(02-06-2013 10:52 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 09:55 PM)El Grande Flippero Wrote:  Looking at our class and Toledo's.....there's some great athletes that are going to be playing football in NW Ohio. Maybe more people will get off the couch and DVR the OSU game so they cn head out tot he Doyt or the Glass Bowl and see some LIVE football for a change.

Re the "stars" recruits get . Clawson mentioned in his press conference today that of the 10 players we had getting all MAC recognition this year, 8 had ** and two were walk ons. The bread and butter for the MAC are the projectable guys like Aaron Banks in our class...a 205lb safety that can grow in a couple of years into a 225lb Gabe Martin clone.

That's a good point, and that is what happens when you can develop the players. This is exactly what Boise State and TCU do. They get a bunch of 2 star and 3 star prospects that end up looking like 4 star guys by the time they are juniors and seniors.

You inspired me though to look at Toledo's All-MAC players.

Toledo All-MAC in 2013 (Offense/Defense) equaled one 4 star, four 3 star and four 2 star players. More than half of them were 4 star or 3 star players.

Although in general I pooh-pooh the stars ratings when you're talking about teams that have varying proportions of 2-star recruits and 3-star recruits, Toledo tends to be on the upper end of the ratings, and they're generally one of the best teams in the league, except for a few years after Gradkowski left, so there's something to that. But I think people read weigh it too heavily.

Rivals has the Huskies 5th in the West. hahaha

(02-06-2013 11:51 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  Rivals has the Huskies 5th in the West. hahaha

I think Rivals must come up with the CFN preseason rankings too. Because no matter how good we are one season, we start the next ranked #90-#100.

Rivals has UB at dead last, UB who has as many recurits, as many ***, and a higher overall average than New Mexico which is ranked nine spots ahead of UB...

Just for fun:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/footba...d-american

(02-07-2013 03:46 AM)emu79 Wrote:  Just for fun:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/footba...d-american

BG and Toledo have 5 of the 6 highest rated recruits.

Eastern put a nice class together.

Where was Ohio's class ranked on rivals / scouts? Only 2 players with grades seems odd.

(02-06-2013 02:28 PM)cleazer Wrote:  current rankings of MAC schools:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/re...13/all/all

69. Toledo
83. BGSU
86. Central Michigan
95. Ball St
99. Northern Illinois
102. Western Michigan
105. Kent State
109. Ohio
109. UMass
112. Akron
115. Miami
118. Eastern Michigan
123. Buffalo

more updates throughout the day, and we have these rankings the morning after:

70. Toledo
83. BGSU
87. Central Michigan
100. Ball State
101. Ohio
101. Western Michigan
103. Kent State
108. Northern Illinois
109. Miami
113. Eastern Michigan
117. Akron
117. UMass
123. Buffalo

Looks like the general trend of the west being better than the east will continue.

That ranking is based on total points assigned. You can have a 25 man class of 2 star players totaling more points than say a class half as big but with all 3 stars. Since the object of the rankings is to have more stars, the ranking you should show is by average stars more than total points. That rewards quality over quantity.

Toledo
CMU/EMU
Miami
BG
WMU/Akron
KSU
NIU
Buffalo
BallsTate/Ohio
UMass

(02-07-2013 07:07 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  That ranking is based on total points assigned. You can have a 25 man class of 2 star players totaling more points than say a class half as big but with all 3 stars. Since the object of the rankings is to have more stars, the ranking you should show is by average stars more than total points. That rewards quality over quantity.

Toledo
CMU/EMU
Miami
BG
WMU/Akron
KSU
NIU
Buffalo
BallsTate/Ohio
UMass

Exactly.

Matter of fact, one could argue that taking the top 15 recruits is a better gauge as they are the prime recruits. The ones the program expects to be impact players or starters. (of course, in life, things don't work out that way and many of them underachieve and many lower rated recruits over achieve but it is like that in anything, e.g., NFL draft, etc.).

And secondly, NCAA permits 85 scholarships yet I believe only 55 players travel which means that quite frankly, the lower rated recruits aren't really expected to contribute much (although there will be surprises). They end up being special teamers or practice players. 35% of the roster (30/85) won't even travel.

The ratings are fluid and will see what the ratings look like at the close of the signing period. Here is how this ESPN site which considers the number of recruits signed. Looking forward to a few more recruiting classes and become competitive with the top teams in our conference.
Scorecard as of this morning
39. Bowling Green
53. Miami
65. Toldedo
78. Ball State
85. Central Michigan
86. Massachusetts
99. Eastern Michigan
106. Akron
108. Western Michigan
114. Ohio
115. Kent State
119. Northern Illinois
124 Buffalo

(02-07-2013 08:46 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The ratings are fluid and will see what the ratings look like at the close of the signing period. Here is how this ESPN site which considers the number of recruits signed. Looking forward to a few more recruiting classes and become competitive with the top teams in our conference.
Scorecard as of this morning
39. Bowling Green
53. Miami
65. Toldedo
78. Ball State
85. Central Michigan
86. Massachusetts
99. Eastern Michigan
106. Akron
108. Western Michigan
114. Ohio
115. Kent State
119. Northern Illinois
124 Buffalo

Now NIU is 118 ahead of USC at 119 and Stanford 120...

