury of running off more kids who aren’t contributors, increasing the number of annual croots, not just the avg starsies.

P.S. I agree this list should always highly correlate with on field success.

 

[Eight]

i agree with countryfrog that to talk crap over recruiting rankings, especially over results on the field is a clown show

especially when you consider many of those who engage in such banter don't understand the factors involved in the math used to rank the classes, don't recognize that the rankings aren't reflective of whether your school addressed its needs, and the ranking don't consider all players added to the roster

consider the frogs addition of butler and rogers. both are very talented prospects, but neither are included in the frogs class rankings this year for some reason why i don't truly understand.

if they were to be included in the class they would be the frogs #2 and #3 rated recruits and will be on the roster regardless if they aren't included in the class ratings

 

[TopFrog]

Excellent back-to-back signing groups. Just needs to translate to the field with more Ws and a win or three over OU.

 

[Wexahu]

i agree with countryfrog that to talk crap over recruiting rankings, especially over results on the field is a clown show

especially when you consider many of those who engage in such banter don't understand the factors involved in the math used to rank the classes, don't recognize that the rankings aren't reflective of whether your school addressed its needs, and the ranking don't consider all players added to the roster

consider the frogs addition of butler and rogers. both are very talented prospects, but neither are included in the frogs class rankings this year for some reason why i don't truly understand.

if they were to be included in the class they would be the frogs #2 and #3 rated recruits and will be on the roster regardless if they aren't included in the class ratings

And it works both ways too. Some team's classes are "better" because they have a few players signed that won't ever make it to campus, much less play football games. We've had a few of those ourselves. Remember the infamous 4 star Fabian Franklin? Ryan Parker? Cam Williams? They all helped boost our ranking.

I think some coaches (not GP necessarily) have no problem adding kids like that because it makes them look like they are recruiting better than they are, and it appeases their fan bases. As much stock that is put into recruiting rankings, if the Rivals and 247's aren't going to account for that kind of stuff, why not?

 

[Eight]

And it works both ways too. Some team's classes are "better" because they have a few players signed that won't ever make it to campus, much less play football games. We've had a few of those ourselves. Remember the infamous 4 star Fabian Franklin? Ryan Parker? Cam Williams? They all helped boost our ranking.

I think some coaches (not GP necessarily) have no problem adding kids like that because it makes them look like they are recruiting better than they are, and it appeases their fan bases. As much stock that is put into recruiting rankings, if the Rivals and 247's aren't going to account for that kind of stuff, why not?

agreed and when you look at the 2016 class aside from the highly rated prospects who either quickly disappeared or never panned out you have parker, williams, and keshawn somerville who was injured and never played football

 

[ECoastFrog]

so when evans broke that long run and johnston was doing what he did last week that was because of the frog factor or the talent that had them rated where they were rated compared to their peers?

Not what I meant to imply. Look at UT with all their starsies, and so little player development or accomplishment. Just because the player has innate talent doesn't make them a guaranteed great college player. They have to want it, which is hard to measure in a HS kid.

 

[CountryFrog]

For those that think recruiting does not matter. Here is a list of the top 6 classes this year according to 247 composite:

1) alabama
2) ohio state
3) UGA
4) LSU
5) Clemson
6) Oregon

Do those schools seem familiar? Those are the only 6 teams that have won a CFP semi-final game.

I saw that information on Twitter from (I think ) Bruce Feldman.

I have yet to hear anyone ever utter the words "recruiting does not matter."

 

[Eight]

Not what I meant to imply. Look at UT with all their starsies, and so little player development or accomplishment. Just because the player has innate talent doesn't make them a guaranteed great college player. They have to want it, which is hard to measure in a HS kid.

how many of those kids at texas were sought and offered by tcu?

environment, player development, system and talent all matter.

what is interesting is the myth that tcu and gary have this magic formula for hitting on lesser rated kids when it is more to me the ability to project kids, an environment that allowed time for the kids to develop and a bunch of swings and misses over the year that weren't as obvious playing in cusa and the mwc.

 

[SuperTFrog]

I have yet to hear anyone ever utter the words "recruiting does not matter."

Maybe not that exact sentence but there are plenty of people that think recruiting is not very important.

 

[CountryFrog]

Maybe not that exact sentence but there are plenty of people that think recruiting is not very important.

I've never heard a single person say anything remotely close to that.