(02-07-2013 09:05 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 08:46 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The ratings are fluid and will see what the ratings look like at the close of the signing period. Here is how this ESPN site which considers the number of recruits signed. Looking forward to a few more recruiting classes and become competitive with the top teams in our conference.
Scorecard as of this morning
39. Bowling Green
53. Miami
65. Toldedo
78. Ball State
85. Central Michigan
86. Massachusetts
99. Eastern Michigan
106. Akron
108. Western Michigan
114. Ohio
115. Kent State
119. Northern Illinois
124 Buffalo

Now NIU is 118 ahead of USC at 119 and Stanford 120...

What exactly does this prove? That list is just ranked by number of commits. It has Air Force #1 because they signed the most guys. NIU only had 14 scholarships this class...

UMass just got the #40 RB in the country. Lorenzo Woodley http://247sports.com/Player/Lorenzo-Woodley-10305

Huge get for UMass.

I want to see them ranked by the number of vowels in the recruits' last names.

(02-07-2013 12:00 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Rivals has UB at dead last, UB who has as many recurits, as many ***, and a higher overall average than New Mexico which is ranked nine spots ahead of UB...

9 places isn't too much of a difference, but a 5.5 rated 3 star is different than a 5.6 or even a 5.7 rated 3 star. So you can't just look at it and say both schools have the same number of 3 star players.

(02-06-2013 11:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 11:51 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  Rivals has the Huskies 5th in the West. hahaha

I think Rivals must come up with the CFN preseason rankings too. Because no matter how good we are one season, we start the next ranked #90-#100.

CFN is associated with Scout, if I am not mistaken. They are not associated with Rivals.

(02-07-2013 07:07 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  That ranking is based on total points assigned. You can have a 25 man class of 2 star players totaling more points than say a class half as big but with all 3 stars.

Can't speak for other recruiting sites, but Rivals recently changed how they calculate team rankings because of what you said above. Rivals does not penalize a school for having less kids in the recruiting class and they do this by only counting a certain number of signees, using the top players in the class and taking out the least rated players, instead of using all players in a class.

Perfect example is that Toledo had 1080 points and added a two star prospect late in the day yesterday. Despite adding another prospect their total points remained at 1080 points. He had no affect on the team rating because he was not a higher rated prospect to increase the ranking and Toledo was already past the threshold for number of signees.

Johnny Manzeil was a 3-star. Wins Heisman his redshirt freshman year.
KSU's Roosevelt Nix was a 2-star (and MAC DPOY his freshman year.)
Dri Archer was a no-star recruit with just the one offer--KSU.

Enjoy the recruiting wars here in this dead time for CFB, and then you can quickly forget them because they mean nothing come September. It gives people something to argue about in the off-season. That's about all there is. The margin of error is so large as to make them only of very vague value.

(02-07-2013 10:40 AM)axeme Wrote:  Johnny Manzeil was a 3-star. Wins Heisman his redshirt freshman year.
KSU's Roosevelt Nix was a 2-star (and MAC DPOY his freshman year.)
Dri Archer was a no-star recruit with just the one offer--KSU.

Enjoy the recruiting wars here in this dead time for CFB, and then you can quickly forget them because they mean nothing come September. It gives people something to argue about in the off-season. That's about all there is. The margin of error is so large as to make them only of very vague value.

Of course you have situations like that. As for Dri Archer, no star means he was never evaluated. That doesn't mean everyone thought he was no good. If he would have been evaluated who knows what rating he would have got.

You have #1 draft picks to the NFL that were complete busts and guys like Tom Brady that were barely drafted. That doesn't mean that the guys that went #1 in the draft and then didn't make it in the NFL were not very, very good in college and not worthy of the rating. Things happen down the road that change things in some people's lives. No half-way smart person ever said that a ranking of a prospect today is exactly what he will do in 2-3 years. No one can predict the future. It's not different than a school's coaches evaluating a kid and offering him a scholarship based on what they see now. Sometimes those kids turn out to be very good 2-3 years later and sometimes they were busts. Not even talking about star system, in this case think "evaluation system in place by a particular school to figure out who they want to offer."

You have just as many (if not more) 3, 4 and 5 star players that turn out to be very good as you have 1 or 2 star players that end up being diamond in the rough players.

(02-07-2013 10:40 AM)axeme Wrote:  Johnny Manzeil was a 3-star. Wins Heisman his redshirt freshman year.

To your point, Manziel was a high 3 star prospect......just one tenth of a point off of being a 4 star prospect. He was the #14 dual-threat QB prospect in the country and the #45 overall prospect in the state of Texas, regardless of position. That's not your standard 3 star prospect.