 

[Paint It Purple]

For those that think recruiting does not matter. Here is a list of the top 6 classes this year according to 247 composite:

1) alabama
2) ohio state
3) UGA
4) LSU
5) Clemson
6) Oregon

Do those schools seem familiar? Those are the only 6 teams that have won a CFP semi-final game.

I saw that information on Twitter from (I think ) Bruce Feldman.

And, there’s your answer to why there are only 4 teams in the CFP. Expand that number and the big boys run the risk of an outlier winning, and then come the next signing day the talent pool gets diluted.

 

[Froggish]

If you see recruiting rankings for what they really are, a reflection of physical ability that inform football potential, the stars make a lot more since.

Give a good coach the biggest, strongest, and fastest 20 athletes every year and he’ll take those kids 100% of the time over the alternative.

Stars don’t mean development isn’t necessary they just mean some kids have higher football ceilings because of their physical gifts relative to their peers

 

[Wexahu]

If you see recruiting rankings for what they really are, a reflection of physical ability that inform football potential, the stars make a lot more since.

Give a good coach the biggest, strongest, and fastest 20 athletes every year and he’ll take those kids 100% of the time over the alternative.

Stars don’t mean development isn’t necessary they just mean some kids have higher football ceilings because of their physical gifts relative to their peers

True, but Kendre Miller was ranked the #1618th best prospect in the country and the 221st best prospect in Texas.

I don’t know what they look at. Makes you wonder if they even look at these kids at all sometimes.

 

[CountryFrog]

If you see recruiting rankings for what they really are, a reflection of physical ability that inform football potential, the stars make a lot more since.

Give a good coach the biggest, strongest, and fastest 20 athletes every year and he’ll take those kids 100% of the time over the alternative.

Stars don’t mean development isn’t necessary they just mean some kids have higher football ceilings because of their physical gifts relative to their peers

I think your 1st paragraph is pretty spot on in regards to individual player rankings. Though I think it's pretty clear they will also occasionally bump up a players ranking based on nothing more than University X offered a scholarship.

Team rankings are ALMOST meaningless. Oh wait, the recruiting web site says Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St are getting lots of good players? Oh my gosh who could've ever figured that out!? These sites must really know what they're talking about!

 

[CountryFrog]

True, but Kendre Miller was ranked the #1618th best prospect in the country and the 221st best prospect in Texas.

I don’t know what they look at. Makes you wonder if they even look at these kids at all sometimes.

There's nothing to wonder about. They are absolutely NOT evaluating every single D1 prospect in North America.

 

[Froggish]

I think your 1st paragraph is pretty spot on in regards to individual player rankings. Though I think it's pretty clear they will also occasionally bump up a players ranking based on nothing more than University X offered a scholarship.

Team rankings are ALMOST meaningless. Oh wait, the recruiting web site says Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St are getting lots of good players? Oh my gosh who could've ever figured that out!? These sites must really know what they're talking about!

Once you get by the top 300 players in the country it’s pretty hard to use comparatives
to know who’s better than who.

 

[Moose Stuff]

True, but Kendre Miller was ranked the #1618th best prospect in the country and the 221st best prospect in Texas.

I don’t know what they look at. Makes you wonder if they even look at these kids at all sometimes.

It's impossible to accurately rank every D1 caliber recruit in the country. Give me the best 20 evaluators on earth and they still couldn't do it. Now consider who is doing the rankings for these services and it becomes exponentially more difficult.

 

[CountryFrog]

Once you get by the top 300 players in the country it’s pretty hard to use comparatives
to know who’s better than who.

For sure, though I'd say even once you get past the first 40 or 50 then it gets really hard. Of course every year is different. Sometimes it's less and sometimes more. But there are very few guys in any given year who are substantially better than the rest of the field. Then there are several hundred who are really good athletes and basically have about the same chance of being impact players in college or total busts.

I don't think there's anyone who can accurately tell you the difference between player number 80 and player number 500 most years.

 

[CountryFrog]

It's impossible to accurately rank every D1 caliber recruit in the country. Give me the best 20 evaluators on earth and they still couldn't do it. Now consider who is doing the rankings for these services and it becomes exponentially more difficult.

Just think of NFL evaluators. Supposedly the best of the best and they have a much smaller pool to evaluate with basically unlimited resources. And they still can't figure out who's better between Mitch Trubisky and Pat Mahomes.